• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Burning a man alive WTF

Look, religions are all largely bunkum in some form or another. Oppose them all, or oppose none: discriminating when it comes to judging one imaginary friend worse than another won't help us one bit, from both a moral and practical standpoint.
I agree with pretty much all of that (other than the deism bit).

Surely Islamophobia is just a part of a correct mindset. I'm not sure Christianophobia is a word but I feel it every bit as strongly as Islamophobia. The only one I would struggle to append "ophobia" to is probably Buddhism - mainly because I have too much hatred of gap year cvnts to call it a phobia, it's just flat out hatred.
 
Don't know if you've seen Four Lions, scara, but it's a great movie that you and anyone else interested in this sort of discussion should take a gander at, if you haven't already - it encapsulates a lot of the moral complexity that comes with dealing with the radicals in Islam, and it's mostly chuckle-worthy in its own right as a decent comedy.
:)

Edit: Buddhists and Marley: basically my undergraduate uni dorm, so needless to say I agree with you there. :) And yeah, I've got nothing against your views on all religions: it's just single out one of 'em that gets my goat.
 
Is islamaphobia necessarily wrong?

I'd say that as a rational thinker it's entirely logical, if not expected, that I dislike all religions. And I don't think it's unwise to be at least a little perturbed by anyone who modifies their behaviour based on the voices in their head from their imaginary friend.

A phobia is an irrational fear of something.
 
Not only would I say yes (although I have neither the stomach nor the courage to physically do so myself) I'd say it's a moral imperative that one does.

There's a really good version of the trolley problem I linked you to where it's not just yes/no, it's no/morally acceptable/morally imperative. I can't find the link but it's a little more enlightening. Most people are less clear cut than I am and suggest that killing the fat man (the innocent one) is morally acceptable but not imperative. I believe it's imperative.

Really.... but that kid with a 10 year old life expectancy beats the odds and lives till 76. Not only that, he is a freaking genius and saves the lives through his inventions of a billion people..... But you would have him killed?
 
I was very sad at how this thread has turned out, it was created because of my utter bewilderment and failure to understand how people could do something so barbaric. I feel people are trying to over think something that does not need it I am also saddened that I feel the have been frankly what I would call apologists for the actions that the terrorists perpetuated.
 
I was very sad at how this forum has turned out, it was created because of my utter bewilderment and failure to understand how people could do something so barbaric. I feel people are trying to over think something that does not need it I am also saddened that I feel the have been frankly what I would call apologists for the actions that the terrorists perpetuated.

Fixed for you Chich!

See you on the other side mate.
 
I was very sad at how this thread has turned out, it was created because of my utter bewilderment and failure to understand how people could do something so barbaric. I feel people are trying to over think something that does not need it I am also saddened that I feel the have been frankly what I would call apologists for the actions that the terrorists perpetuated.
Dude who are the apologists x?
 
A phobia is an irrational fear of something.
Since when has the term Islamophobia ever been used to describe an irrational fear of Islam? In fact, it's not even used to describe a fear - it's most commonly used to describe either a dislike or a hatred of it.

There's every reason for a rational person to have a dislike and a hatred of religion.
 
Really.... but that kid with a 10 year old life expectancy beats the odds and lives till 76. Not only that, he is a freaking genius and saves the lives through his inventions of a billion people..... But you would have him killed?
I said that it was a moral imperative to save that kid - try reading my post.
 
hello mate,

i'll bite ;-)

I didn't suggest it did save more lives overall (although I think it probably did). I'm just testing the suggestion that doing so can only be evil and cannot be right by avoiding a worse outcome.

To test the theory you'd have to present an example, otherwise it is simply that; a theory. And one which remains wrong until proven otherwise.

What if killing that many people was the only way to save the human race as a whole? What if they were Arsenal fans? Or gingers?

The first part is the sort of thing that Jim Jones tried to tell his merry followers - sadly most of the idiots bought it. The second and third made me laugh, and then consider Perry Groves. Then i stopped because considering him was a damaging memory.

Out of interest and for a bit of context would you mind answering the following and letting me know your answers?
Trolley problem

Obviously I understand if you don't want to share.

Great stuff, very interesting.I shall seek more of these scenarios out in the times where I pootle around the internet...in short...

<<Should You Kill the Fat Man? - Analysis 1
A Matter of Consistency

The first thing to note is that your consistency score is 100%. This is higher than the average score for this test (where higher is better), which is 78%.>>

Basically, in each situation i said I would not divert the train, throw the batman off the bridge or torture him, simply because I would believe that the situation would always offer more than two choices, and that an intelligent human being should seek those out. In the case of the torture, it is my belief that rarely does torture produce truth, only the human need to shut off the pain. I would take another approach personally! I know I know, I'm not playing fairly hahahaha...
 
I think one of the single greatest problems with ISIS is that they simply do not reflect any faith. It appears to me they have hijacked Islam because it suits their Genghis Kahn-like appetite, and to me they are simply an extreme and disparate collection of marauding thieves and murderers who know how to get bodies into the cause. I never thought it was possible to unleash so many despicable sociopaths upon this plant, but they have proven me wrong. As for the cannon-fodder they've picked up along the way, ignorant and hopeless doesn't begin to cover it...




It is wrong for two reasons: firstly, it singles out Islam and Muslims for special discrimination, and secondly, it is deeply counter-productive. The first point relates to your own views on the subject, which largely echo with mine: I'm not a religious man, and save for some vague notions regarding Deism which I'd like to eventually explore when I've got the time to do so, I don't think much of spiritual pursuits and generally see them as geopolitical tools more than anything else. However, Islamophobia singles out that particular religion, and that's just wrong in my view: I've seen enough religions in action during my travels and in my place of ethnic origin (India) to know that Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and even Jews can at times be as violent and barbaric as the very worst Islamists when it comes to defending their own imaginary friends, and all of the holy books written a thousand years ago seem deeply flawed today in one form or another (Sikhism and Jainism are rare exceptions to this general rule, but even they have flaws). Islam has over a billion adherents with hugely different views and values, but its birthplace is in the ever-roiling Middle East, center of the West's media attention: its own flaws and problems are magnified a thousand fold due to that unfortunate circumstance, while gay men being necklaced in deeply Christian Uganda, Buddhists massacring Muslims in Myanmar, and Hindu extremists killing Christian missionaries in India are overlooked because they don't happen to be the Western media's targets for ire. I'd be happy with all religions being equally disdained by the populace (while still being allowed to exist, of course), but picking on Islam because the lunatics in the religion get so much screen time compared to the rest is just wrong from my logical standpoint.

The second reason Islamophobia isn't a good thing is, as mentioned before, that it is deeply counter- productive. If we in the West alienate Muslims already here, they'll only withdraw further into their own communities, which will then create endless opportunities for power-hungry mullahs to keep them scared of the wider society outside their mosques and communities and thus radicalize the previously moderate populations. And any actions loonies drunk on Islamophobia take against the Muslim community in particular (again, discriminating against them somewhat unfairly) will create endless fuel for the ISISes and Al-Qaedas to use in their recruitment videos and war against the 'Crusaders'. It serves no practical purpose, and only harms the West.

Look, religions are all largely bunkum in some form or another. Oppose them all, or oppose none: discriminating when it comes to judging one imaginary friend worse than another won't help us one bit, from both a moral and practical standpoint.
 
Really.... but that kid with a 10 year old life expectancy beats the odds and lives till 76. Not only that, he is a freaking genius and saves the lives through his inventions of a billion people..... But you would have him killed?

What? How is this a point?

Surely if this hypothetical is relevant all other hypothetical situations must also be considered? The one kid grows up engulfed in shame and is plunged into mental illness where eventually he kills hundreds in a psychotic rage? Or one of the 5 other kids might be a genius saving the lives of a billion people...

Surely the likelihood of saving a potential genius that can save a billion is greater if you save 5 lives instead of 1?

Most people accept as a basis for the discussion that saving 5 lives is better than saving 1 and ignore the endless number of potential hypothetical situations. That's not the interesting part of the conversation.
 
Since when has the term Islamophobia ever been used to describe an irrational fear of Islam? In fact, it's not even used to describe a fear - it's most commonly used to describe either a dislike or a hatred of it.

There's every reason for a rational person to have a dislike and a hatred of religion.

Agreed.

Sometimes I almost get the feeling that the term is being confused on purpose.

hello mate,

i'll bite ;-)

At least you know you're not playing fair ;)

I think it's a much better exercise if you accept the terms of the scenario despite the difficulty in doing so.

It's very interesting how people's views change quite drastically depending on the specific situation, despite the utilitarian outcome being the same (not true for the torture bit). I think the primary value of something like this is realizing that our morals are not strictly utilitarian, and as Scara said it might be about what people can themselves find the courage to do.
 
It is wrong for two reasons: firstly, it singles out Islam and Muslims for special discrimination, and secondly, it is deeply counter-productive. The first point relates to your own views on the subject, which largely echo with mine: I'm not a religious man, and save for some vague notions regarding Deism which I'd like to eventually explore when I've got the time to do so, I don't think much of spiritual pursuits and generally see them as geopolitical tools more than anything else. However, Islamophobia singles out that particular religion, and that's just wrong in my view: I've seen enough religions in action during my travels and in my place of ethnic origin (India) to know that Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and even Jews can at times be as violent and barbaric as the very worst Islamists when it comes to defending their own imaginary friends, and all of the holy books written a thousand years ago seem deeply flawed today in one form or another (Sikhism and Jainism are rare exceptions to this general rule, but even they have flaws). Islam has over a billion adherents with hugely different views and values, but its birthplace is in the ever-roiling Middle East, center of the West's media attention: its own flaws and problems are magnified a thousand fold due to that unfortunate circumstance, while gay men being necklaced in deeply Christian Uganda, Buddhists massacring Muslims in Myanmar, and Hindu extremists killing Christian missionaries in India are overlooked because they don't happen to be the Western media's targets for ire. I'd be happy with all religions being equally disdained by the populace (while still being allowed to exist, of course), but picking on Islam because the lunatics in the religion get so much screen time compared to the rest is just wrong from my logical standpoint.

The second reason Islamophobia isn't a good thing is, as mentioned before, that it is deeply counter- productive. If we in the West alienate Muslims already here, they'll only withdraw further into their own communities, which will then create endless opportunities for power-hungry mullahs to keep them scared of the wider society outside their mosques and communities and thus radicalize the previously moderate populations. And any actions loonies drunk on Islamophobia take against the Muslim community in particular (again, discriminating against them somewhat unfairly) will create endless fuel for the ISISes and Al-Qaedas to use in their recruitment videos and war against the 'Crusaders'. It serves no practical purpose, and only harms the West.

Look, religions are all largely bunkum in some form or another. Oppose them all, or oppose none: discriminating when it comes to judging one imaginary friend worse than another won't help us one bit, from both a moral and practical standpoint.

I'm both an atheist and an anti-theist. I have a rather severe distrust and dislike of all religions. I think the concepts of faith, vicarious redemption, false promises of an afterlife, holy books and holy land etc are deeply harmful to society and human happiness and progress. I could expand well into tldr territory, but I don't think it's necessary. This is not just a point of principle, I think that there's an inherent threat from this irrationality in whatever form it's presented.

However, I also think that some religions are a bigger threat than others at this point in time. And I think Islam is a bigger threat to peace and prosperity right now than the other world religions. I don't think that's particularly controversial, or if it is controversial I think at least some understanding of why I think this should be self evident. As such I think it's fair to single out Islam over other religions for criticism and opposition. Particularly because under the all too viable threat of violence we're being told that we can't criticize Islam. You mention examples of atrocities committed by other religious groups and I agree, criticism and condemnation here is clearly in place. But are you really arguing that Islam is in no way a bigger threat than other religions?

It's not always been the case that Islam had this position. Hitchens used to argue how during the 1930s the Catholic church was rather clearly the bigger threat to humanity because of it's alliance with fascism. It would then have been much more important to voice concerns and criticisms of the Catholic church than Islam and such a "discrimination" would have been apt in my eyes at least. The threat posed by a nuclear Iran is just much greater than the threat posed by Myanmar.

To some extent it depends on what you mean by "Islamophobia". If you use a rather literal interpretation of that word I can see your point, an irrational fear will almost certainly be counter productive. But I think Islam deserves a lot of criticism and most certainly criticism that will attracts labels like Islamophobia by those who use such loaded terms on purpose to slander those they disagree with. (Not at all saying, or implying that you're one of them just to be perfectly clear).

I think the undue respect and reverence religion has had for too long is a much greater factor in the problems we currently have than you seem to think. I think the shift in zeitgeist where criticism of religion is becoming more common is a very good thing, despite some obvious and unfortunate side effects.
 
To test the theory you'd have to present an example, otherwise it is simply that; a theory. And one which remains wrong until proven otherwise.


OK, here's an example:

There's a madman, let's call him Muhammed, who is about to lob a grenade into a busy school playground - pin's out, arm back, about to launch. You are too far away to physically stop him, but you do have a gun and you're a pretty good shot. You're confident that you can shoot Muhammed and stop him before he throws the grenade. Unfortunately, there's a few people stood next to him with no idea what's going on - shooting Muhammed will almost certainly kill them.

Muhammed used to play cricket for Pakistan so he's unlikely to miss his throw.

The first part is the sort of thing that Jim Jones tried to tell his merry followers - sadly most of the idiots bought it. The second and third made me laugh, and then consider Perry Groves. Then i stopped because considering him was a damaging memory.


It's a logical extension of the problem though. Especially when in response to the fact that it is never the right decision to kill that many civilians. Surely it's logical to test that statement at the extreme?

Great stuff, very interesting.I shall seek more of these scenarios out in the times where I pootle around the internet...in short...
<<Should You Kill the Fat Man? - Analysis 1
A Matter of Consistency

The first thing to note is that your consistency score is 100%. This is higher than the average score for this test (where higher is better), which is 78%.>>

Basically, in each situation i said I would not divert the train, throw the batman off the bridge or torture him, simply because I would believe that the situation would always offer more than two choices, and that an intelligent human being should seek those out. In the case of the torture, it is my belief that rarely does torture produce truth, only the human need to shut off the pain. I would take another approach personally! I know I know, I'm not playing fairly hahahaha...
Sorry mate, but as braineclipse has already stated the exercise has those parameters for a reason. It's a massive cop out just changing the parameters on a thought exercise. Otherwise we could start coming up with after-the-event knowledge like the fat man being a rapist or something.
 
I'm both an atheist and an anti-theist. I have a rather severe distrust and dislike of all religions. I think the concepts of faith, vicarious redemption, false promises of an afterlife, holy books and holy land etc are deeply harmful to society and human happiness and progress. I could expand well into tldr territory, but I don't think it's necessary. This is not just a point of principle, I think that there's an inherent threat from this irrationality in whatever form it's presented.

However, I also think that some religions are a bigger threat than others at this point in time. And I think Islam is a bigger threat to peace and prosperity right now than the other world religions. I don't think that's particularly controversial, or if it is controversial I think at least some understanding of why I think this should be self evident. As such I think it's fair to single out Islam over other religions for criticism and opposition. Particularly because under the all too viable threat of violence we're being told that we can't criticize Islam. You mention examples of atrocities committed by other religious groups and I agree, criticism and condemnation here is clearly in place. But are you really arguing that Islam is in no way a bigger threat than other religions?

It's not always been the case that Islam had this position. Hitchens used to argue how during the 1930s the Catholic church was rather clearly the bigger threat to humanity because of it's alliance with fascism. It would then have been much more important to voice concerns and criticisms of the Catholic church than Islam and such a "discrimination" would have been apt in my eyes at least. The threat posed by a nuclear Iran is just much greater than the threat posed by Myanmar.

To some extent it depends on what you mean by "Islamophobia". If you use a rather literal interpretation of that word I can see your point, an irrational fear will almost certainly be counter productive. But I think Islam deserves a lot of criticism and most certainly criticism that will attracts labels like Islamophobia by those who use such loaded terms on purpose to slander those they disagree with. (Not at all saying, or implying that you're one of them just to be perfectly clear).

I think the undue respect and reverence religion has had for too long is a much greater factor in the problems we currently have than you seem to think. I think the shift in zeitgeist where criticism of religion is becoming more common is a very good thing, despite some obvious and unfortunate side effects.

Okay, well, there's a 9,948 character message incoming, braine: suffice it to say, you brought this upon yourself. :) Anyway, the highlighted point is where the beginning of my reply starts up: I couldn't actually fit a quote of your post into the actual reply. So, read on....
 
Back