Do you want to convince me, or not?
Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
Do you want to convince me, or not?
Hiya Signal/Wynn
We have never crossed paths before...(mainly because I'm just not all that deep)
But, I do read posts on a daily basis. Maybe it's just me, but, it seems that since you made your name-change, that you have become perhaps "harder", or maybe more spitefull?
I'm just curious as to why this is. I'm not trying to insult you, or provoke you. I'm actually, just curious.
You have always struck me as very intelligent, and reasonable... Just lately, I'm not so sure.
What happened?...:shrug:
We have never crossed paths before...(mainly because I'm just not all that deep)
But, I do read posts on a daily basis. Maybe it's just me, but, it seems that since you made your name-change, that you have become perhaps "harder", or maybe more spitefull?
I'm just curious as to why this is. I'm not trying to insult you, or provoke you. I'm actually, just curious.
You have always struck me as very intelligent, and reasonable... Just lately, I'm not so sure.
What happened?...:shrug:
To the best of my knowledge - nothing special happened.
Sciforums has always been a dog fight - sometimes more subtle, sometimes more gross, and everything inbetween.
OK, I'll accept that.......I was just curious.
Not any more.
If the evidence and explanations thus far have not convinced you, and you are unwilling to discuss differences, or even acknowledge your position (as argued by you) as being limited to the Buddhist view/definitions (or counter the claims that it is), then there is little point.
But let me know when you want actually want to discuss things.
Let he who has eyes, see. :shrug: What relevance does the word "consistent" have to the proof of the existence of religious violence? In what way are you using this?
What do the latter two questions have to do with the issue? What is "less religious", with reference to this discussion? What is the "cultural landscape"? Does religion form a part of it? If not, why not? Is religion then 'acultural'?
Spidergoat posted earlier about muslims bombing christians in Nigeria. He used this to suggest that it was religiously motivated.
Actually, your link describes the process as religious in nature, throughout. Politics is merely a tool for the expression of religious hatred in this instance.
This is signatory among the irrelevant points introduced to this thread. Assuming that your statement is true, what do guidelines for diseased animals have to do with the unethical kosher or halal slaughter of animals as a facet of the greater concept of religiously-motivated violence?
This is completely irrelevant, besides being factually incorrect.
As a matter of fact, a stunned animal has almost no brain activity immediately following the stunning. I demonstrated this using some links generously provided by Sam a few months back, as I recall. The same is exceedingly unlikely in a decapitated animal; I'm sure that an intact brain is perfectly useful for the transmission of several long seconds of utter, helpless agony.
Actually, religious guidelines do neither of the above, to my knowledge. Please demonstrate otherwise, or refrain from this position.
And, again, your point would be false in any nation with a majority religion that employs halal or kosher slaughter, let alone the error you make in describing it as a habit delimiting pain and suffering, which it is not designed to do. I hope these points are now clear.
Neither of these two elements are related to my discussion with Wynn in which he seems to reject everything except the existence of free will, which I can only assume he feels is unguided.
LG, I was pointing out that "accident" is not a meaningful excuse for the imposition of religiously motivated violence. I.e., one cannot 'accidentally' hang a woman or cut off her head by the 'accident' of reading scripture literally; it is thereby exceedingly relevant. If you want to investigate what goes on regarding religious oppression and suppression in Iran, you have to do no more than pick up a newspaper.
LG, I ask you to please cease this form of argument.
@LG --
Both of my examples of religiously motivated violence, the shooting and my own forced expulsion from a small town, still stand uncontested. The only thing either you or Wynn have done is assert that the violence wasn't religiously motivated without ever supporting your assertion while we have evidence that it was religiously motivated. Therefore I need to answer no rebuttals, though I have in the past.
And you still need to prove that I engaged in ad hominem attacks. Did I snarkily refer to your and Wynn's arguments as childish and asinine? Absolutely, but then I justified my statements, hence no ad hominem attacks were made. Nor have I ever directly insulted anyone anywhere on Sciforums. So your accusations are hollow, withdraw them.
Both of my examples of religiously motivated violence, the shooting and my own forced expulsion from a small town, still stand uncontested. The only thing either you or Wynn have done is assert that the violence wasn't religiously motivated without ever supporting your assertion while we have evidence that it was religiously motivated. Therefore I need to answer no rebuttals, though I have in the past.
And you still need to prove that I engaged in ad hominem attacks. Did I snarkily refer to your and Wynn's arguments as childish and asinine? Absolutely, but then I justified my statements, hence no ad hominem attacks were made. Nor have I ever directly insulted anyone anywhere on Sciforums. So your accusations are hollow, withdraw them.
In no way have you addressed why it is contested because in no way have you established why we should accept hearsay.
As for the second example, we are still guessing what it may be (but if it you are trying to cite the spanish inquisition , which you have done in the thread but its not clear if you are sticking to that one since it is such a well documented failure, that has also been clearly established as a body with the political interests of spain at the fore)
The only thing you have done to assert that it does is provide one questionable example from your own experience that cannot be properly investigated and another one, which due to not suffering the problems of being anecdotal, can clearly be contested.
What absolute nonsense
You have not answered why we should accept anecdotal incidents as valid and you have not answered why clear documentation of the spanish inquisition suggests otehrwise
cunt gargling tripe to be precise ... which actually makes your critique childish and asinine
Its not surprise that you feel justified in being childish and asinine ...
:shrug:
@LG --
Either show that my examples, including the case where the christian shot his atheist roommate to death because of his atheism, were not religiously motivated as you claim or admit defeat. One or the other, those are your only two options....besides continuing to troll of course, which is all you've done on this thread.
Either show that my examples, including the case where the christian shot his atheist roommate to death because of his atheism, were not religiously motivated as you claim or admit defeat. One or the other, those are your only two options....besides continuing to troll of course, which is all you've done on this thread.
Bells
Staff member
I gave up.
When they can't even accept that a priest beating someone to death performing an exorcism is religiously motivated violence, or ultra-orthodox Jewish men who attack women and girls for walking on the street because it is their religious belief that men and women must be segregated, or when a Christian bombs an abortion clinic because it goes against his religious beliefs.. when abortion clinic bombers state themselves that their motivation was religious... When they can't accept that, then yeah, give up. There is only so much that one can punish one's self trying to debate anything with LG and Wynn before one just simply gives up. Bashing your head into a sharp brick would be a much more enjoyable experience... They won't discuss that an individual can be motivated by their religious belief to commit acts of violence. They'd rather troll.
Bells
Staff member
No comment
Why not just leave it open? Do we really have to decide for other people when a conversation is over?
That was done in one sentence - "he was found to be clinically insane"
You never address what is given to you
:shrug:
If there is a uniform religious population and only a handful are violent then its obvious there must be more precise motivations aside from religion.
If you are saying that x causes violence and you have a population designated x that aren't violent you have to explain what is holding them back (I offered that may be less religious then the violent ones since you are saying religion motivates violence)
An area that shares the same cultural trappings - eg muslims in the ME or whatever
I think you would have a hard time explaining religion as bereft of culture
I fail to see any expansion of violence divorced from politics ... in fact politics more accurately explains why some muslims are violent and others are not rather than the blanket designation of "muslim" designating the violence
In short if diseased animals are off the menu then so are factory farms and their horrific lifestyle choice for their victims
wtf?
vegetarians support meat eating?
So if you were to get a bolt to the head for the sake of merely being eaten as opposed to getting your head chopped off, you would be grateful for being saved from an element of violence ... or do you think that both acts are so violent that the difference is practically negligible?
so, as but one guideline for kosher, you don't think having to wait 6 hours between consuming dairy and meat products, or even consuming meat products that are not properly executed in a particular fashion, would have any impact on consumption?
think about it - if you had milk or butter or cheese you wouldn't be eating meat for 6 hours ... and as for a majority religion I think Israel is the only place that has it - a jew anywhere else in the world would have to be painstakingly particular about their diet . I think you would be surprised how difficult that makes grocery shopping
You don't think reduced/restricted consumption affects production?
Or that stricter standards governing living conditions (in terms of stricter avoidance of disease) grants a less barbaric existence for the victims?
this has nothing to do with what I have posted.
If are trying to argue that religion motivates violence you simply crippling the resolution process since conflict is initiated and maintained by politics. Understanding this, many key players in violence direct attention to the so-called religious causes to keep the microscope off their antics
:shrug:
Last edited:
An clear problem with all your examples is that there are (vastly more) individuals from the same religious community following the same teachings that, what to speak of performing the same acts of violence, critique and even actively protest against them.
So IOW if one is saying "islam motivates violence" one is not only tarring a vast majority of individuals who are not only not violent, but are against the said acts you are using to exemplify them.
Its a fallacy of generalization.