Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
And we all know that broom is the opposite of peace!!:fright:
He does my girlfriend's lawn... But I don't think he sweeps the patio.
I fail to see any hard evidence - only ad homs
All you do is talk about how you have rebutted all arguments without any links and insult people who ask you precisely what you are talking about.
In fact I think you are so involved in the infantile pursuit of insulting others that you have not only lost track of the rebuttals against your arguments but even what your own original arguments were.
IOW you can't summarize your own arguments much like the charges against those arguments.
Maybe you just want to engage in ad homs?
:shrug:
A clear problem with the examples you give is they are isolated to small pockets of geography. IOW you may see christians vs muslims in a small part (as opposed to christians vs muslims in toto) usually with a long history of the two or more groups co-existing without violence. This tends to suggest its operating out of a political framework (as opposed to a religious framework). This becomes even more obvious when one analyzes the catalysts for such conflict ..... and it becomes even more obvious when the resolution to such conflict comes out of a political framework ( they certainly don't resolve differences on a religious framework).
IOW what you are indicating as religious conflict is actually political conflict occurring on a cultural landscape that happens to be religious
(IOW its the nature of political conflict to exacerbate any differences, whether it be forehead shape as in the case of Rwanda or religious slants in the case of the middle east)
I haven't discussed any issues about greed with you.
You have mostly been discussing animal slaughter with me .... with you positing a seemingly absurd argument that reduced frequency and better living conditions don't come into play in a discussion on violence.
And do you ask yourself questions about the historical consistencies of such acts of violence in the region?
Or do you just look at on face value?
I don't see any links for these events you reference
Last edited:
Do you bother to ask yourself whether this is a timeless practice?
In fact can you give an answer as to why this practice has become prominent in recent times without calling about a purely political discourse?
@LG --
Deliberately obtuse as always.
I was asking, nay, demanding that you support your as of yet unsupported assertion that I've engaged in ad hominem attacks in this thread. Either support your accusation or withdraw it.
I presented two separate cases of religiously motivated violence where the biggest motivator was the religious beliefs of those instigating the violence, this has yet to be refuted by you or anyone else. Therefore your and Wynn's position is invalid as are your supporting arguments(until you show that me getting run out of a town because I was an atheist by a group of religious zealots was not religiously motivated violence that is, and that's something you're simply incapable of doing).
So far neither you, Wynn, nor anyone else has presented any valid arguments or rebuttals, every one of your arguments was shown to either be fallacious or just flat out wrong(i.e. they disagreed with the evidence). What am I supposed to be debating here? You and Wynn have clearly lost, and Wynn lost on the second page of this thread.
You're free to think what you will but I still demand to see the instances where I insulted anyone, especially those instances where I used such an insult in place of a valid argument(which is, I might remind you, what an ad hominem attack is).
The problem isn't that I've lost track of the rebuttals of my argument but that there haven't been any valid rebuttals of my argument. I've directly addressed almost all(if not all) such rebuttals and shown how they were fallacious or just plain wrong(such as Wynn's early accusation that I was taking scripture out of context).
Come up with a valid rebuttal and I'll address it, but I'm warning you ahead of time that if it's more of the same definitional bullshit that you and Wynn have been piling on us since the beginning of the thread I'm just going to ignore it. I've got better things to do than play dueling dictionaries with you two.
I've summarized them many times, but there's really no longer a point to this thread so it's a pointless waste of time for me to do so once again. My arguments are all there, recorded for all to see, as are every single example of religious violence that's been pointed out.
This thread is done, it's played out. Wynn wanted examples of religious violence and that's exactly what Wynn got, in spades, with personal accounts of religious violence as well as links to well documented occurrences of such violence. Ergo this thread should be closed as neither you nor Wynn(really the only two on your side) haven't put forward a meaningful argument in...oh...say thirty nine pages or so(I might be exaggerating just a tad there).
Again, you need to show where I've engaged in ad hominem attacks or withdraw the accusation(which could be a form of ad hominem in and of itself). Time to put up or shut up.
Deliberately obtuse as always.
I was asking, nay, demanding that you support your as of yet unsupported assertion that I've engaged in ad hominem attacks in this thread. Either support your accusation or withdraw it.
I presented two separate cases of religiously motivated violence where the biggest motivator was the religious beliefs of those instigating the violence, this has yet to be refuted by you or anyone else. Therefore your and Wynn's position is invalid as are your supporting arguments(until you show that me getting run out of a town because I was an atheist by a group of religious zealots was not religiously motivated violence that is, and that's something you're simply incapable of doing).
So far neither you, Wynn, nor anyone else has presented any valid arguments or rebuttals, every one of your arguments was shown to either be fallacious or just flat out wrong(i.e. they disagreed with the evidence). What am I supposed to be debating here? You and Wynn have clearly lost, and Wynn lost on the second page of this thread.
You're free to think what you will but I still demand to see the instances where I insulted anyone, especially those instances where I used such an insult in place of a valid argument(which is, I might remind you, what an ad hominem attack is).
The problem isn't that I've lost track of the rebuttals of my argument but that there haven't been any valid rebuttals of my argument. I've directly addressed almost all(if not all) such rebuttals and shown how they were fallacious or just plain wrong(such as Wynn's early accusation that I was taking scripture out of context).
Come up with a valid rebuttal and I'll address it, but I'm warning you ahead of time that if it's more of the same definitional bullshit that you and Wynn have been piling on us since the beginning of the thread I'm just going to ignore it. I've got better things to do than play dueling dictionaries with you two.
I've summarized them many times, but there's really no longer a point to this thread so it's a pointless waste of time for me to do so once again. My arguments are all there, recorded for all to see, as are every single example of religious violence that's been pointed out.
This thread is done, it's played out. Wynn wanted examples of religious violence and that's exactly what Wynn got, in spades, with personal accounts of religious violence as well as links to well documented occurrences of such violence. Ergo this thread should be closed as neither you nor Wynn(really the only two on your side) haven't put forward a meaningful argument in...oh...say thirty nine pages or so(I might be exaggerating just a tad there).
Again, you need to show where I've engaged in ad hominem attacks or withdraw the accusation(which could be a form of ad hominem in and of itself). Time to put up or shut up.
how can one get more direct than asking for links and evidence to the rebuttals you have purportedly addressed?
Can you find a post where you don't set out to offer personal insult?
From memory, one was anecdotal (your story about being driven out of town - big question marks on whether you were acting like an asshole - regardless we don't have any way to investigate the other parties claims so its all hearsay) and the other was political (spanish inquisition was a national body for spain - unless you have some far out explanation as to why persecuting horse smugglers is religious)
Again you omit essential details about exactly what you are arguing and how the rebuttals aren't serious and again you simply extol your own genius as if the only element for successful discussion is one's ability to say "I am right and I have proven it and you have not"
:shrug:
So if I just said (along the same lines as yourself) that your attempts top justify your arguments are more infantile than the crap from the three day old babies nappy that strikes you as a valid criticism?
lol
yet you can't even talk about them in detail except to say that there are two of them and that all rebuttals are irrelevant, and spend five times as many paragraphs talking about how smart you are and how dumb everyone else is who disagrees with you
I'm afraid that is not how (intelligent) discussion operates ....
Notice how you are not providing any details about how you refuted arguments - much like your story about being driven out of town for being an atheist , its all your hearsay
:shrug:
So if you and you alone can define terms you are prepared to discuss things ... how quaint ...
You have gone so far down the path of drivel that you can't even explain your position anymore
the only thing that is done here is quite clearly you.
Your can't explain yourself. You can't explain others.
All you can do is pout around the forum
Dude you are doing it right here.
Rather than explain what you think, or how what other's think is a response to it, you simply talk about specific personalities being smart and others being dumb.
eg - You are irrelevant, offering red herrings, obfuscating key elements, unable to offer refutations to my arguments, making propositions loaded with logical fallacies and thwarting essential definitions of the discussion. Oh and you also drench the forums in rotting bile secretions of dead coyotes that you lick off the side of the road.
See , I just re-established my position as more effective than yours ... pretty nifty, huh?
Last edited:
Bells
Staff member
So you think it would be religiously motivated violence to attack women and little girls because they are women and little girls by men and boys based on their religious beliefs if it was also something that was 'timeless' in practice?
What do you think of the role of women in the strict Orthodox rule of Judaism? More to the point, what do you think of their rights, or lack thereof in Jewish communities like at Beit Shemesh? There are even signs on the street saying where women and girls cannot walk and if any do walk there, they are attacked and abused, spat on, called whores and prostitutes. There is now, after the attack on the 8 year old girl, moves to try and actually apply the law and give women equal rights, laws that should have meant that women could be free to sit anywhere on a bus or walk down the street without being attacked and abused. And for many women, those attacks are quite violent, being pushed around, pushed to the ground, even have rocks and eggs thrown at them. This isn't a recent event or phenomenon but has been going on for quite some time. And it is the religious fight against the politics that claims women should have equal rights.
Were you even aware that women are physically attacked if they pray at the wall? That Haredi men literally go ape and are known to physically attack women who go there to pray? Again, this is not a recent phenomenon but one that is steeped in the religious laws of Judaism, that give women few rights and pretty much have women as the one who is beneath the man in the social and economic scale. While the majority of Jews have obviously moved away from that, there is a push to force it back into what would be deemed the religious laws.
Those men who spit on and attack women and little girls because they are walking down the street for reasons such as they believe the women are not covered enough or because they are actually walking on the footpath or street or not moving to the back of the bus where they apparently belong, do so because that is what their religion tells them about the role of women in society. And any woman seen to be acting against those rules is one who apparently deserves to be attacked for breaching said rules. The role of women is quite literally, written and the move away from that, to the more modern Western belief of equal rights angers many and so they attack any woman they deem to be acting outside of what they deem religiously acceptable. In short, it is purely and simply religiously motivated violence. It is not a recent or political movement but one that has been going on for more years than we might actually care to want to admit.
And it is spreading. The belief that men and women need to be segregated is not just in Israel. That is their religion. As one 19 year old male comments:
"The signs don't bother anybody," said Abraham Klein, 18. "Men and ladies don't go together. It's just our religion."
So when an 8 year old girl is attacked and spat on for walking on the street on her way to school, it is because "It's just our religion". And that violence is motivated by that religious belief.
Denying that is just as bad as Wynn demanding proof that a priest killing someone during an exorcism is religiously motivated violence. Because apparently exorcisms aren't religious now and any violence that occurs during said exorcisms performed by priests is not religious. But those straws must be clutched.
Bells
Staff member
Look up the meaning of halacha and how it applies to women and you might get some idea.
It is a recent phenomenon that women are even allowed to read or be taught the Talmud. This isn't new and the violence isn't new either. But hey, religious teachings are obviously not religious, are they? Just as a priest performing an exorcism isn't religious.
I don't see the Middle East and North America as "small pockets of geography"; we leave out, incidentally, almost the entire rest of the world here.
Ahh - but we do also see that they also, at times, do not co-exist without violence. Hence, you imply the existence of religiously motivated violence. And again the central point of the OP has been falsified.
Defend this assertion.
In what way are they not resolved on a religious framework? What is a religious framework? Please define.
Keyword: seemingly. Demonstrate that animals reared for religious slaughter have better living conditions and kinder treatment. Furthermore, in what way would reduced frequency of horribly painful slaughter correspond to the absence of religiously motivated violence. 'Absurd', indeed.
I examine motivation, that thing Wynn apparently thinks does not exist.
Did you really not follow that paragraph, or just trolling to the maximum possible extent?
Not quite
If the religion has been established for thousands of years you have to explain why the violence doesn't draw a constant example or even constant support
My point is that such explanations rely on political discourse - in this case political definitions of gender
you have to be precise which chronological and geographical area you are talking about since gender roles are constantly in a state of flux due to political waxing and waning
And now you have to ask yourself why the act draws tremendous criticism from jews, not only abroad, but of the same community.
This link might help you understand why but it certainly won't help you navigate the subject away from political dialogue (ie the real platform of conflict)
aka politics
IOW its kind of difficult to talk about transplanting one communities social conventions on another without digressing into politics
Its another to say that disregarding such social conventions permits acts of violence ... particularly when such acts draw strong criticism from the same (religious) community
and those persons who criticize them for doing that are less religious or something?
how does that work?
Far from being purely religiously motivated you will find that discussion (and ultimately resolution ) of it is purely political.
IOW far from placing "modern western belief" as schismatic to "religious belief" the two are symbiotic
In short, your relegating the conflict to religion effectively inhibits the resolution process
who is behind the "our"?
are the persons who are against violent acts not in "our" religion?
Or would it be more precise to declare that they are not part of "our" community ... and its the precise point of which community takes (political) precedence in Israel that is in question?
Its not too hard to find evidence of this
OTHER INSTANCES of radical Orthodoxy have begun to occur more frequently and the younger generation appears to have been swept away by its idealism. For a number of years, haredi men have hurled epithets, and even chairs, at monthly gatherings of Women of the Wall members, screaming “Nazis!” and “You caused the Holocaust!”
Does this strike you as evidence that they are implicating these women in the SS or something?
Or do you think its all about establishing a political status quo in the region?
Its motivated by (certain members of) the community, or more specifically what the community requires in order to identify itself .. ... mind you this doesn't even begin to discuss whether such protagonists are accepted as exemplary of the said community they are representing
Haredi man arrested on suspicion of assaulting woman in Beit Shemesh
The problem with you relegating it to religion is that you are denying the (natural) process of resolving (any) conflict.
IOW the real platform of conflict is the politics (given that the population is religious). Any sort of reconciliation will occur on the political platform - this is evidenced if you look at the ecclesiastical body of any religion that has been established for thousands of years.
Kind of like saying that slavery is religiously motivated (since there are many scriptural instructions on its implementation). I imagine that when it was on the way out you had many persons apparently citing the (so-called) religious authority of the practice but in truth the practice was governed by social and economic considerations and religion was accommodating an already existing social norm
Last edited:
I also don't see consistent examples of what you are alluding to in those areas
actually I am implying that the times when they don't get along must have some ulterior causes outside of religion since it is a constant cultural aspect of the landscape.
What are they in times of peace (which is by and large most of the time)?
Less religious?
Recovering from expending all their resources in the last conflict and stockpiling for the next?
Spidergoat posted earlier about muslims bombing christians in Nigeria. He used this to suggest that it was religiously motivated.
This neglects the rich history of conflict on the subject
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerian_Sharia_conflict
which clearly establishes it as being catalyzed, maintained and hopefully resolved by political dialogue.
IOW relegating it to religious conflict simply retards the resolution process since the very cause of it is political, not religious.
kosher has stricter guidelines for diseased animals - of course whether they actually adhere to kosher guidelines is another thing - in fact you could say that the fall down of the kosher system is that they are trying to apply it to an industrial model which effectively makes it non-kosher
First of all, all models of animal slaughter are horrible painful and a whole range of persons are implicated from the producer to the consumer. Its motivated by one thing only : Meat eating
The absurdity of yours is to suggest that getting a bolt to the head is significantly less violent than getting one's head chopped off, whereas (religious) guidelines that effectively reduce the consumption and improve the living condition of the victim are not.
IOW far from motivating violence, religion curtails a nefarious habit amongst a community that are sold out to perform it anyway.
I only ask because the nazi prosecution of jews is probably the most infamous act of political persecution of the 20th century.
IOW someone who suggests that the whole thing could have been avoided if attitudes to religion where different simply isn't familiar with the historical incidents that surround it
are you talking about a newsworthy event or are you simply talking about what you imagine goes on in Iran?
If its the former then provide a link if its the latter its not really relevant
Last edited:
?
It's not my position. I borrowed the greed, anger and delusion argument from Buddhism.
I think it's a good one - but I'm ready to see if anyone can refute it.
I think you have a strange idea of convicing someone. Apparently, it means simply 'to accept another's definitions and explanations, regardless of the counterarguments or other objections one might have.'
If you want to convince me, you have to ... well, convince me. This means you have to provide rebuttals to all my arguments - and rebuttals that I will find acceptable.
You were provided with examples of religiously motivated violence from the outset of this thread.
If you argue from that position as if it is your own then it is your position, even if just for the purposes of the thread.
Had you set up the thread as saying "The Buddhist position is...", but you didn't. You have argued it as being your position.
If two people have different definitions, look at the same event and come to different conclusions based upon the definitions they use... the best one can hope is an understanding that one's view is consistent with the definitions used.
Your position is "The Buddhist definition of violence is such that it is motivated only by X, Y or Z. Religion is not X, Y or Z therefore religion can not motivate violence."
Well, if you start with those definitions your position appears sound, if somewhat pointless for those who work from different definitions.
Unfortunately you can not accept that other people work with other definitions.
When they state: "here is religiously motivated violence" and they clearly show what they mean by violence and motivation, you still reply "but violence is only motivated by X, Y or Z!"
You are not even looking for discourse of various differences in understanding of the key terms, let alone looking to be convinced.
You are looking merely to say "your definition is not mine. You lose."
Whether you find them acceptable is rather dependent on how far your head is in the sand.
A sound and valid rebuttal began on page 1... but you can not accept that people use different definitions of terms, that are not bound within a particular religion.
Accept that not everyone is a Buddhist, that the Buddhist view is merely one of many, and that one's opinion on this matter will be based upon definitions of terms used (such as violence, motivation and "religiously").
If you want to argue that non-Buddhist definitions are wrong then take the discussion to linguistics... but better still just look in a dictionary that the wider population use.
And further, I note how you tend to ignore rebuttals when they are provided. Presumably you are not comfortable in addressing those ones?
Uh. Do you want to convince me, or not?