What is Islam?

Again that is her not seeing that what she had done is no different than what she accused others of doing to muslims. Nuff said.
 
I take it, it's your way of retaliation against the unequal treatment of certain religions? Creating a reverse reflection. Well, I pretty much understand what you're trying to get across, but it looks like you're being slightly outnumbered by the opponents, and most just don't want to see the initial intentions behind your actions. Or they're deliberately misinterpreting them.

I still don't see what was the issue with your thread about Judaism...I was actually interested myself in the potential replies from real Jews.
 
I take it, it's your way of retaliation against the unequal treatment of certain religions?
Click to expand...

There was an interesting comment that Orleander once made to me about a poster I showed from an American eating place. Muslims not allowed here or something, it said. Most people would not consider it offensive, but if it said, Jews not allowed here, then it would suddenly become a racist antisemitic poster. This is what sciforums is. That restaurant which does not consider anti-Muslim bigotry as offensive, but put Jews or blacks in their stead and its a different ball game altogether.

In a way, perhaps I am confirming this. No point demonstrating it, since demonstration requires comprehension on the other side.


PsychoTropicPuppy said:
I still don't see what was the issue with your thread about Judaism...I was actually interested myself in the potential replies from real Jews.
Click to expand...

Ya, me too. Fraggle has just posted and I had messaged Cheski chips too. Both of them represent opposite ends, with Fraggle having an atheist background from Bohemian parents [and being of the "older sect"] and Cheski being a Zionist born in the USA and probably not past 20. Cheski has always been forthcoming in discussing such questions.

Its the not-Jews who panic and flail around for some reason. :rolleyes:
 
Well, maybe I should recreate said thread because apparently Muslims are not allowed to pose questions about other religions. (I'm not even sure if I can create threads...because of my low post number, and young account)
At times it feels good being an agnostic. ^-^
 
When Sam went around with a swastika as her avatar she claimed she was using some kind of 'reverse reflection' its just that no one else could see it from her point of view. My OP has a point of irony in it. I disagree with the what you call 'opponents' I see no opponents. Sam's thread was closed because it was obvious what she was doing with the thread. As you can see I have made no move to demonize muslims in this thread. If you read the thread and still don't see my point then fine but then Sam and no other member has any cause to call fowl when there is any thread that chooses to highlight the worse aspects of islam and then wonder about the morality of those who practice islam. Fair is fair. Either the rules are applied to everyone or everyone is free to break them. If you want your beliefs or your tribe or your race or nation or anything to be treated with some respect its important to show respect. This doesn't mean that there is no room for criticism but criticism comes with illustrating something within a wider context, not zeroing in with the intent of showing only the negative. Most people around here know the difference and I am sick and tired of sam's divisiveness on sciforums.
 
Sam forgot to mention that the restaurant had a neon pig in its logo because it was a pork restaurant.:rolleyes: Again information with no context. The joke being that a restaurant specializing in pork wouldn't attract religious muslims not to mention jews.
 
PsychoTropicPuppy said:
Well, maybe I should recreate said thread because apparently Muslims are not allowed to pose questions about other religions.
At times it feels good being an agnostic. ^-^
Click to expand...

It won't make any difference. Gendanken also did it and she has no religious affiliation that I know of. Of course, her presentation was entirely original. I could never match up to her. :p

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=79627
 
Gendy would have learned to despise you. She detested the obsessive boom boxes playing only one tune and she couldn't tolerate the hypocrites.
 
No, I understand you fairly well, Lucy..and maybe S.A.M. has been taking it a bit to the extreme. But come on...the thread about Judaism was passable. The OP didn't hint on anything negative. Just everybody who entered the thread, ironically most posts weren't even from Jews, started to create a tantrum about how it's offensive because it was S.A.M. who asked those questions. And then started to twist around her words.

I haven't read all of S.A.M.'s posts, so I don't know what she said and thought two months, or years ago, and with this can't pass a judgement. But that isn't really the point in question, because notions evolve with the time. People's opinions change throughout time, and naturally makes each and everyone guilty of hypocrisy. I'm sure that S.A.M. is by now willing to take that criticism against her religion and counter it accordingly and answer questions concerning Islam as long as the questions, and the criticism are within reasonable measures and she's being given the privilege to question other religions and life philosophies in return without being called an anti-Semite or bigot just because she's a Muslim.

lucysnow said: Either the rules are applied to everyone or everyone is free to break them.
Click to expand...
I will not disagree with you on this.
We surely could find a compromise. The only issue I see is to get every user to follow it, because as we know opinions may widely differ. There will always be a bias concerning the monitoring of the topics in question. I've noticed this in every forum I've ever joined. So I take it that it's the modding attitude of moderators that is in question because they're the ones who can control what has the right to stay in the forums and what not.

Lucysnow says: Sam forgot to mention that the restaurant had a neon pig in its logo because it was a pork restaurant. Again information with no context. The joke being that a restaurant specializing in pork wouldn't attract religious muslims not to mention jews.
Click to expand...

That's nice and all, but why did the poster just mention Muslims then?

S.A.M. said: It won't make any difference. Gendanken also did it and she has no religious affiliation that I know of. Of course, her presentation was entirely original. I could never match up to her.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=79627
Click to expand...

Haha, interesting thread, but I'm not sure how kosher that one was because for once I didn't understand half of what Gedanken said, and secondly it seemed to be rather offensive towards a few individuals, and a rant thread in general. Though I have no clue in what context this rant came into existence.
 
Ironically it is the same people who will write stuff like this:

Our restraint is in keeping with British values of tolerance and respect for the feelings of others. However, we are equally in no doubt that a small minority of Muslims would be offended by such a publication to an extent where they would threaten, and perhaps even use, violence. This is a problem that the whole of the Western world needs to confront frankly, and not sidestep.

The right to offend within the law remains crucial to our free speech. Muslims who choose to live in the West must accept that we, too, have a right to our values, and to live according to them. Muslims must accept the predominant mores of their adopted culture: and most do. One of these is the lack of censorship and the ready availability of material that some people find deeply offensive: anyone who wishes to see the cartoons can find them within a few clicks on the internet.

Those Muslims who cannot tolerate the openness and robustness of intellectual debate in the West have perhaps chosen to live in the wrong culture. We cannot put it better than the editorial in an Arab paper in which the cartoons briefly appeared yesterday (before all copies were suddenly withdrawn): "Muslims of the world, be reasonable."
Click to expand...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...6/Why-we-will-defend-the-right-to-offend.html



who will be the quickest to censor/shut down what offends them.

All I am asking for is consistency. Why shut down only some threads or discussions? Why not all?
 
Well Israeli "fascism" is a bit of an extreme word choice? If I was a mod I would have probably changed the title to something that doesn't include the word fascism. Something along the lines of "Israel goes vile" and "Fate of the Palestinians under Israeli despotism"..perhaps.
 
Well, I think that people just generally don't like to see Israel, or Jews being put in the same sentence with fascism or Nazism.
To the other it's a matter of opinion what is considered more pejorative, but the general perception of fascism is that it's correlated with Nazism for some, and therefore people might take bigger offence.

I guess "terror" would have been the better choice over fascism.
 
PsychoTropicPuppy said:
Well, I think that people just generally don't like to see Israel, or Jews being put in the same sentence with fascism or Nazism.
To the other it's a matter of opinion what is considered more pejorative, but the general perception of fascism is that it's correlated with Nazism for some, and therefore people might take bigger offence.

I guess "terror" would have been the better choice over fascism.
Click to expand...

Why would anyone associate Nazism with fascism? Fascism was Mussolini, not Hitler :confused:
 
** whoops you caught me when I was deleting the message because I was writing bullsh*t and realised it only later. Mussolini didn't like Hitler all that much, but I guess that Rome and Berlin were still tight at some point.

*hmm lemme check out the link.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top