Help neutralizing idiocy

Mettyx · **Joined:** Mon Mar 05, 2012 1:00 pm **Posts:** 173

This kind of faux-liberal idiocy needs to be fought back.

So could you just click like on this response inthe comments section-
(CTRL+F Caldwell)

Quote:

Oh, it's one of those morally repugnant and intellectually bankrupt articles on Alternet defending the most violent, repulsive, anti-human rights, anti-science, anti-democracy superstitions in the world.

Two points:

1.
There is no such thing as “Islamophobia.” This is a term of propaganda designed to protect Islam from the forces of secularism by conflating all criticism of it with racism and xenophobia. In fact, people(pseudo-leftist useful idiots) who use it are racists because they believe you can't make Muslims accountable on the same level as you would everyone else.

2.The meaningless and deceitful notion of fundamentalism, to quote an ex-muslim, A.Rivzi:

"I also understand that extremism in any ideology isn’t a distortion of that ideology. It is an informed, steadfast adherence to its fundamentals, hence the term “fundamentalism.” When you think of a left-wing extremist, do you think of a greedy capitalist? Would you imagine a right-wing extremist to be dedicated to government-funded social welfare programs? The “extremists” and strict followers of the Jain faith,
which values the life of every being, including insects, don’t kill more than their average co-religionists. Instead, they avoid eating foods stored overnight so as not to kill even the microorganisms that may have collected in the meantime. In a true religion of peace, the “extremists” would be nonviolent pacifists to an extreme (and perhaps annoying) degree, not the opposite."

Please Alternet, articles like these are a nasty stain on your credibility, rationality, reputation.

I think that's the best response of all the comments(it's not me) I've read so far.

Reachable · **Posted:** Wed May 15, 2013 3:29 pm

I suspect that the term "fundamentalism" was coined or adopted by those embracing it as a way of justifying their beliefs by proclaiming that their beliefs are the true and basic.

The commenter quoted fails to understand that extremism within the whole domain of an established religion is a different ideology than that held by most others under the same religious brand. You can't make a valid analogy between that and a specific secular philosophy because you're talking about a different philosophy under an umbrella that contains many.

All the major religions share the core values of peace and brotherhood, so, yes, it's fair to say that fundamentalists of all stripes distort their religion's basic values.

Mettyx · **Joined:** Mon Mar 05, 2012 1:00 pm **Posts:** 173

You mean how a muslim biologist tried to talk about evolution in UK, received death threats and then completely backtracked?

Or how third of the muslims born and raised in UK think it would be OK to kill people for leaving islam?

What minority are you talking about exactly, is 25% a minority and the rest consider this OK?

Was over 100 000 muslims in Bangladesh gathered to demand the burning of atheist bloggers a minority?
Do you know how hard it is to gather 10 000 people for anything let alone 100 000?

xan_user · **Posted:** Thu May 16, 2013 8:42 pm

Mettyx wrote:

Do you know how hard it is to gather 10 000 people for anything let alone 100 000?

its not that hard if you serve beer and hand out free cigarettes...

Quote:

According to NASCAR estimates, 3,518,000 million attended last year's 36 Sprint Cup races. The average of 97,722 per event was the lowest since NASCAR began adding the crowd figures to race reports and down from a high of 4,670,400 (129,733 per race) in the 2005 season.

Reachable · **Posted:** Fri May 17, 2013 9:40 am

xan_user wrote:

Mettyx wrote:

Do you know how hard it is to gather 10 000 people for anything let alone 100 000?

its not that hard if you serve beer and hand out free cigarettes...

Quote:

According to NASCAR estimates, 3,518,000 million attended last year's 36 Sprint Cup races. The average of 97,722 per event was the lowest since NASCAR began adding the crowd figures to race reports and down from a high of 4,670,400 (129,733 per race) in the 2005 season.

That's so spot on!

Consider these characteristics of a religious subgroup:

1) The fervent belief that those of their religion are universally persecuted.

2) Vocal public condemnations of other religions as being misguided or inferior.

You can see these come all stripes, including fundamentalist Atheists, which (I think) are in the minority.

By the way, the 19th century American Christian fundamentalists were the progressive, tolerant ones, and there may still be groups like that around, so one should be wary of rigid definitions.

Mettyx · **Joined:** Mon Mar 05, 2012 1:00 pm **Posts:** 173

Reachable wrote:

including fundamentalist Atheists

LOL, could you define what a "fundamentalist Atheist" is?
Such nonsensical contortion would be hilarious...actually I'm surprised you didn't use the word "militant".

Lucky Luciano · **Posted:** Sat May 18, 2013 12:28 am

I'd say (as an atheist myself) that Richard Dawkins is a pretty good example of a both fundamentalist and militant atheist.

As for extremist islam - perhaps stopping the bombing of their countries, the targeted assassinations of "suspected" terrorists(and thousands of innocents killed as "collateral damage"), the support for despots and the toppling of inconvenient regimes could diminish it.

This is my 1st post on this forum, not the best place to start I guess. :roll:

Cistron · **Posted:** Sat May 18, 2013 2:05 am

Lucky Luciano wrote:

I'd say (as an atheist myself) that Richard Dawkins is a pretty good example of a both fundamentalist and militant atheist.

I'd say he just loses patience too quickly after explaining evolution for the n-th time. However, it surely makes good television seeing him go up against hard-lining evangelist Christians telling them how stupid they are. For that matter, Stephen Fry is amazingly entertaining when he's on a catholic bashing run as well.

Never heard of Alternet. Is this an important "news" channel to the west of the big pond?

Mettyx · **Joined:** Mon Mar 05, 2012 1:00 pm **Posts:** 173

Lucky Luciano wrote:

As for extremist islam - perhaps stopping the bombing of their countries, the targeted assassinations of "suspected" terrorists(and thousands of innocents killed as "collateral damage"), the support for despots and the toppling of inconvenient regimes could diminish it.

This is a falsehood perpetrated and proliferated by aforementioned pseudo-liberal useful idiots and islamists.

This is a recount of Thomas Jefferson’s meeting in 1786 with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, Libya’s ambassador to London. Jefferson noted:

Quote:

The ambassador answered us that [their right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

This thread of jihadist thought continues to this day. Yet while those words were once imputed to religious belief, now many "liberals" desperately ascribe them to causes not in existence in 1786.
So where did Abdul Rahman Adja’s bin Laden-esque words come from?

They couldn’t have been a response to American imperialism (the start of the conflict precedes the presidency of George Washington), U.S. foreign policy, globalization, AIPAC or Islamophobia. Yet his words are virtually identical to those spouted ad nauseum by jihadists today who justify their bellicosity as a reaction to these U.S.-centric factors, which were nonexistent in Adja’s time.

How do we make sense of this? Well, the common denominator here just happens to be the elephant in the room.

P.S.
I believe the main reason why there are so many useful idiots in the west is emotional comfort, it is much easier to believe west is evil and all this is reactionary than it is to believe that a large chunk of human population are for all intents and purposes barbarians, their brains rotted by toxic and violent superstition.

xan_user · **Posted:** Sat May 18, 2013 7:00 am

Quote:

The ambassador answered us that [their right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

isnt that basically what dubya (and his dad) said about invading islam?

Mettyx · **Joined:** Mon Mar 05, 2012 1:00 pm **Posts:** 173

xan_user wrote:

isnt that basically what dubya (and his dad) said about invading islam?

WTF?
They invaded Iraq because of its invasion of Kuwait, helped by the corporate oil interests. Second time the same, corporate neocon interests helped by desire to finish daddy's unfinished business.
It's exactly this kind of "liberal" idiocy I'm talking about, "invading islam"?? That's not even coherent.

xan_user · **Posted:** Sat May 18, 2013 2:03 pm

Mettyx wrote:

xan_user wrote:

isnt that basically what dubya (and his dad) said about invading islam?

WTF?

if a certain predominantly christian, western country in the northern hemisphere was invaded, wouldn't a lot of Christians (like the bushes for example) call it "invading god's country"?

dubya said his invasion was an order to him directly from god. invading Iraq and Afghanistan was a modern day Spanish inquisition, it was just veiled well. we just do a better job of hiding our western jihad message against islam, while they are just more upfront when they speak of their belief in their book.

btw, we gave Hussein the green light to invade kuwait when the bush administration told him we would not get involved in their "petty border disputes" when he came to US for help in stopping kuwait from illegally slant drilling into iraq.

the real idiocy in this world, is not being able to step back and look at both sides, as if you were actually in their shoes, or at least in their neighbors shoes.

andymcca · **Posted:** Sun May 19, 2013 8:57 am

trololololol?
Otherwise Mettyx zomg you're so right please go be content in your rightness and stop bothering the clueless rest of humanity who will never see the Truth.

whispercat · **Posted:** Mon May 20, 2013 9:50 am

Mettyx wrote:

Reachable wrote:

including fundamentalist Atheists

LOL, could you define what a "fundamentalist Atheist" is? Such nonsensical contortion would be hilarious...actually I'm surprised you didn't use the word "militant".

Militant Atheists

I'm trying to figure out what you've been smoking. I thought this was common knowledge.

xan_user · **Posted:** Mon May 20, 2013 7:54 pm

But, how many years will it be before the tea-baggers qualify as militant anarchists? (or are they already?)

Mettyx · **Joined:** Mon Mar 05, 2012 1:00 pm **Posts:** 173

Am I a militant gravitationalist? A militant human induced global warming believer? When did being so highly informed about a topic such that truly remarkable new evidence is required to change an informed persons mind, be defined as militant?
Are all of the world's experts "militant" about their topic? I'm sorry, but I have very little intellectual respect for someone who is so twisted that they reject the evidence for gravity. This is not militancy. Militant religionists like David Koresh, Bin Laden, Scott Roeder and Timothy McVeigh (even Jim Jones wasn't militant) deserve the title, but there are no equivalent atheists (and don't start with Hitler, who was a christian or Stalin or any other cultist, if you displayed any rationality in their regimes you were likely to be killed).

colm · **Posted:** Thu May 23, 2013 2:24 pm

Mettyx wrote:

Reachable wrote:

including fundamentalist Atheists

LOL, could you define what a "fundamentalist Atheist" is?
Such nonsensical contortion would be hilarious...actually I'm surprised you didn't use the word "militant".

each one of them is standing alone.
I tend to avoid politics and religion...

its about bringing together, and peaceful boundaries.

a desire to go ape and maul someone is time to leave.

Help neutralizing idiocy

Who is online