Intractable Cultural Differences [Archive]

Serotonin

9 Feb 2006, 02:36 AM

The big question about Islam and the West at the moment is: Are we so divergent in our cultural psyches that long, protracted war between these two is inevitable?

This article opines yes. I mournfully tend to agree.

http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2006/02/shame-guilt-muslim-psyche-and-danish.html

A couple of points of the article that I disagree with:

1) "Guilt" being looked at as an emotion, on par with shame in its subjectivity.

Guilt is a human facet, however it is much more objective than shame. As the article says:

Guilt is about actions or behavior; while shame is about the self.

Actions or behaviour can be objectified... the self cannot. Although I warm to embracing the riches of subjectivity in one's life, Islamic culture seems to give this top priority over compassion, sensitivity and introspection (Introspection, incidentally, leads to shame, which the article argues most Muslims are terrified of). Honour comes before respect for others. Hence if one's honour is called into question, the only way this can be ameliorated is through bloodshed or stomping on the rights of the more vulnerable. Selfish Fi over Fe. Yes, I am shamelessly championed Western cultural values over Islamic cultural values. I would have been more even-handed before, but this article has changed my mind, because I see so much resonance in the behaviour of the Islamic world with what is described here.

2) Incomplete table/diagram.

Biased towards guilt culture, in that the variables are "I/others feel I am/am not guilty" only and not "I/others feel I am/am not shameful" as well.

What's there is correct, but incomplete. So two more tables should be added.

The guilt culture table where "I/others feel I am/am not shameful" looks like the shame culture's "I/others feel I am/am not guilty" table, and the shame culture's "I/others feel I am/am not shameful" looks like the guilt culture's "I/others feel I am/am not guilty". Geddit? Well, that's my opinion anyway.

So, discuss.

Nemesis

9 Feb 2006, 03:06 AM

See the thing is, I disagree. Christianity practically fathered Islam, and if you look at what they value, they are not so radically different. I don't think difference in culture will lead to war. I sincerely believe that biggotry, Ignorance, and cultural misunderstanding will

Superstring

9 Feb 2006, 03:22 AM

The big question about Islam and the West at the moment is: Are we so divergent in our cultural psyches that long, protracted war between these two is inevitable?

This article opines yes.

Nah....its perfectly evitable, as long as world leaders are willing to suck up their egos for one second and say "sorry", even if they don't mean it and aren't the ones who are supposed to be saying it. They should realize they're talking to highly undecuated people when things like this happen and try and speak accordingly.

I think the idea of such a war is as equally plausible as all of the worst projected outcomes of the Cold War, and likewise I don't believe anything terrible will come of the cultural differences between Islam and the West in the future, everybody can learn to get along....most people are peaceful by nature, we just gotta keep our eyes out for the few bad apples..

I'm sure the future looks quite a bit bleaker for you when you look at those upside-down Australian maps, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I had one of those hanging on my wall :vP

Serotonin

9 Feb 2006, 03:26 AM

See the thing is, I disagree. Christianity practically fathered Islam, and if you look at what they value, they are not so radically different.

Ah, but the few points of difference make the intractable difference between cultures.

Humans will always tend towards vile, base and immoral acts. Christianity provides a peaceful way out of this (albeit this way has many problems in itself, but they are irrelevant to this particular point), that being confession and asking for forgiveness in private. In that way, "sin" can be absolved through contrition alone, and not a drop of blood is spilt nor a personal freedom stomped upon.

Islam's way out of sin is meekless and brutal. It demands human sacrifice, either through violence or oppression. Only afterwards is Allah appeased.

Biblical and Quranic references will not refute this argument, since both I and this article are taking the standpoint of Religion is as Religion does.
Both these cultures have evolved from selective interpretation of these texts and how they have panned out in their human context.

I don't think difference in culture will lead to war. I sincerely believe that biggotry, Ignorance, and cultural misunderstanding will

Bigotry, Ignorace and cultural misunderstanding is the culture, on both sides. The pragmatic view that religion is as religion does (as opposed to "Religion is what the holy book says") will result in an inevitable clash between the two cultures.

Superstring

9 Feb 2006, 03:27 AM

I survived The Great Erasure and all I got was this crummy signature.

Althouh, I fear I cannot say the same for dear old I_Hate_Towelie

Guess again, sucker!! :vP

Serotonin

9 Feb 2006, 03:29 AM

I'm sure the future looks quite a bit bleaker for you when you look at those upside-down Australian maps, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I had one of those hanging on my wall :vP

I don't get it.

Superstring

9 Feb 2006, 03:32 AM

Christianity provides a peaceful way out of this, (...) that being confession and asking for forgiveness in private.

Not in an Anglican church! Or United, Protestant....just the Catholics dude. I think the 'peaceful way out' that most churches offer are through the power of extreme boredom :vP

Nemesis

9 Feb 2006, 03:34 AM

Guess again, sucker!! :vP

Technically, since no such member as I_Hate_Towelie exists, I'm gonna say stfu.

Heather Harrison

9 Feb 2006, 03:36 AM

I hope that this article is not correct, but I fear that it is. As the world gets smaller, inherently incompatible cultures will increasingly come into contact, and violence is the likely result. We are looking at a bleak future.

It isn't just the West vs. Islam. Other cultural incompatibilities could surface in the future, and incompatibilities within Western culture could cause problems. Just look at the "culture wars" in the United States. Already, I feel like the U.S. is composed of two parallel cultures that are not very compatible - what if this keeps getting worse? Whether we are headed for war with Islam or war with ourselves, it is a terrible situation.

Heather

Serotonin

9 Feb 2006, 03:36 AM

*sighs*

Rephrase

Christianity provides a peaceful way out of this, (...) that being confession (Catholic) or asking for forgiveness in private (Anglican). Born-Againers may be more inclined to be public about it but I'm fairly sure they have the option of being just as discreet as the Anglicans.

Superstring

9 Feb 2006, 03:36 AM

I don't get it.

Oh....the local map store has this Australian upside-down map....the girl just called it an 'Australian map', but I guess she just meant it was imported from Australia....haha nevermind, it WOULD not make sense for you guys to use this map, it looks sinister, believe me! You take a quick glance and you're hit in the face by hundreds of countries you never noticed before, and yours looks like it's surrounded.....ANYways, that's that. yeah, Australian map, what was I thinking

Nemesis

9 Feb 2006, 03:38 AM

Serotonin, I should warn you. This thread is about to turn into a flame war. So, I'm going to post a dedicated flame thread for the two of us in the Rants and Raves section.

Serotonin

9 Feb 2006, 03:39 AM

and yours looks like it's surrounded.....

Yeah, by water. But we all know that when you look at the Earth upside down, politico-geography changes, and other countries seem way more threatening.

Tard.

Superstring

9 Feb 2006, 03:40 AM

Technically, since no such member as I_Hate_Towelie exists, I'm gonna say stfu.

Huh? You stfu, or I'll kyfa and steal your w

Nemesis

9 Feb 2006, 03:41 AM

or we can just engage him here serotonin. :)

Serotonin

9 Feb 2006, 03:43 AM

Serotonin, I should warn you. This thread is about to turn into a flame war. So, I'm going to post a dedicated flame thread for the two of us in the Rants and Raves section.

To reject the Bushism, I'm neither with you nor against you. I'm no enneagram 6. I have a viewpoint, but I'm not going to adhere to it for the sake of adherence. I want someone to prove me wrong, because mine is a pretty depressing viewpoint.

But you should settle down and stop prodding and provoking and posting so much.

Superstring

9 Feb 2006, 03:45 AM

Yeah, by water. But we all know that when you look at the Earth upside down, politico-geography changes, and other countries seem way more threatening.

Tard.

exCUSE me?... Did you just call me a 'tard' because "everybody" has looked at a map upside down and noticed that? Maybe in Australia. You lectured me on being rude to members on this forum a few days ago, my name was I_Hate_Towlie. You should practise what you preach.

Nemesis

9 Feb 2006, 03:46 AM

To reject the Bushism, I'm neither with you nor against you. I'm no enneagram 6. I have a viewpoint, but I'm not going to adhere to it for the sake of adherence. I want someone to prove me wrong, because mine is a pretty depressing viewpoint.

But you should settle down and stop prodding and provoking and posting so much. i meant between me and superstring. I didn't want to turn a legit thread into a battleground.

charred_heart

9 Feb 2006, 03:47 AM

Ah, but the few points of difference make the intractable difference between cultures.

Humans will always tend towards vile, base and immoral acts. Christianity provides a peaceful way out of this (albeit this way has many problems in itself, but they are irrelevant to this particular point), that being confession and asking for forgiveness in private. In that way, "sin" can be absolved through contrition alone, and not a drop of blood is spilt nor a personal freedom stomped upon.

Islam's way out of sin is meekless and brutal. It demands human sacrifice, either through violence or oppression. Only afterwards is Allah appeased.

Biblical and Quranic references will not refute this argument
See, that's where "Bigotry, Ignorace and cultural misunderstanding" come into play.

Nemesis

9 Feb 2006, 03:50 AM

See, that's where "Bigotry, Ignorace and cultural misunderstanding" come into play.
I wasn't gonna say anything but, yeah.

Serotonin

9 Feb 2006, 04:01 AM

See, that's where "Bigotry, Ignorace and cultural misunderstanding" come into play.

Did apply that to all Muslims? If that is unclear, then I don't. Believe me, I have spent the last day or so reading blogs where Muslims and Westerners have been arguing.

The section of Islam that is violent and oppressive (which applies to the article I posted) will not be placated by anything the West does. Things may only change from action by moderates like you against your more violent co-adherents, charred_heart. However, I get the impression that you are too scared to do so. Don't you feel an obligation to rein in your brothers to prevent them from perverting Islam? Oh, now I remember, you can't judge them here on earth, only Allah will judge them. However, he also may judge you for standing silently by while your brothers slaughter innocents.

It's all very well to say that the Quran forbids killing of innocents, yet we see Muslims doing this frequently. Is it enough for you that these terrorists will be judged in heaven, and you don't have to do anything here on earth? If so, then the victims of terrorism and their families have a right to be angry at you.

Nemesis

9 Feb 2006, 04:04 AM

Did apply that to all Muslims? If that is unclear, then I don't. Believe me, I have spent the last day or so reading blogs where Muslims and Westerners have been arguing.

The section of Islam that is violent and oppressive (which applies to the article I posted) will not be placated by anything the West does. Things may only change from action by moderates like you against your more violent co-adherents, charred_heart. However, I get the impression that you are too scared to do so. Don't you feel an obligation to rein in your brothers to prevent them from perverting Islam? Oh, now I remember, you can't judge them here on earth, only Allah will judge them. However, he also may judge you for standing silently by while your brothers slaughter innocents.

It's all very well to say that the Quran forbids killing of innocents, yet we see Muslims doing this frequently. Is it enough for you that these terrorists will be judged in heaven, and you don't have to do anything here on earth? If so, then the victims of terrorism and their families have a right to be angry at you.
No. It would make him just as bad as the terrorists; killing someone for not adhering to the letter of the law laid down in the Qur'an.

charred_heart

9 Feb 2006, 04:04 AM

Nemesis

9 Feb 2006, 04:08 AM

charred_heart

9 Feb 2006, 04:14 AM

Okay, however, how many Islamic fundamentalist nations would allow word of Western freedoms to reach its masses?
Thank God for Al Jazeera! :D

Iran would. You might be surprised, but the Iranian government does not want to prolong this. Plus the Iranian peolpe just want a way to restore honour. Since people in the west don't equate a caricature on someone with losing respect for him I guess a skilled diplomat can get that across.

Nemesis

9 Feb 2006, 04:16 AM

Thank God for Al Jazeera! :D

Iran would. You might be surprised, but the Iranian government does not want to prolong this. Plus the Iranian peolpe just want a way to restore honour. Since people in the west don't equate a caricature on someone with losing respect for him I guess a skilled diplomat can get that across.
I guess being thick-skinned is one of those western cultural values.

charred_heart

9 Feb 2006, 04:18 AM

I guess being thick-skinned is one of those western cultural values.
we are thick-skinned, to riots and the burning of stuff :D
really, we look at that and it's like 'so, what's new?'
europeans look at it and fear a world war

Serotonin

9 Feb 2006, 04:22 AM

Serotonin:
If you were a muslim and you didn't speak english or had any contact with europe, and you saw this cartoon what would your reaction be? Keep in mind that the newspaper has only explained it's position in it's own website in english and that the concept of condoning offensive material is unheard of in the muslim world.

Usually I make my own decisions regardless of my own culture, so I would open my mind to the possible benefits of free speech. So here is what I, personally, would do:

I would be offended initially, but then I would read between the lines and then ask myself if the cartoonists had a point. I would try to put myself in their shoes and understand where the Danish newspaper was coming from. I would think of all the terrorist attacks that my brothers committed, and I would put two and two together and say "Well, yes, the West is justified in portraying Mohammed as a terrorist, since the terrorists invoke him in their actions. Drawing that cartoon was very brave, but also very true".

But in the real Islam I wouldn't last a minute with that attitude. If I was a muslim and would openly do all that stuff about compassion and understanding, then I would be slain by my brothers for showing weakness and shame. I would be a disgrace to my family and my religion for attempting to sympathise with the West.

My brothers would then go on to torch the Danish embassy.

Charred_heart, the west has been giving concessions and trying to understand Islam for decades now. All Islam does with this compassion is take what the West has to offer and spit in their face for being weak. Islamists secretly finds the West's olive branches disgusting, and will not look inside their own hearts for the same olive branches, for fear of being branded "weak" by their compatriates. Time and time again we see this: from Yasser Arafat to the muslims I saw arguing on blogs yesterday.

I find your username "Charred_heart" absolutely fascinating.

Serotonin

9 Feb 2006, 04:26 AM

Iran would. You might be surprised, but the Iranian government does not want to prolong this. Plus the Iranian peolpe just want a way to restore honour. Since people in the west don't equate a caricature on someone with losing respect for him I guess a skilled diplomat can get that across.

Precisely. Iranians are too caught up in issues of "honour" and "respect" that they fail to see how destructive their actions are. Islamic nations never seem able to look at themselves and say "Okay, we have a problem, we we wrong, let's fix it".

Ka.avik

9 Feb 2006, 04:29 AM

we are thick-skinned, to riots and the burning of stuff :D
really, we look at that and it's like 'so, what's new?'
right. and that's the west's response to most insults....which will, as I've read, always get a serious rise of the arab people...

serotonin: I don't necessarily think war is inevitable, but I won't deny that it's at least as likely as WWIII was during the cold war. That nobody wants everyone to die over stupid stuff, is the only thing that will prevent physical clashes when cultural friction like this happens...

charred_heart

9 Feb 2006, 04:32 AM

Usually I make my own decisions regardless of my own culture, so I would open my mind to the possible benefits of free speech. So here is what I, personally, would do:

I would be offended initially, but then I would read between the lines and then ask myself if the cartoonists had a point. I would try to put myself in their shoes and understand where the Danish newspaper was coming from. I would think of all the terrorist attacks that my brothers committed, and I would put two and two together and say "Well, yes, the West is justified in portraying Mohammed as a terrorist, since the terrorists invoke him in their actions. Drawing that cartoon was very brave, but also very true".
You wouldn't last a minute because that's like saying "Well, yes, Hitler was right to get rid of the Jews since they controlled most of europe's banks and businesses. That was a very brave thing to do"

That's how you saying that it's right to portray mohammed as a terrorist would appear to a muslim.

Again, you know very little about non-western cultures. What seems like a small comment on world affairs to you means a lot more to others.
Both sides can come to a reasonable settlement on this. That can only happen if people stop to even consider the other side's point of view.

Do you know how hard it is for me to accept that the cartoonist should be left to say whatever he wants about my personal values? Yet, a sincere apology would be acceptable to me and muslims. This is because of another cultural factor you have no idea about: actions are governed by intentions. This is a muslim concept which allows us to forgive even the worst offenses.

charred_heart

9 Feb 2006, 04:34 AM

right. and that's the west's response to most insults....which will, as I've read, always get a serious rise of the arab people...

That's why they're usually referred to as East and West: They go in opposite directions

charred_heart

9 Feb 2006, 04:38 AM

I find your username "Charred_heart" absolutely fascinating.

Please, elaborate :)

Ka.avik

9 Feb 2006, 04:40 AM

That's why they're usually referred to as East and West: They go in opposite directions
:lol: the smiley is missing ... so, "LOL" ;->

truthfully I wish more people on this side of the fence understood the value of intentions in creating actions...no one I've talked to about subjects relating to actions, and underlying intentions, seems to have such a grasp of the importance...

Superstring

9 Feb 2006, 04:43 AM

I think at the end of the day, what counts the most is that we stop viewing anything as being "Islam vs West", because there is absolutely no culture war that exists betweent the two. There are many people on that side of the planet and many on the other, and any incident where one small faction of one side pisses off another small (or even large) faction of the other side must NOT be viewed as a "West vs Islam" conflict. The real facts of the matter must take precidence over this false perception that upwards of 2 billion people could possibly be represented by a few simple men.

Serotonin

9 Feb 2006, 04:43 AM

You wouldn't last a minute

Which is exactly why I said I wouldn't last a minute straight after that paragraph. I think I know a bit more about non-Western cultures than you think I do.

Both sides can come to a reasonable settlement on this. That can only happen if people stop to even consider the other side's point of view.

You ask that of us, and we have (the debate is still raging), but you refuse to do it yourselves. In all sorts of situations. Didn't you read into my post to find that considering the other side is a core tenet of Western values? We have tried this, and found it does not work.

Do you know how hard it is for me to accept that the cartoonist should be left to say whatever he wants about my personal values?

I'm sure it's very hard. But the cartoonist doesn't live in a nation governed by Muslim ideals. Islamic papers publish anti-west cartoons all the time, and we don't go bombing the embassies of Islamic nations.

Yet, a sincere apology would be acceptable to me and muslims.

Acceptable to you, sure. But you can't speak for all muslims. It is patently clear from the violence that we have seen in the aftermath that to a number of Muslims an apology is not enough, and they will not rest until the blood of the cartoonist is spilt.

This is because of another cultural factor you have no idea about: actions are governed by intentions. This is a muslim concept which allows us to forgive even the worst offenses.

Presumptuous, I am very familiar with that cultural factor. It is a good one. How come muslims forgive even the worst offenses, yet you say:
You wouldn't last a minute because that's like saying "Well, yes, Hitler was right to get rid of the Jews since they controlled most of europe's banks and businesses. That was a very brave thing to do"

You contradict yourself.

charred_heart

9 Feb 2006, 04:43 AM

:lol: the smiley is missing ... so, "LOL" ;->

truthfully I wish more people on this side of the fence understood the value of intentions in creating actions...no one I've talked to about subjects relating to actions, and underlying intentions, seems to have such a grasp of the importance...
Thanks for this. You just made me realise, afer reading your post, where the two cultures can find a level they can communicate on. I'm serious

Serotonin

9 Feb 2006, 04:46 AM

Please, elaborate :)

If your heart is charred, does that mean you want to feel shame, yet can't, since your religion forbids you to express it? It just fits very well with the premise of this thread.

charred_heart

9 Feb 2006, 04:49 AM

Presumptuous, I am very familiar with that cultural factor. It is a good one. How come muslims forgive even the worst offenses
.
.
.
You contradict yourself.
You are too high strung my friend. A traitor wouldn't last a minute in any society figuratively speaking.

Serotonin

9 Feb 2006, 05:00 AM

You are too high strung my friend. A traitor wouldn't last a minute in any society figuratively speaking.

The holocaust killed 6 million people. The cartoon killed no-one.

This doesn't change anything though. You haven't proven anything wrong in my thread, and your behaviour new thread re-enforces my point, with lack of introspection, blaming others, etc.

And if I think you are a terrorist, maybe you are the one who is highly strung.

charred_heart

9 Feb 2006, 05:03 AM

You ask that of us, and we have (the debate is still raging), but you refuse to do it yourselves. In all sorts of situations. Didn't you read into my post to find that considering the other side is a core tenet of Western values? We have tried this, and found it does not work.
Remember, a large majority of the muslim world does not speak english or watches western tv networks. Those making riots are among them. How has the west tried to contact them? Give me an example

charred_heart

9 Feb 2006, 05:05 AM

The holocaust killed 6 million people. The cartoon killed no-one.
I was referring to something else... If a Jew would stand up and say that Hitler was right about the Jews. It is as absurb as a muslim standing up to his fellow muslims and telling them the cartoonist was right to portray Mohamed as a terrorist. Which shows your lack of familiarity with foriegn cultures.

Serotonin

9 Feb 2006, 05:11 AM

Remember, a large majority of the muslim world does not speak english or watches western tv networks.

Which.... is their choice. That's not an excuse, that's a re-enforcement of my point.

Those making riots are among them. How has the west tried to contact them? Give me an example

For peaceful muslims: Through the media, through dialogue with muslim immigrants in their own countries, through Western scholars studying Islamic societies, through an open market of free speech and ideas. Millions of examples. We are more clued in to Islamic society than ever.

For rioting muslims: How the hell are we supposed to get through to a group that doesn't listen, shouts their slogans so hard and frequently that we don't get a word in, and completely ignores logic and compassion? And their riots are a pretty unequivocal message to us that they feel they are in the right and will only understand violence as a means of communication.

psychic hygiene

9 Feb 2006, 05:12 AM

Do you know how hard it is for me to accept that the cartoonist should be left to say whatever he wants about my personal values? Yet, a sincere apology would be acceptable to me and muslims. This is because of another cultural factor you have no idea about: actions are governed by intentions. This is a muslim concept which allows us to forgive even the worst offenses.Whatever you value will largely govern your actions. If others around you have values congruent with your own you generally experience a harmonic environment. Then there are the disconnects - the differences between your values and the actions of other people. Not everyone will share/hold your values, charred-heart.

Charred_heart, according to you (in a thread that has now been engulfed by intpc's black hole), to even draw pictures/illustrations of your prophet Mohammed, you said, is highly offensive to muslims, yet illustrations and caricatures have been done of this prophet (by both westerners and muslims) throughout the centuries: http://users.evtek.fi/~k0301510/mohammed_image_archive/
( a current mirror site for: http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/ since it has been overloaded)

When presented with these array of illustrations, both past and present, the current reaction of muslims over the Danish publication appears, to me, to have little to no logical foundation other than a call to mass hysteria.

The cartoons that you find offensive, are based upon what certain muslims have presented to the western nations as actions in the name of Islam, in the form of terrorism. It is these muslims you need to extract an apology from, as they are the ones who have caused damage to Islam.

Serotonin

9 Feb 2006, 05:17 AM

I was referring to something else... If a Jew would stand up and say that Hitler was right about the Jews. It is as absurb as a muslim standing up to his fellow muslims and telling them the cartoonist was right to portray Mohamed as a terrorist. Which shows your lack of familiarity with foriegn cultures.

Ok sorry I misread.

Both the majority Jews and the majority of Muslims are so ensconced in their own cultural haze that they are unable to consider viewpoints outside their culture. Your point doesn't excuse Islam from acting the way it does.

In that sense, yes, I am unfamiliar with the cultural hothousing that goes on in these cultures. However, their refusal to consider the giant multitudes of philosophy that exist outside of their religion is a far greater crime than me (after much deliberation) refusing to consider Islam as a viable way of life.

Edit: In short, the complaints (not the violence) of Islam about the cartoons of Mohammed are valid, but are petty and inconsequential when compared to the more valid complaints that the West has about slaughter that has been carried out in the name of Islam (i.e the cartoons). Islam has by-and-large refused to ask "Why would they do this?" and has assumed that the cartoons were nothing more than petty provocation.

charred_heart

9 Feb 2006, 05:27 AM

Charred_heart, according to you (in a thread that has now been engulfed by intpc's black hole), to even draw pictures/illustrations of your prophet Mohammed, you said, is highly offensive to muslims, yet illustrations and caricatures have been done of this prophet (by both westerners and muslims) throughout the centuries: http://users.evtek.fi/~k0301510/mohammed_image_archive/
( a current mirror site for: http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/ since it has been overloaded)
Christians have always portrayed the prophet in the middle ages up till the 18th century. During those periods bigger things were happening like the Crusades and the Ottoman wars.
As for muslims themeselves, Islam has gone through periods of decline and success as a civilisation which has affected the level of religous awareness in muslims. By the time muslim armies reached and conquered spain, drinking alcohol wasn't taboo and caliphs indulged in orgies - a practice they learned from the Romans which gained popularity as the power and wealth of muslim empires increased.

wildcat

9 Feb 2006, 06:08 AM

The big question about Islam and the West at the moment is: Are we so divergent in our cultural psyches that long, protracted war between these two is inevitable?

This article opines yes. I mournfully tend to agree.

http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2006/02/shame-guilt-muslim-psyche-and-danish.html

A couple of points of the article that I disagree with:

1) "Guilt" being looked at as an emotion, on par with shame in its subjectivity.

Guilt is a human facet, however it is much more objective than shame. As the article says:

Actions or behaviour can be objectified... the self cannot. Although I warm to embracing the riches of subjectivity in one's life, Islamic culture seems to give this top priority over compassion, sensitivity and introspection (Introspection, incidentally, leads to shame, which the article argues most Muslims are terrified of). Honour comes before respect for others. Hence if one's honour is called into question, the only way this can be ameliorated is through bloodshed or stomping on the rights of the more vulnerable. Selfish Fi over Fe. Yes, I am shamelessly championed Western cultural values over Islamic cultural values. I would have been more even-handed before, but this article has changed my mind, because I see so much resonance in the behaviour of the Islamic world with what is described here.

2) Incomplete table/diagram.

Biased towards guilt culture, in that the variables are "I/others feel I am/am not guilty" only and not "I/others feel I am/am not shameful" as well.

What's there is correct, but incomplete. So two more tables should be added.

The guilt culture table where "I/others feel I am/am not shameful" looks like the shame culture's "I/others feel I am/am not guilty" table, and the shame culture's "I/others feel I am/am not shameful" looks like the guilt culture's "I/others feel I am/am not guilty". Geddit? Well, that's my opinion anyway.

So, discuss.
We already are what we are afraid of.
Fe is related to shame; Fi to guilt.
Shame is the most important feeling in a muslim culture. Preponderance to feel shame leads to a claustrphobic control of self and the environment, driven by a shame to feel shame.
Shame is extraverted, collectivistic, field dependent. Shame is closely related to honour.

Western culture is guilt ridden, individualistic, field independent.

Muslim culture is gregarious and shame faced. Extraverted and warm.

When they come to Europe, the claustrophobia increases. To be ashamed of being ashamed often leads to a homicide where the victim is a family member, usually a daughter or a sister.

PenguinHunter

9 Feb 2006, 06:49 AM

It seems important to point out the recent Amman Conference here in case people are unaware. It's not like the Islamic world is just sitting around ignoring the problem of Islamic terrorist groups and hoping the problem will go away on its own.

Decent, brief article I just found: http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/19/opinion/edpearl.php

Here's the official March 31st declaration: http://www.iifwp.org/news/field/middleeast/2005/index.php?report_id=490&event_id=152

I tried to find more detailed stuff but the best I can do is direct attention to a magazine called Islamica (lame name but decent articles sometimes). I think the one that covered the Amman Conference in detail was the Winter edition but it might have been Fall. It's a quarterly so it wouldn't take long to find if anyone was really interested.

charred_heart

9 Feb 2006, 06:54 AM

Remember, a large majority of the muslim world does not speak english or watches western tv networks.

Which.... is their choice. That's not an excuse, that's a re-enforcement of my point.
:mellow:

Conan

9 Feb 2006, 11:40 AM

Earth-shaking fire from the center of the earth. will cause the towers around the New City to shake, Two great rocks for a long time will make war, And then Arethusa will color a new river red. (Century 1, Quatrain 87)

Nostradamus says yes.

meshou

9 Feb 2006, 05:18 PM

You don't have to believe someone is right in order to believe they should have the legal right to say it. Those Jews would be offended, would refuse to talk to the fellow, perhaps ever again-- but at least the ones in the US would not ever say it should be illegal for him to say, and none would become violent.

This is the highest American value there is, something seen as one of the supreme rights of all men, given by God (if you are religious), and violating his intent to take it away, even if it sacriliges him-- A God gave us free will to follow him or not, offend him or not, and we will fight to protect that God-given right. Denying this (and other) god-given rights is one of the hallmarks of a savage, violent, opressive place. We, at least in philosophy, refuse to be that.

A lot of Europe also feels strongly about this. John Locke (read his work, lots of insight), is probably the west's most influential thinker period on modern morality and government.

Unfortunately we're war-like fucks. I really wish we'd remained isolationist and stayed the fuck out of Iraq.

charred_heart

9 Feb 2006, 06:47 PM

Those Jews would be offended, would refuse to talk to the fellow, perhaps ever again-- but at least the ones in the US would not ever say it should be illegal for him to say, and none would become violent.
There are many ways where a person cannot last in a society without getting killed. I thought I was clear on that.

This whole thing about having the freedom to say what you want is nice and everything, but the fact is everyone has this right. So if you decide to really say what you like about a person or an idea, others have the right to stop talking to you. It's not a utopian situation where you can say whatever you like and everyone smiles at you. There are always consequences to what you say and do. Just to clarify, the country I live in and most of it's neighbours doesn't include murdering loud mouths in the list of consequences. The world is not that crude.

Maniac

9 Feb 2006, 07:29 PM

There are many ways where a person cannot last in a society without getting killed. I thought I was clear on that.

This whole thing about having the freedom to say what you want is nice and everything, but the fact is everyone has this right. So if you decide to really say what you like about a person or an idea, others have the right to stop talking to you. It's not a utopian situation where you can say whatever you like and everyone smiles at you. There are always consequences to what you say and do. Just to clarify, the country I live in and most of it's neighbours doesn't include murdering loud mouths in the list of consequences. The world is not that crude.

And that's fine, and you can SAY things back. What you can't do, is start burning buildings. Following your logic, if the west got offended because terrorists starting burning buildings, maybe they should have adopted the violent logic of islamic extremists, and bomb the hell out of iran, iraq, saudi arabia, or any other country that harbors islamic extremists?

The response to the cartoon was a typical response an ANIMAL would have made, not a human. An animal feels pain, and it reacts. If you hit a dog, it will come and bite you. A human can think, a human can inject his own thoughts and understanding between stimulus and response. An animal cannot. You are defending people who have behaved like animals. Furthermore, you will (obviously) disagree with other nations behaving like animals towards them (or do you support a full frontal assault on nations which harbor islamic extremists?) Either way your posts are dripping with hypocrisy...

kuranes

9 Feb 2006, 08:34 PM

Thank you Penguin Hunter - Good to have you back.

Well, I looked at that first link, and it answered a question that has been gnawing at me for some time. Unfortunately, the answer was not a favorable one, in most ways. This underscores why there has not been more Islamic criticism of Bin Laden and people like him. So . . .the West must act accordingly.

Why haven't there been any "Down with Bin Laden" protest marches in our own country ? And I don't just mean protests by Muslims. I guess people feel it goes without saying. Still, it would be nice to send a video to good old Al Jazeera of a million people marching along in some big square. A chance for BL to blow them up, too, I guess. I hope there is at least a suit going.

It seems important to point out the recent Amman Conference here in case people are unaware. It's not like the Islamic world is just sitting around ignoring the problem of Islamic terrorist groups and hoping the problem will go away on its own.

Decent, brief article I just found: http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/19/opinion/edpearl.php

Here's the official March 31st declaration: http://www.iifwp.org/news/field/middleeast/2005/index.php?report_id=490&event_id=152

I tried to find more detailed stuff but the best I can do is direct attention to a magazine called Islamica (lame name but decent articles sometimes). I think the one that covered the Amman Conference in detail was the Winter edition but it might have been Fall. It's a quarterly so it wouldn't take long to find if anyone was really interested.

Claverhouse

9 Feb 2006, 08:59 PM

You don't have to believe someone is right in order to believe they should have the legal right to say it. Those Jews would be offended, would refuse to talk to the fellow, perhaps ever again-- but at least the ones in the US would not ever say it should be illegal for him to say, and none would become violent.

Actually, due to influence it is illegal in most European countries ( at least the bigger ones ) and Canada --- Hate Speech --- to claim either that the nazis were right; or that the holocaust wasn't to the extent generally recognised: several people are jailed every year. There are periodic attempts to bring this into Britain and eventually the USA will follow suit.

As for violence some jewish people in America have firebombed offices of both holocaust deniers and muslims, and have beaten up such perceived opponents just as in Europe. The JDL has a strange history.

Claverhouse :ph34r:

booyalab

9 Feb 2006, 09:11 PM

Actually, due to influence it is illegal in most European countries ( at least the bigger ones ) and Canada --- Hate Speech --- to claim either that the nazis were right; or that the holocaust wasn't to the extent generally recognised: several people are jailed every year. There are periodic attempts to bring this into Britain and eventually the USA will follow suit.

we have hate crimes (which is almost as stupid as 'hate speech'. Apparently my life is less valuable than a gay male's)
but I dont see hate speech laws happening soon. Although I wouldn't rule it out entirely.

Nemesis

9 Feb 2006, 09:16 PM

meshou

9 Feb 2006, 09:21 PM

Nemesis

9 Feb 2006, 09:36 PM

I really think that both sides' posts are dripping with hipocrisy to be quite honest. Everyone's got so much to say about the other side and so much rhetoric about the other side and how they "fail to understand us." Okay, so do something about it. Don't assume, check your intuition at the door, and ask questions about cultures that you don't know much about. Show compassion instead of condemning others' actions and justifying your own.

The Danish cartoonist had a right to do what he did and should not be punished.
Muslims of the world have every right to be incensed at that cartoon.

Claverhouse

9 Feb 2006, 10:14 PM

In europe you can argue that anti-jewish hate speech is like shouting "fire" in an auditorium. Since the US has no record of slaughtering jews, and since progress has continued with African-Americans (although we could have perhaps used anti-hate speech laws as early as forty years ago) without curtailing hate speech, there's no reason to impliment such laws.

And one astounding irony is that the major theme-park on the holocaust is situated in America, when no Americans were guilty*, no Americans were killed and no American policy was responsible for the murders. Nor does it concentrate on the non-jewish part of the holocaust which is considered, probably wrongly, to be of exactly equal proportions ( 6 million jews; 6 million Poles, Russians, Gipsies, homosexuals etc. etc. ) and thus equally deserving of shame and compassion.

Still, apart from the fact it all happened a very long time ago, beyond most people's living memory, the nazis were defeated utterly in WWII; since 1945 very few europeans ( except perhaps the Russians ) have considered eliminating any jews or even hating jews as a group. Even if somebody got up and shouted that Hitler was a great man or that jews are stealing the banks or whatever, there has been not the slightest chance of this bringing the nazis back or instigating anti-jewish feeling. Besides which until the fall of communism Europe was garrisoned by the USA and the USSR both capable of crushing any unwelcome movements in their own interests.

A muslim cleric, Abu Hanza of the Finsbury Mosque, has just been jailed for seven years for inciting hatred against the West and basically against whites; he preached to the july bombers etc.. Now, whatever the danger, I can't see why he can't say and preach exactly as he pleases, even if it leads to my death. He should be at entire liberty to say what he honestly believes. I may wonder why he lives in a country he hates, but why shouldn't he hate us if he wants to, and say so ? I'm at liberty to hate him right back if I want to. Words don't matter, only deeds count.

Claverhouse :ph34r:

* Not even IBM.

Nemesis

9 Feb 2006, 10:20 PM

And one astounding irony is that the major theme-park on the holocaust is situated in America, when no Americans were guilty*, no Americans were killed and no American policy was responsible for the murders. Nor does it concentrate on the non-jewish part of the holocaust which is considered, probably wrongly, to be of exactly equal proportions ( 6 million jews; 6 million Poles, Russians, Gipsies, homosexuals etc. etc. ) and thus equally deserving of shame and compassion.

Still, apart from the fact it all happened a very long time ago, beyond most people's living memory, the nazis were defeated utterly in WWII; since 1945 very few europeans ( except perhaps the Russians ) have considered eliminating any jews or even hating jews as a group. Even if somebody got up and shouted that Hitler was a great man or that jews are stealing the banks or whatever, there has been not the slightest chance of this bringing the nazis back or instigating anti-jewish feeling. Besides which until the fall of communism Europe was garrisoned by the USA and the USSR both capable of crushing any unwelcome movements in their own interests.

A muslim cleric, Abu Hanza of the Finsbury Mosque, has just been jailed for seven years for inciting hatred against the West and basically against whites; he preached to the july bombers etc.. Now, whatever the danger, I can't see why he can't say and preach exactly as he pleases, even if it leads to my death. He should be at entire liberty to say what he honestly believes. I may wonder why he lives in a country he hates, but why shouldn't he hate us if he wants to, and say so ? I'm at liberty to hate him right back if I want to. Words don't matter, only deeds count.

Claverhouse :ph34r:

* Not even IBM.
I'm gonna agree with that one.

Maniac

9 Feb 2006, 10:27 PM

Still, apart from the fact it all happened a very long time ago, beyond most people's living memory, the nazis were defeated utterly in WWII; since 1945 very few europeans ( except perhaps the Russians ) have considered eliminating any jews or even hating jews as a group.Even if somebody got up and shouted that Hitler was a great man or that jews are stealing the banks or whatever, there has been not the slightest chance of this bringing the nazis back or instigating anti-jewish feeling.

Arguably, islamic extremists are the new nazis. Not to mention neo-nazis themselves.

Nemesis

9 Feb 2006, 10:28 PM

Arguably, islamic extremists are the new nazis. Not to mention neo-nazis themselves.
*sigh*

Maniac

9 Feb 2006, 10:31 PM

On the other hand, despite being discriminatory, I don't think european countries should ban "hate speech" unless it incites violence (that's illegal here too), or unless there is a driect history of massacring such people. Eventually, I think anti-semetic speech should once again be legal, as the Holocaust's concequences will not be so direct in a couple hundred years.

Have you so quickly forgotten the debacle in france? http://www.cjnews.com/viewarticle.asp?id=8349

“They represent the most serious attacks against Jews in France since World War II.”

There, that should set you back a few hundred years...

Nemesis

9 Feb 2006, 10:35 PM

For one, I actually admire how much he moslem community seems like a tightly knit one, despite the fact that it numbers around 1 billion.

Nemesis

9 Feb 2006, 10:36 PM

Have you so quickly forgotten the debacle in france? http://www.cjnews.com/viewarticle.asp?id=8349

There, that should set you back a few hundred years...

Yes, however the majority do not feel animosity towards Jews, and they aren't exactly launching blitzkrieg attempting to conquer the world.

Claverhouse

9 Feb 2006, 10:39 PM

Arguably, islamic extremists are the new nazis. Not to mention neo-nazis themselves.

No. No, no, no, no, no.

Nazism was a party platform designed for one country at a particular time; it was allied with, but not part of fascism. It was also allied with nationalism, but was not nationalistic being based on racialist lines. No-one but European neo-nazis ( and some white American followers like Commander Rockwell ) could ever be considered nazis: and even they are responding to it's romantic appeal rather than any coherent philosophy ( which wasn't very much in the first place ).

Islamic extremists today are in no way different to islamic extremists at any period since Islam began: they believe precisely the same things and use precisely the same methods, eg: force. Which is much the same as any religion or political group has ever done. It doesn't make them right or wrong either. Groups that rely on peaceful persuasion just don't get much power. There must have been millions of them, still-born or crushed.

Claverhouse :ph34r:

Maniac

9 Feb 2006, 10:42 PM

Yes, however the majority do not feel animosity towards Jews, and they aren't exactly launching blitzkrieg attempting to conquer the world.

Nazis were but a pittance, a mere fraction, of the world's population. That doesn't underscore what they did, however. meshou was trying to say that there haven't been serious anti-semitic offenses in Europe since WWII. I was politely showing her that she had overlooked some issues.

You don't need to conquer the world to do things that are immoral. Why you seek to make this assertion baffles me.

Nemesis

9 Feb 2006, 10:44 PM

Nazis were but a pittance, a mere fraction, of the world's population. That doesn't underscore what they did, however. meshou was trying to say that there haven't been serious anti-semitic offenses in Europe since WWII. I was politely showing her that she had overlooked some issues.

You don't need to conquer the world to do things that are immoral. Why you seek to make this assertion baffles me.
Because you basically said that they were 2nd generation Nazis? It baffles me why you would make that assertion.

Maniac

9 Feb 2006, 10:45 PM

Islamic extremists today are in no way different to islamic extremists at any period since Islam began: they believe precisely the same things and use precisely the same methods, eg: force. Which is much the same as any religion or political group has ever done. It doesn't make them right or wrong either. Groups that rely on peaceful persuasion just don't get much power. There must have been millions of them, still-born or crushed.

Although you are technically correct, you fail to see the power that a distributed terrorist network can have. Not unlike the p2p wars of only a few years ago, where napster was targeted and removed. Why? Because it was focused, because it had a point where you could squeeze. If Napster was, to the RIAA, a music nazi, then distributed p2p networks are the terrorist hijackers. Now you tell me which one is harder to stop...

Maniac

9 Feb 2006, 10:47 PM

Because you said that they were basically 2nd generation Nazis? It baffles me why you would make that assertion.

I was making a simple analogy, since many of the Islamic Extremists seem to be against Jews as well.

Nemesis

9 Feb 2006, 10:48 PM

Nemesis

9 Feb 2006, 10:49 PM

I was making a simple analogy, since many of the Islamic Extremists seem to be against Jews as well.
However, for vastly different reasons than the Nazis.

Maniac

9 Feb 2006, 10:55 PM

However, for vastly different reasons than the Nazis.

A.) You don't know that (unless you're some kind of mind reader... maybe you can tell me why I hate you? ;) )

B.) If I hate you because I think you're annoying, and someone else hates you because you stole money from them, the point is, the hatred is still there. Let it be for different reasons, but that hatred will ultimately lead to the same thing... your untimely demise.

Watch your back...

Nemesis

9 Feb 2006, 11:00 PM

A.) You don't know that (unless you're some kind of mind reader... maybe you can tell me why I hate you? ;) )
:rofl:

B.) If I hate you because I think you're annoying, and someone else hates you because you stole money from them, the point is, the hatred is still there. Let it be for different reasons, but that hatred will ultimately lead to the same thing... your untimely demise.

Watch your back...
Okay, fine. The Nazi's used Jews as a scapegoat for political reasons. Islamic Extremists hate them for Theological and Idealogical reasons. There in lies the difference between the two. What was someone telling me about "seeing the forest for the trees?" Hmmm... I wonder.

Claverhouse

9 Feb 2006, 11:02 PM

Although you are technically correct, you fail to see the power that a distributed terrorist network can have. Not unlike the p2p wars of only a few years ago, where napster was targeted and removed. Why? Because it was focused, because it had a point where you could squeeze. If Napster was, to the RIAA, a music nazi, then distributed p2p networks are the terrorist hijackers. Now you tell me which one is harder to stop...

Yeah, but that's just the onward march of technology ( ironically mainly from the West ), and I'm not referring to p2p... If a muslim wished you to convert in 800 AD he used a sword, if he did in 1600 AD he used cannon, if he does now, vis-a-vis the economic/military inferiority of the Middle East he must use terrorist bombs.

But the agenda remains the same, and is no way comparable with a reforming racialist organisation which had it won would now be facing exactly the same muslim challenge as we do. Although, to be sure, their response would probably be a little more robust; although I can't see them wasting money and man-power in wars like Iraq or defending Israel if that place had been still set up had the nazis won.*

Claverhouse :ph34r:

*It was one of their goals to move most european jews to Palestine, and Col. Eichmann was a facilitator of this process working with the zionists before and during WWII. Arguably this must have laid the nazis on equal course for a collision with their Arab allies post-war.

wildcat

9 Feb 2006, 11:04 PM

Stalin started a massive antisemitic raid in 1948. The Jewish cultural leaders were murdered. The KGB used the method of "road accidents" in those cases where the victims (not less inside the party) where too popular to be arrested. Beria protected his own Jews (many of them knew too much about him) and became a bitter enemy of Stalin. Stalin initiated the Mingrelian affair to get Beria. And then he proposed to get the Jews, all of them. The idea was to remove the entire Jewish population of the Soviet Union and repopulate them in six large concentration camps south of the Gulag archipelago.
Stalin died before he managed to do very much..
I think Beria put him out of business.

Maniac

9 Feb 2006, 11:06 PM

Yeah, but that's just the onward march of technology ( ironically mainly from the West ), and I'm not referring to p2p... If a muslim wished you to convert in 800 AD he used a sword, if he did in 1600 AD he used cannon, if he does now, vis-a-vis the economic/military inferiority of the Middle East he must use terrorist bombs.

I wasn't using p2p literally, I hope you understand that. But fighting a faceless enemy, an enemy which has no home, is much harder than fighting an enemy that is a target. The extremists have effectively set up a distributed network of terrorists which can, simultaneously, wreak havoc to the world in multiple locations, at once.

But the agenda remains the same, and is no way comparable with a reforming racialist organisation which had it won would now be facing exactly the same muslim challenge as we do. Although, to be sure, their response would probably be a little more robust; although I can't see them wasting money and man-power in wars like Iraq or defending Israel if that place had been still set up had the nazis won.*

From the viewpoint of deaths of Jews and hatred of Jews, they look very the same. That's the viewpoint I was taking. From their (the jews) viewpoint, they're probably very the same.

Maniac

9 Feb 2006, 11:09 PM

:rofl:

Okay, fine. The Nazi's used Jews as a scapegoat for political reasons. Islamic Extremists hate them for Theological and Idealogical reasons. There in lies the difference between the two. What was someone telling me about "seeing the forest for the trees?" Hmmm... I wonder.

Let's say you were alive 50 years ago and got married. Then someone came along and killed everyone in your family, just because you were the town scapegoat. So you remarried, and now, 50 years later, someone starts killing your family again, because they think your ideology sucks. Are you really going to fucking care that their reasons are different? Or are you going to care that your family is once again being murdered? Noone cares about your socio-economic crap, especially not when people are dying everyday.

Nemesis

9 Feb 2006, 11:14 PM

Let's say you were alive 50 years ago and got married. Then someone came along and killed everyone in your family, just because you were the town scapegoat. So you remarried, and now, 50 years later, someone starts killing your family again, because they think your ideology sucks. Are you really going to fucking care that their reasons are different? Or are you going to care that your family is once again being murdered? Noone cares about your socio-economic crap, especially not when people are dying everyday.
Would I care? No. Would I realize that they are different? Yes. Would I call the second group the same as the first group? No. Which is exactly what you did. Don't try to turn it around on me now and say you were making a different point just because you can't defend your argument. Nazis and Islamic Extremists are NOT the same, and, as you said, work in different ways, and must therefore be dealt with accordingly. Lumping them into the same group as Nazis doesn't help anyone. So, why do it?

I'm going to a basketball game now. I'll return around 9:00 PM (Eastern).

Maniac

9 Feb 2006, 11:17 PM

Would I care? No. Would I realize that they are different? Yes. Would I call the second group the same as the first group? No. Which is exactly what you did. Don't try to turn it around on me now and say you were making a different point just because you can't defend your argument. Nazis and Islamic Extremists are NOT the same, and, as you said, work in different ways, and must therefore be dealt with accordingly. Lumping them into the same group as Nazis doesn't help anyone. So, why do it?

I'm going to a basketball game now. I'll return around 9:00 PM (Eastern).

I saved myself from stupid and inane arguments such as this when I said "arguably." Once again, from the viewpoint that I chose to look at it, they look the same. Enjoy your basketball game, jam a few fingers why don't you...

EDIT: That's why you will never understand the extremists, and will try to approach them with diplomacy. Do you really think, in their heads, there's a difference between Jews, Christians, or any other denomination? Between white, hispanic, black, etc? To them, if you're not muslim, you're an infidel. End of story. So said charred_heart in his other post, that his friend said, "non-muslims don't count." If you take a bottom line viewpoint, to them, we aren't different. We're the enemy. I don't see why you condemn me taking the same bottom line viewpoint...

Master O

10 Feb 2006, 12:58 AM

Did apply that to all Muslims? If that is unclear, then I don't. Believe me, I have spent the last day or so reading blogs where Muslims and Westerners have been arguing.

The section of Islam that is violent and oppressive (which applies to the article I posted) will not be placated by anything the West does. Things may only change from action by moderates like you against your more violent co-adherents, charred_heart. However, I get the impression that you are too scared to do so. Don't you feel an obligation to rein in your brothers to prevent them from perverting Islam? Oh, now I remember, you can't judge them here on earth, only Allah will judge them. However, he also may judge you for standing silently by while your brothers slaughter innocents.

It's all very well to say that the Quran forbids killing of innocents, yet we see Muslims doing this frequently. Is it enough for you that these terrorists will be judged in heaven, and you don't have to do anything here on earth? If so, then the victims of terrorism and their families have a right to be angry at you.

islam is inherently no more violent than chrisitianity. it's all about interpretations and agendas. remember the Spanish Inquisition?

Serotonin

10 Feb 2006, 01:06 AM

islam is inherently no more violent than chrisitianity. it's all about interpretations and agendas. remember the Spanish Inquisition?

Um, I think you've missed my point. I never was arguing for the quantification of violence of Islam and Christianity over time. It's abundantly clear I'm talking about the present time, where Islam is much more violent.

Yes I remember the Inquisition. Christianity was violent in the past, most of that has settled down now, thanks to the the West being able to handle philosophical multitudes, and Christianity allowing a peaceful outlet for its adherent's shame. I already said I have taken the pragmatic viewpoint of "religion is as religion does", so I don't see how my argument is flawed (yet).

Superstring

10 Feb 2006, 01:29 AM

Arguably, islamic extremists are the new nazis. Not to mention neo-nazis themselves.

Maniac is 100% right- Islamic extremists are the new nazis.

i) They believe in something crazy that makes no sense, and would like to kill millions because of it.

ii) They live in a state of poverty which they can wrongfully blame on certain groups of people, whose innocent civilians they ultimately want to slaughter.

iii) They are at risk of being given more credibility and concessions than they deserve by anyone who doesn't recognize that what they're doing is severely wrong.

iv) What they want is to rule the world- or at least annihilate the non-Muslim world- and even if that idea sounds laughable now, it's still what they want.

I completely make the nazi analogy with Muslim extremism. It's brought me to a point where I think the rest of the world should have a serious conversation with itself and say "you know...organized religion is a bunch of bullshit. Let's not take it seriously anymore"

Claverhouse

10 Feb 2006, 01:48 AM

I wasn't using p2p literally, I hope you understand that.

Yes. As was made clear.

From the viewpoint of deaths of Jews and hatred of Jews, they look very the same. That's the viewpoint I was taking. From their (the jews) viewpoint, they're probably very the same.

From the jews' viewpoint all gentiles are the same.

Claverhouse :ph34r:

charred_heart

10 Feb 2006, 02:12 AM

And that's fine, and you can SAY things back. What you can't do, is start burning buildings. Following your logic, if the west got offended because terrorists starting burning buildings, maybe they should have adopted the violent logic of islamic extremists, and bomb the hell out of iran, iraq, saudi arabia, or any other country that harbors islamic extremists?

The response to the cartoon was a typical response an ANIMAL would have made, not a human. An animal feels pain, and it reacts. If you hit a dog, it will come and bite you. A human can think, a human can inject his own thoughts and understanding between stimulus and response. An animal cannot. You are defending people who have behaved like animals. Furthermore, you will (obviously) disagree with other nations behaving like animals towards them (or do you support a full frontal assault on nations which harbor islamic extremists?) Either way your posts are dripping with hypocrisy...
You seem to have been so affected by these riots that you can't comprehend what I'm saying. According to my logic, if someone burns a building they get tried for arson.
Your reply does not make sense because you equated freedom of speech with committing a crime.

Nemesis

10 Feb 2006, 02:14 AM

EDIT: That's why you will never understand the extremists, and will try to approach them with diplomacy. Do you really think, in their heads, there's a difference between Jews, Christians, or any other denomination? Between white, hispanic, black, etc? To them, if you're not muslim, you're an infidel. End of story. So said charred_heart in his other post, that his friend said, "non-muslims don't count." If you take a bottom line viewpoint, to them, we aren't different. We're the enemy. I don't see why you condemn me taking the same bottom line viewpoint...

Changing your story again, eh? So, If i have this straight, your first view was that Muslims are just like Nazis in their hatred of Jews, then your next view was that in there methods of doing things they are completely different, and now your viewpoint is that they hate everyone that isn't a muslim. Make up your mind, perhaps. By the way, I never once hinted at approaching them with diplomacy. Not to mention, what exactly makes you the resident scholar on extremism pal?

And by the way. I did have fun. We won 54-28.

Nemesis

10 Feb 2006, 02:16 AM

Um, I think you've missed my point. I never was arguing for the quantification of violence of Islam and Christianity over time. It's abundantly clear I'm talking about the present time, where Islam is much more violent.

Yes I remember the Inquisition. Christianity was violent in the past, most of that has settled down now, thanks to the the West being able to handle philosophical multitudes, and Christianity allowing a peaceful outlet for its adherent's shame. I already said I have taken the pragmatic viewpoint of "religion is as religion does", so I don't see how my argument is flawed (yet).
See, that's the thing. Religions are not violent. People are violent.

charred_heart

10 Feb 2006, 02:17 AM

Thank you Penguin Hunter - Good to have you back.

Well, I looked at that first link, and it answered a question that has been gnawing at me for some time. Unfortunately, the answer was not a favorable one, in most ways. This underscores why there has not been more Islamic criticism of Bin Laden and people like him. So . . .the West must act accordingly.

Why haven't there been any "Down with Bin Laden" protest marches in our own country ? And I don't just mean protests by Muslims. I guess people feel it goes without saying. Still, it would be nice to send a video to good old Al Jazeera of a million people marching along in some big square. A chance for BL to blow them up, too, I guess. I hope there is at least a suit going.
You are wrong to think that it is socially acceptable or popular in the muslim world today for a muslim to suicide bomb a bus or a train or a cafe. Those who join groups that target civilians are shunned by muslim society because of Iraq, Afghanistan and the hate directed towards muslims. What people in the west don't understand is that public opinion does not affect these bombers, in fact the more unpopular they become the more convinced they are of their beliefs. Why demonstrate then, for show?

Serotonin

10 Feb 2006, 02:18 AM

See, that's the thing. Religions are not violent. People are violent.

Hair-splitting. Violence was/is carried out in the name of these religions. You know what I'm talking about, don't play dumb.

Nemesis

10 Feb 2006, 02:18 AM

Maniac is 100% right- Islamic extremists are the new nazis.

i) They believe in something crazy that makes no sense, and would like to kill millions because of it.

ii) They live in a state of poverty which they can wrongfully blame on certain groups of people, whose innocent civilians they ultimately want to slaughter.

iii) They are at risk of being given more credibility and concessions than they deserve by anyone who doesn't recognize that what they're doing is severely wrong.

iv) What they want is to rule the world- or at least annihilate the non-Muslim world- and even if that idea sounds laughable now, it's still what they want.

I completely make the nazi analogy with Muslim extremism. It's brought me to a point where I think the rest of the world should have a serious conversation with itself and say "you know...organized religion is a bunch of bullshit. Let's not take it seriously anymore"
Gee, you're so intelligent.

Ivy

10 Feb 2006, 02:19 AM

See, that's the thing. Religions are not violent. People are violent.

Religions are people. They are the systems that are manifestations of people's beliefs, in aggregate.

Serotonin

10 Feb 2006, 02:22 AM

You are wrong to think that it is socially acceptable or popular in the muslim world today for a muslim to suicide bomb a bus or a train or a cafe. Those who join groups that target civilians are shunned by muslim society because of Iraq, Afghanistan and the hate directed towards muslims. What people in the west don't understand is that public opinion does not affect these bombers, in fact the more unpopular they become the more convinced they are of their beliefs. Why demonstrate then, for show?

You are reasonable to a point, Charred_heart, and I appreciate you saying that a little embarrassment on the part of the Muslims would go a long way. So I'm glad you understand what I am saying. :)

No-one is accusing you of being a terrorist. But being a moderate muslim you are the only type of person that can convince fanatical muslims that they are wrong. The fanatics won't listen to the West, but they might listen to you. You don't have an obligation to change their ways, but after more killing by has been carried out in the name of Islam, would you look back regretfully on the past and think you could have prevented it? Make your decision wisely.

Nemesis

10 Feb 2006, 02:23 AM

Religions are people. They are the systems that are manifestations of people's beliefs, in aggregate.
You're free to take that viewpoint, but at the end of the day, Islam is not what brought the towers crashing down. Islamic EXTREMISTS are.

Superstring

10 Feb 2006, 02:23 AM

Changing your story again, eh? So, If i have this straight, your first view was that Muslims are just like Nazis in their hatred of Jews, then your next view was that in there methods of doing things they are completely different, and now your viewpoint is that they hate everyone that isn't a muslim. Make up your mind, perhaps. By the way, I never once hinted at approaching them with diplomacy. Not to mention, what exactly makes you the resident scholar on extremism pal?

And by the way. I did have fun. We won 54-28.

Hating anyone who isn't a muslim MAKES them very nazi like, to have such an irrational hatred. These viewpoints are not contradictory, you're just having a tough time keeping up :vP

charred_heart

10 Feb 2006, 02:23 AM

Nemesis

10 Feb 2006, 02:27 AM

Hating anyone who isn't a muslim MAKES them very nazi like, to have such an irrational hatred. These viewpoints are not contradictory, you're just having a tough time keeping up :vP
Well then, by your argument anyone who has an irrational fear (which is the basis of irrational hatred) is similar to a Nazi. The French have an irrational hatred for the British and the Americans. They are hardly Nazis.

Edit: Not to mention, if one really wanted to, one could make a very strong case for the United States government being extremely Nazi like.

Nemesis

10 Feb 2006, 02:29 AM

You sound like an Anarchist!
Anarchist in the literal way of speaking, or anarchist in the way of speaking that government should have little or no control over what people say or how they live their lives?

Nemesis

10 Feb 2006, 02:32 AM

Hair-splitting. Violence was/is carried out in the name of these religions. You know what I'm talking about, don't play dumb.
I know what you were saying. What I'M saying is that generalizations such as "Islam is violent" lead to unnecessary persecution, misunderstanding, and hatred, and should therefore be avoided.

charred_heart

10 Feb 2006, 02:34 AM

If a muslim wished you to convert in 800 AD he used a sword, if he did in 1600 AD he used cannon, if he does now, vis-a-vis the economic/military inferiority of the Middle East he must use terrorist bombs.
If you believe that's a fact, then Islam is the enemy. If Islam is the enemy, a bigger war is inevitable. I personally would want to stop a religion in it's tracks if that was how it operated.

Chimera

10 Feb 2006, 02:35 AM

Don't think I'll be able to keep up with the running thread so will just comment on the original post and some of the themes I've read so far.

I see this sort of argument as a pre-rationalization. Once were knee deep in the midst of World War III we can think back to the supposed "inevitability" of this conflict and use it to justify the slaughter of countless innocents.

I think cultural differences are a red herring. People of differing cultures (especially when seperated by national and geographical boundries), can get along fine as long as their relationship is one of free exchange. I don't think people in Islamic countries would care much about western culture if we weren't trying to dominate them economically and militarily. My neighbor is a christian fundamentalist (I'm agnostic), this doesn't bother me or them in the slightest as they leave me alone and I leave them alone. We may dissapprove of eachothers beliefs and lifestyles (were we to ever have that conversation), but as long as we're not trying to enforce our beliefs on eachother, there's no problem.

I suspect there aren't many people on this site that believe for a minute the propaganda line of muslims hating the west's freedom or way of life as their primary motivation, so I won't belabor that aspect. The west is vulnerable to terrorist attacks due to political reasons. We're over there, our direct firepower is superior, so terrorism is the response. Terrorism is not an ideological act, but a political one, a tactic used by the weak against the strong, and it's damn effective, as the stronger country backrupts itself trying to fight it.

I also hope not many people believe that the other option besides our current policy is isolation. Politicians love setting up a false choice (e.g. You're either with us or against us). The clear choice if we want peace is trade. A conflict between the US and China was once seen as inevitable as well, but now our economies are so linked that this is extremely unlikely. And now their culture has changed as well, not through force, but through the obvious benefits capitalism has brought to their standard of living.

Anyway that's all for now.

Nemesis

10 Feb 2006, 02:35 AM

If you believe that's a fact, then Islam is the enemy. If Islam is the enemy, a bigger war is inevitable. I personally would want to stop a religion in it's tracks if that was how it operated.
Not to mention, most people convert to Islam by their own free will these days.

charred_heart

10 Feb 2006, 02:38 AM

charred_heart

10 Feb 2006, 02:41 AM

Anarchist in the literal way of speaking, or anarchist in the way of speaking that government should have little or no control over what people say or how they live their lives?
Anarchist as in someone who is for total chaos

Ivy

10 Feb 2006, 02:42 AM

You're free to take that viewpoint, but at the end of the day, Islam is not what brought the towers crashing down. Islamic EXTREMISTS are.

That actually underscores my point. Islam doesn't DO anything on its own. Practitioners of Islam do stuff in the name of Islam (just like practitioners of any religion do stuff in the name of their religion) and practitioners have varying levels of reasonability and extremism.

Superstring

10 Feb 2006, 02:42 AM

Well then, by your argument anyone who has an irrational fear (which is the basis of irrational hatred) is similar to a Nazi. The French have an irrational hatred for the British and the Americans. They are hardly Nazis..

They have an irrational disdain for Americans. But even if it could be considered hatred they'd hardly be nazi like, because mass murder isn't high on their agenda.

Not to mention, if one really wanted to, one could make a very strong case for the United States government being extremely Nazi like.

I find that easy to say but tough to back up. They're both powerful nations, and I think the similarities end there.

Nemesis

10 Feb 2006, 02:44 AM

That actually underscores my point. Islam doesn't DO anything on its own. Practitioners of Islam do stuff in the name of Islam (just like practitioners of any religion do stuff in the name of their religion) and practitioners have varying levels of reasonability and extremism.
If you killed your daughter today because a book on parenting said that insuboordination on the part of the child should not be tolerated, whose to blame?

charred_heart

10 Feb 2006, 02:44 AM

No-one is accusing you of being a terrorist. But being a moderate muslim you are the only type of person that can convince fanatical muslims that they are wrong. The fanatics won't listen to the West, but they might listen to you. You don't have an obligation to change their ways, but after more killing by has been carried out in the name of Islam, would you look back regretfully on the past and think you could have prevented it? Make your decision wisely.
The only way I can convince an extremist to stand down is if I destroy Israel and liberate Palestine. Puts me in a bind doesn't it?

Nemesis

10 Feb 2006, 02:45 AM

They have an irrational disdain for Americans. But even if it could be considered hatred they'd hardly be nazi like, because mass murder isn't high on their agenda.

I find that easy to say but tough to back up. They're both powerful nations, and I think the similarities end there.
Well then, you aren't very intelligent.

Ivy

10 Feb 2006, 02:48 AM

If you killed your daughter today because a book on parenting said that insuboordination on the part of the child should not be tolerated, whose to blame?

Is this a trick question? It would be me, without a doubt.

Nemesis

10 Feb 2006, 02:53 AM

Is this a trick question? It would be me, without a doubt.So if someone, say, flew a plan into the World Trade Center because the Qur'an says that non-moslems are infidel, despite the fact that killing is strictly prohibited (by both Abrahamic Religions upon which Islam is based no less) then whose to blame?

Ivy

10 Feb 2006, 02:55 AM

So if someone, say flew a plan into the World Trade Center because the Qur'an says that non-moslems are infidel, despite the fact that killing is strictly prohibited (by both Abrahamic Religions upon which Islam is based no less) then whose to blame?

Were you under the impression that I blamed all of Islam for that? You thought wrong.

Superstring

10 Feb 2006, 02:56 AM

I thought the Nazis were technologically advanced, had huge armies that can take over their neighbours and were well organised in addition to them wanting to wipe out most of the human race.

Ismlamic extremists have technology too, and like 1930's Nazi Germany the technological capabilities are on the rise. Regardless of how much of an actual threat they are able to impose with what they currently have, I think it is completly possible to make the pre-war Nazi comparison. You raise a good point though, embarking on a mission to "crush" people who are fighting with sticks and stones is an incredibly depressing thought....

Nemesis

10 Feb 2006, 02:58 AM

Ismlamic extremists have technology too, and like 1930's Nazi Germany the technological capabilities are on the rise. Regardless of how much of an actual threat they are able to impose with what they currently have, I think it is completly possible to make the pre-war Nazi comparison.

pre-war Nazi comparison? What ails you child?

Nemesis

10 Feb 2006, 03:00 AM

Were you under the impression that I blamed all of Islam for that? You thought wrong.

.............................. Just going by what I read.

That actually underscores my point. Islam doesn't DO anything on its own. Practitioners of Islam do stuff in the name of Islam (just like practitioners of any religion do stuff in the name of their religion) and practitioners have varying levels of reasonability and extremism.
Preceded by...

Religions are people. They are the systems that are manifestations of people's beliefs, in aggregate.

Superstring

10 Feb 2006, 03:01 AM

pre-war Nazi comparison? What ails you child?

I dunno dude, I already explained that comparison like twice

Nemesis

10 Feb 2006, 03:05 AM

I dunno dude, I already explained that comparison like twiceI was being hyperbolic to demonstrate the fanaticism of your stance. Islamic Extremists are hardly pre-war Nazis, ready to launch an invasion of every surrounding non-muslim state, and contrary to what you said, the numbering of people killed by terrorists in Iraq is not in the "hundreds of thousands." Claverhouse had a nifty little link to dispel that fallacy.

kuranes

10 Feb 2006, 03:06 AM

* pictures Meshou wearing a veil and the other concealing robes while on her motorcycle, the wind whipping them around like flames or ruffled wings *

* Is that Hypnos in pursuit, clutching a dagger between his teeth ? *

Serotonin

10 Feb 2006, 03:10 AM

The only way I can convince an extremist to stand down is if I destroy Israel and liberate Palestine. Puts me in a bind doesn't it?

In that case, we are too late. There is no placating Islamic extremism, full stop. We can forget about appeasement, finding common ground etc. War is inevitable.

I think cultural differences are a red herring. People of differing cultures (especially when seperated by national and geographical boundries), can get along fine as long as their relationship is one of free exchange. I don't think people in Islamic countries would care much about western culture if we weren't trying to dominate them economically and militarily. My neighbor is a christian fundamentalist (I'm agnostic), this doesn't bother me or them in the slightest as they leave me alone and I leave them alone. We may dissapprove of eachothers beliefs and lifestyles (were we to ever have that conversation), but as long as we're not trying to enforce our beliefs on eachother, there's no problem.

I suspect there aren't many people on this site that believe for a minute the propaganda line of muslims hating the west's freedom or way of life as their primary motivation, so I won't belabor that aspect. The west is vulnerable to terrorist attacks due to political reasons. We're over there, our direct firepower is superior, so terrorism is the response. Terrorism is not an ideological act, but a political one, a tactic used by the weak against the strong, and it's damn effective, as the stronger country backrupts itself trying to fight it.

You're right, but what next? Does the West retreat and say "Oh yes, we were wrong, come Islamic extremists, run over our country because we made a mistake". The West has made many mistakes, but none so heinous as to subject themselves to Islam's wrath. The U.S. is no angel, and I feel as distant from the Bush Administration and the Howard Government as I do from Islamic fundamentalists. Let them fight it out between themselves (and oh yes, they will).

You are right... yet there is a sense you are condoning terrorism as a valid response/tactic/behaviour. And a "Well, we had it coming, what do you expect?" kind of attitude. An inference that the West deserved it (which I completely reject).

My family hasn't oppressed Muslims. I feel so removed from this conflict, yet I can't help but whine and bitch about how the world loves to make war. This is essentially the philosophy behind me starting this thread.

Maybe my government and my culture is partially responsible for the state of the world today, but that doesn't excuse for a minute the despicable acts of Islamic terrorists, who are just as, dare I say more, perverted.
It is also no reason to compromise my freedom or self-determination for the honour of some crazed religious fanatics. If they wish to change my life to their way of thinking, and invade my life, then I will staunchly refuse.

Superstring

10 Feb 2006, 03:11 AM

Gee, you're so intelligent.

Instead of "noticing" people's intelligence and pointing out the "flaws" in their logic that aren't actually there, you should try reading slowly and think about what the person is trying to say. And instead of trying to pick pointless fights like yesterdays "flame war" thread you said you were starting just for you and I, or asking pointless questions to try and find faults in the answers, you should try being equally agressive with a nearby barnyard animal.

Anyways I think this thread is *almost* dead, for now. Later everyone

Nemesis

10 Feb 2006, 03:13 AM

In that case, we are too late. There is no placating Islamic extremism, full stop. We can forget about appeasement, finding common ground etc. War is inevitable.

You're right, but what next? Does the West retreat and say "Oh yes, we were wrong, come Islamic extremists, run over our country because we made a mistake". The West has made many mistakes, but none so heinous as to subject themselves to Islam's wrath. The U.S. is no angel, and I feel as distant from the Bush Administration and the Howard Government as I do from Islamic fundamentalists. Let them fight it out between themselves (and oh yes, they will).

You are right... yet there is a sense you are condoning terrorism as a valid response/tactic/behaviour. And a "Well, we had it coming, what do you expect?" kind of attitude. An inference that the West deserved it (which I completely reject).

My family hasn't oppressed Muslims. I feel so removed from this conflict, yet I can't help but whine and bitch about how the world loves to make war. This is essentially the philosophy behind me starting this thread.

Maybe my government and my culture is partially responsible for the state of the world today, but that doesn't excuse for a minute the despicable acts of Islamic terrorists, who are just as, dare I say more, perverted.
It is also no reason to compromise my freedom or self-determination for the honour of some crazed religious fanatics. If they wish to change my life to their way of thinking, and invade my life, then I will staunchly refuse.
Exactly.

Ivy

10 Feb 2006, 03:16 AM

.............................. Just going by what I read.

I think you misunderstood my point. I responded to your "guns don't kill people, people kill people"-esque statement about religion. Religions ARE the people that make them up. A religion isn't its own entity, at least not IMO. Different people, different religion. So saying "religions aren't violent, people are violent" is.. shaky at best, to my mind. If enough people in a religion are violent, then it can be described as a violent religion. Edited to add, not that I'm characterizing Islam as a violent religion across the board, but there's no denying there is a violent element within the larger group.

Lest anyone say I'm condemning all Muslims for the violence of a few, let me paint my own religion with a similar brush. Christianity is, in large part, a religion of hypocrites. I don't feel like that shoe fits me, so I don't put it on, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a raw assload of hypocritical Christians.

Nemesis

10 Feb 2006, 03:18 AM

Instead of "noticing" people's intelligence and pointing out the "flaws" in their logic that aren't actually there, you should try reading slowly and think about what the person is trying to say. And instead of trying to pick pointless fights like yesterdays "flame war" thread you said you were starting just for you and I, or asking pointless questions to try and find faults in the answers, you should try being equally agressive with a nearby barnyard animal.

Anyways I think this thread is *almost* dead, for now. Later everyone
So, if I understand correctly, that was your version of a polite request for me to stop telling you you're wrong. I will, when you're correct. I don't pick fights with people for the hell of it. If I agree with them I'll back them up. If I disagree I'll let them know about it. Some people just happen to be more to one of those sides then the other and, unfortunately for us both, you happen to be a person that I disagree with alot. The reason I started the flame war thread is because it looked like another war between you and me was about to happen, so instead of ruining this thread with one, I made an illegit thread for an illegit flame war. If no one ever challanged anyone's credibility/arguments/correctness, then how would we ever get anywhere?

Nemesis

10 Feb 2006, 03:20 AM

I think you misunderstood my point. I responded to your "guns don't kill people, people kill people"-esque statement about religion. Religions ARE the people that make them up. A religion isn't its own entity, at least not IMO. Different people, different religion. So saying "religions aren't violent, people are violent" is.. shaky at best, to my mind. If enough people in a religion are violent, then it can be described as a violent religion. Edited to add, not that I'm characterizing Islam as a violent religion across the board, but there's no denying there is a violent element within the larger group.Well, then, I appologize, however, I don't buy into the theory of "religion is as religion does."

Ivy

10 Feb 2006, 03:32 AM

Well, then, I appologize, however, I don't buy into the theory of "religion is as religion does."

So you don't think Christianity is hypocritical?

Nemesis

10 Feb 2006, 03:35 AM

So you don't think Christianity is hypocritical?
Now we're opening up a whole different can of worms. I sincerely agree with everything Christ said, with the exception of him being of divine heritage. I don't believe what the gospels say because they were written by people who are presumptuous enough to believe that they know what God and Jesus want.

Claverhouse

10 Feb 2006, 03:35 AM

You sound like an Anarchist!

Not really, I believe in order and tradition; but also in freedom to think for all, no matter how vile the consequences, Plus I refuse to be frightened of people like that.

If you believe that's a fact, then Islam is the enemy. If Islam is the enemy, a bigger war is inevitable. I personally would want to stop a religion in it's tracks if that was how it operated.

Islam is no enemy of mine. And they have also the right to propagate their faith by the sword, as do all faiths, if that is the way some of their members choose to act. And other people have a right to resist. War is generally very bad, but peace is not the highest good.

I thought the Nazis were technologically advanced, had huge armies that can take over their neighbours and were well organised in addition to them wanting to wipe out most of the human race.

All wrong, except that under the stimulus of war they became in the later stages astoundingly technologically advanced ( and in doing so helped lose more of their humanity ). At the start of the war, they had inferior numbers and inferior tanks, yet they still took France and Poland; as the war went on they had better tanks and planes etc., but were vastly outnumbered by the tremendous numbers in the armies of the USSR, the USA and the British Empire, not to mention the terrific amount of materiele these could muster in comparison to the meagre resources of the Reich, even when all they looted from occupied Europe is included.

They were incredibly badly organised ( although many of them led well ) both on a governmental and state scale and militarily. Even the USA implemented more of the state-socialist control of industry needed to win a modern war. Had the left nazis ( SA & the Strassers ) been in control rather than the right-wing element of the party, things might have been different. The political set-up was as weak and chaotic, although more slightly more logical, as the Weimar republic they grew up in. As it was the Kaiser's Germany, which had been far more state-socialist than the nazis dared, invaded further and took more of Russia than they did.

They did not want to wipe out most of the human race, they were realists, and hoped to win control over Europe: they just wanted to wipe out that portion they deemed their enemies. As more successfully did the soviets, who applied the term to a broader spectrum of humanity.

Claverhouse :ph34r:

Superstring

10 Feb 2006, 03:37 AM

So, if I understand correctly, that was your version of a polite request for me to stop telling you you're wrong. I will, when you you're correct.

It's not for you to say when anyone is 'correct', you don't know everything. And I don't mean to sound racist, but- my friend in high school was also an ENFJ. If he's anything like you, he's a HUGE know-it-all who in reality knows very little, and (I wouldn't make this assumption about you, but) a fucking egotistical douchebag who will NEVER back down from having said something wrong when he knows very well that he did...he'll just keep running with it. Anyways, that's my rant about ENFJ's. Any plans on being a teacher by the way? Delusions of Christ-like importance? Fearing impending schizophrenia? Just curious....not that I'm trying to attack your credibility or anything :vP

Nemesis

10 Feb 2006, 03:44 AM

It's not for you to say when anyone is 'correct', you don't know everything. And I don't mean to sound type-prejudiced, but- my friend in high school was also an ENFJ. If he's anything like you, he's a HUGE know it all who in reality knows very little, and (I wouldn't make this assumption about you, but) a fucking egotistical douchebag who will NEVER back down from having said something wrong...he'll just keep running with it.
Right. This all being said after those two wonderful threads on applying MBTI to ENTIRE COUNTRIES. Not to mention, do you honestly believe that I give a rat's ass as to what you think of me and my personality?

Edit: Plus, not that I doubt your "vast knowledge of MBTI," but I doubt you correctly typed ANY of your friends.

If he's anything like you, he's a HUGE know it all who in reality knows very little, and (I wouldn't make this assumption about you, but) a fucking egotistical douchebag who will NEVER back down from having said something wrong...he'll just keep running with it.
:rofl:

Ivy

10 Feb 2006, 03:45 AM

Now we're opening up a whole different can of worms. I sincerely agree with everything Christ said, with the exception of him being of divine heritage. I don't believe what the gospels say because they were written by people who are presumptuous enough to believe that they know what God and Jesus want.

Where else do we have a record of what Christ said except in the gospels? As far as I know his mere existence is only recorded in, like, 2 or 3 other places, and that's just "hey, that dude Jesus did some stuff," not so much what he said specifically.

Anyway, that's beside the point. "People who are presumptuous enough to believe that they know what God and Jesus want" is to Christianity as "People who commit violent acts in the name of Allah" is to Islam. It's not everybody, it isn't even a majority, but it's a distinct element within the religion. To deny this is to split hairs, as Serotonin pointed out in a lot fewer words than I've used. That would be an illustration of INTPs and efficiency. :)

Nemesis

10 Feb 2006, 03:50 AM

Anyway, that's beside the point. "People who are presumptuous enough to believe that they know what God and Jesus want" is to Christianity as "People who commit violent acts in the name of Allah" is to Islam. It's not everybody, it isn't even a majority, but it's a distinct element within the religion. To deny this is to split hairs, as Serotonin pointed out in a lot fewer words than I've used. That would be an illustration of INTPs and efficiency. :) So we're in agreement then. We just word ourselves differently. :)

Superstring

10 Feb 2006, 03:52 AM

Right. This all being said after those two wonderful threads on applying MBTI to ENTIRE COUNTRIES. Not to mention, do you honestly believe that I give a rat's ass as to what you think of me and my personality?

Edit: Plus, not that I doubt your "vast knowledge of MBTI," but I doubt you correctly typed ANY of your friends.

:rofl:

That's right, my first thread was the most popular one to hit the World section in weeks from what I could tell. Sorry for starting such a "dumb" thread for the category of MBTI -> The World...what on earth was I thinking.

I am going on test-only information for my friends. Everyone I know knows their type. We've all either done it in school or online, and talked about it. But I'm glad something made you laugh?..

No I wouldn't think you'd give a rat's ass, just like I wouldn't expect anyone to give a rat's ass about what any other asshole they met over the internet thinks of their personality.

Maniac

10 Feb 2006, 03:54 AM

From the jews' viewpoint all gentiles are the same.

Before we let that become anti-semitic, to muslims we're all infidels, and to christians we're all potential people to be saved...

Nemesis

10 Feb 2006, 03:55 AM

That's right, my first thread was the most popular one to hit the World section in weeks from what I could tell. Sorry for starting such a "dumb" thread for the category of MBTI -> The World...what on earth was I thinking.

I am going on test-only information for my friends. Your doubt is baseless.

No I wouldn't think you'd give a rat's ass, just like I wouldn't expect anyone to give a rat's ass about what any other asshole they met over the internet thinks of their personality.

1) Your thread was popular. On this forum, that's usually not a good thing.

2) Test only info... yeah <_<

3) Then, um, why did you give me your opinion at all?

Maniac

10 Feb 2006, 03:58 AM

I thought the Nazis were technologically advanced, had huge armies that can take over their neighbours and were well organised in addition to them wanting to wipe out most of the human race.

Your counter argument is weak. If the only thing you have to deny that muslims are like nazis is that they're not as technologically advanced, either you don't know shit about your own people or you're playing dumb. Most islamic countries have the atomic bomb, iran anyone? Not to mention, see my post above about how distributed networks outrule and outclass a centrally focused organization. What you see as a strength I see as a weakness (centrality).

Maniac

10 Feb 2006, 03:59 AM

If you killed your daughter today because a book on parenting said that insuboordination on the part of the child should not be tolerated, whose to blame?

The author shares in the blame.

Maniac

10 Feb 2006, 04:00 AM

The only way I can convince an extremist to stand down is if I destroy Israel and liberate Palestine. Puts me in a bind doesn't it?

It's funny that the destruction of Israel is a necessary and sufficient condition for the liberation of Palestine...

Nemesis

10 Feb 2006, 04:04 AM

Plus, you were awful quick to dispense with the;

"OMFG YOURE AN IDIOT"
"To quote an idiot on this thread"
"When you look in the mirror you see a disappointing dweeb"

the other day before The Great Erasure

Maniac

10 Feb 2006, 04:04 AM

In that case, we are too late. There is no placating Islamic extremism, full stop. We can forget about appeasement, finding common ground etc. War is inevitable.

100% agreed. These people only understand force. When it comes to islamic extremists, diplomacy is dead.

You're right, but what next? Does the West retreat and say "Oh yes, we were wrong, come Islamic extremists, run over our country because we made a mistake". The West has made many mistakes, but none so heinous as to subject themselves to Islam's wrath. The U.S. is no angel, and I feel as distant from the Bush Administration and the Howard Government as I do from Islamic fundamentalists. Let them fight it out between themselves (and oh yes, they will).

They will. I wonder what side nemesis will fight on?

You are right... yet there is a sense you are condoning terrorism as a valid response/tactic/behaviour. And a "Well, we had it coming, what do you expect?" kind of attitude. An inference that the West deserved it (which I completely reject).

As do I.

Maybe my government and my culture is partially responsible for the state of the world today, but that doesn't excuse for a minute the despicable acts of Islamic terrorists, who are just as, dare I say more, perverted.
It is also no reason to compromise my freedom or self-determination for the honour of some crazed religious fanatics. If they wish to change my life to their way of thinking, and invade my life, then I will staunchly refuse.

Well said.

MacGuffin

10 Feb 2006, 04:05 AM

People! This is not a contest to see how many posts in a row you can put up!

Superstring

10 Feb 2006, 04:11 AM

1) Your thread was popular. On this forum, that's usually not a good thing.

HAhaha.....so now you're saying arguing is a bad thing?

2) Test only info... yeah <_<

I don't quite see what's so hard to believe about that. Everyone I know knows their type. We've all either had to do it in school or have done it online, and sometimes talk about it, much like we do in this forum.

3) Then, um, why did you give me your opinion at all?

I guess read an INTP personality description, that should clear things up :-P

Claverhouse

10 Feb 2006, 04:11 AM

Before we let that become anti-semitic, to muslims we're all infidels, and to christians we're all potential people to be saved...

I am aware that any comment about jewish faith or people can be taken as anti-semitic if the stars are right, but the fact that jews quite naturally consider themselves a people apart, entirely unique, and the rest of humanity as potential enemies is not anti-jewish at all. I rather admire their thorough-going and entirely successful racialism that has kept them as a race together for 4 or 5 thousand years: racial awareness has made them strong and powerful.

However since I am personally not much interested in race much I prefer to define them as a religion ( accounting for the lower-case as with christians and muslims ) rather than a race ( in which case I'd use Jews, as with English or Iranian ). And I doubt if non-religious Jews count as jewish at all.

Claverhouse :ph34r:

Maniac

10 Feb 2006, 04:13 AM

I am aware that any comment about jewish faith or people can be taken as anti-semitic if the stars are right, but the fact that jews quite naturally consider themselves a people apart, entirely unique, and the rest of humanity as potential enemies is not anti-jewish at all. I rather admire their thorough-going and entirely successful racialism that has kept them as a race together for 4 or 5 thousand years: racial awareness has made them strong and powerful.

However since I am personally not much interested in race much I prefer to define them as a religion ( accounting for the lower-case as with christians and muslims ) rather than a race ( in which case I'd use Jews, as with English or Iranian ). And I doubt if non-religious Jews count as jewish at all.

Claverhouse :ph34r:

Ok then. I'll make sure to tell the Jewish people to start a riot then... which house is yours?

EDIT: Even if I take what you're saying is true, and I'll play devil's advocate, then this statement contradicts your previous logic. If the Jews consider everyone else anti-Jewish, and let me go even further and say that they hate all non-jews. Fine. Then you must hate muslims on an order of magnitude more, because not only do they hate outsiders, but they actually kill outsiders, for making cartoons nevertheless. However, you just wave your hand and say that "they were like this 1000 years ago, they're like this today." Excuse me while I drench myself in hypocrisy...

kuranes

10 Feb 2006, 04:27 AM

I hope this feud has run its course. You can't both have the last word. Enough.

kuranes

10 Feb 2006, 04:30 AM

Am I going to have to start deleting these myself ?

Serotonin

10 Feb 2006, 04:34 AM

Yawn. This thread has satisfied me enough and these two clowns are annoying. K is for Kuranes, and also keys. What kuranes does with these keys I am strongly endorsing.

Claverhouse

10 Feb 2006, 04:34 AM

Ok then. I'll make sure to tell the Jewish people to start a riot then... which house is yours?

What for ? I said I admired them: I know they're awful sensitive, but...

EDIT: Even if I take what you're saying is true, and I'll play devil's advocate, then this statement contradicts your previous logic. If the Jews consider everyone else anti-Jewish, and let me go even further and say that they hate all non-jews. Fine. Then you must hate muslims on an order of magnitude more, because not only do they hate outsiders, but they actually kill outsiders, for making cartoons nevertheless. However, you just wave your hand and say that "they were like this 1000 years ago, they're like this today." Excuse me while I drench myself in hypocrisy...

Even if they hated me, that's no reason for me to hate them, unless I chose to. All people, including groups, have the right to pursue their own ( often ill-perceived ) self-interest. I, or you, may not like what they think or do, but that is beside the point. Unless they commit a crime that can be punished --- and criminal acts should be punished, the acts, not the motives --- then they have the freedom to act as they want.

And, as said, resolute governments have the duty to defend and resist their enemies as well. ( However western democracy is so innately weak that instead of offering either resistance or a morally superior culture, it prefers to react hysterically at the thought of terrorism, launch illegal wars, and grovel for oil or money to whomever has it, including the terrorists own allies... )

Claverhouse :ph34r:

kuranes

10 Feb 2006, 04:41 AM

I have no objection to you and Maniac going off and starting your own "Maniac vs. Nemesis" thread. It's getting far away from the OP intentions, and thus is the "wrong history" to be preserved in this spot. In the future, a good idea would be to use more subtlety. Like martial arts masters morphing from one tense pose to another, in response to their opponent. Or ignoring the challenge if they think it comes from a child. No hair pulling.

kuranes

10 Feb 2006, 04:45 AM

Someone likes walking close to the edge. I'm getting annoyed. Need I say more?

SensEye

10 Feb 2006, 04:48 AM

I have no objection to you and Maniac going off and starting your own "Maniac vs. Nemesis" thread. No objection? Really? I guess waste of bandwidth doesn't count anymore. Damned cheap bandwidth.:rant:

kuranes

10 Feb 2006, 05:33 AM

Small ( short ) derailments to talk about Jews is OK, since they came up naturally in the thread, due to comparisons. If it becomes obvious that parties want to concentrate on the subject of just that, this will require a separate thread.

kuranes

10 Feb 2006, 05:43 AM

We may have to lock the thread if the flames start up again. There are some behind the scenes things going on.

Chimera

10 Feb 2006, 06:21 AM

You're right, but what next? Does the West retreat and say "Oh yes, we were wrong, come Islamic extremists, run over our country because we made a mistake". The West has made many mistakes, but none so heinous as to subject themselves to Islam's wrath. The U.S. is no angel, and I feel as distant from the Bush Administration and the Howard Government as I do from Islamic fundamentalists. Let them fight it out between themselves (and oh yes, they will).

You are right... yet there is a sense you are condoning terrorism as a valid response/tactic/behaviour. And a "Well, we had it coming, what do you expect?" kind of attitude. An inference that the West deserved it (which I completely reject).

Well I think that's an unfair inference from what I said, but you probably felt the same about my original post towards your thread, so ok. Needless to say, I don't condone the killing of innocents, no matter who's doing it, nor am I claiming that you are. We're just talking.

As for what next, I admit I don't have a good answer for that. I think part of it truly is engaging these countries in trade like the example I gave with China. Buy their oil, allow them to get rich, that is the quickest death to fundamentalism that I know. I'm sure there are other options beside all out conflict. Like you, I don't have much optimism in our leaders, or that they will choose a wise course.

We're talking in the abstract, about what our governments should do. Most likely we have little influence on what they actually will do. In order to not get depressed about it, I tell myself to just worry about the things I can control, and that's nonparticipation in anything I believe is wrong. All I see in the political arena is exacting vengence where there should be justice. Worrying more about as nebulous and collective a concept as national pride, for why we as individuals should have to support whatever actions the state engages in.

I realize my little protest isn't gonna change the world, but it's the only weapon in my arsenal. Now if muslim extremists come storming up from mexico, I'm sure I can find something of a different caliber. :)

My family hasn't oppressed Muslims. I feel so removed from this conflict, yet I can't help but whine and bitch about how the world loves to make war. This is essentially the philosophy behind me starting this thread.

Maybe my government and my culture is partially responsible for the state of the world today, but that doesn't excuse for a minute the despicable acts of Islamic terrorists, who are just as, dare I say more, perverted.
It is also no reason to compromise my freedom or self-determination for the honour of some crazed religious fanatics. If they wish to change my life to their way of thinking, and invade my life, then I will staunchly refuse.

I agree. Self-determination, right to existance, we all hold these values dear. So do Israelis and Muslims. I just felt the original article is one step towards dehumanizing muslims as an abstract group, when our issues are with individuals. If you really are threatened in that sense, I think you would be justified in defending yourself (not that you need my permission).

Serotonin

10 Feb 2006, 06:33 AM

I just felt the original article is one step towards dehumanizing muslims as an abstract group, when our issues are with individuals.

For the record I agree with the rest of your post... but....

How do we define a culture? I am Australian, I live in the West, under a democratic society. Does that mean I am a typical Westerner and therefore am a rugged individualist, and support free markets unequivocally etc etc?

No, and I'm not saying all muslims are incapable of feeling shame either. However, the dehumanisation that you speak of will happen in the minds of a select bunch of people, who read this article and want to re-inforce their prejudice that ALL muslims are barbaric. The article itself talks about the culture, and gives example of reactions of a stereotypical Muslim to provocation. It is not the breadth of sentiment amongst the individuals that constitute that culture (which I'm sure is large).

However, I think the trend and the tendency of the behaviour of some muslims has resonance with the concept in the thread. This resonance I think is valid enough to make the article hold its own against competing interpretations of today's Islam.

Chimera

10 Feb 2006, 07:01 AM

For the record I agree with the rest of your post... but....

How do we define a culture? I am Australian, I live in the West, under a democratic society. Does that mean I am a typical Westerner and therefore am a rugged individualist, and support free markets unequivocally etc etc?

I don't see why it would mean that, but I think you're being rhetorical, commenting on how we all use stereotypes in forming our models of people, then fill in the details later.

No, and I'm not saying all muslims are incapable of feeling shame either. However, the dehumanisation that you speak of will happen in the minds of a select bunch of people, who read this article and want to re-inforce their prejudice that ALL muslims are barbaric. The article itself talks about the culture, and gives example of reactions of a stereotypical Muslim to provocation. It is not the breadth of sentiment amongst the individuals that constitute that culture (which I'm sure is large).

Right, it wasn't so much the contents of the article, but knowing how it would be interpeted by those that read it. I suppose I shouldn't worry about that, another thing out of my control.

However, I think the trend and the tendency of the behaviour of some muslims has resonance with the concept in the thread. This resonance I think is valid enough to make the article hold its own against competing interpretations of today's Islam.

I agree that is the perception, but I must admit I'm not really worried about extremist Islam becoming a dominant ideology, because it is narrow and inflexible. I think it's growth will always be limited by this. Really the only way I could see that happening is if there is all out war and a new caliphate emerges to unite the middle east.