Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Which is a greater threat to society, Islam or Islamophobia? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Which is a greater threat?
    Islam
    62
    57.94%
    Islamophobia
    33
    30.84%
    Both
    12
    11.21%

    Offline

    20
    (Original post by AxSirlotl)
    Islamaphobia - Making the west anti-Islam will give more reason for some Muslims to commit terrorist acts. Look back at the 20th century, more specifically the 1930's and 40's when Jews were used as a scapegoat, take what you will from that.
    Yeah, remember all the Jewish terrorist attacks in the 1930s? The Jewish caliphates beheading thousands of people?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    If you want to criticise, feel free to elaborate. Otherwise, don't bother.
    The whole idea that bombing people with different ideologies is similar to American foreign policy, is firstly slightly tongue in cheek but also correct.

    In many conflicts the US has intervened to other-throw a "corrupt" dictator, but corrupt is a classification universally full of people who do not fit the Western ideals of leadership. These ideals, by definition are ideologically based.

    Hence, when the US intervenes to other throw dictators, they do this through military intervention - or "bombings". Hence, by bringing everything I have said together...

    US foreign policy often consists of bombing people who have different ideologies to themselves.

    Notice, I have written a post with no ad hominem and no moral judgement.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    So, even if what you say is entirely true, that makes what he said or what ISIS does okay?

    What a freakin' psycho.



    Sarcasm cannot be used against something that the other person did not say or imply - it's about manipulating words to make it seem as if you're mocking the other person precisely for what he or she said.. Considering I did not in fact troll you, or tried to for that matter, your self-proclaimed "sarcasm" bares no use, at all.



    Firstly, as I said before, an ideology cannot, by definition, cause harm itself - I though that much was a given. That doesn't mean it does not lead to such harm. The Quran says that non-believers are worth nothing, and are as good as dead. That, in my opinion, qualifies it for the "non-peaceful" ideologies.

    Whether adherents will do what is says is a different matter - that's why I mocked the other person's post.

    Excuse me, what? When immigrant Muslims have raped girls and boys alike in Sweden, Germany and whatnot, you can't expect people to say "oh, it's fine - they are just individuals. Other immigrant Muslims will not do that - it's not like they are culturally different to us".

    And let's be honest here - most Muslims discriminate DAILY. Homophobia, sexism, racism and whatnot. Don't play the innocence card.
    I'd hate to misunderstand you. I presume you are calling me a psychopath.

    You said I was an 'easy target' so I joked that you were trolling me all this time. It's such a simple thing.

    I thought you were arguing that America's foreign policy is all flowers and rainbows not that there are bad eggs who follow Islam. As an atheist I'm not interested in sitting here and defending archaic religions. I am interested in asserting the fact that US foreign policy involves killing people you disagree with.

    You talk about my playing the innocence card but I'm defending my one-liner whilst occasionally batting away the odd critique of Islam.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jamie S)
    The whole idea that bombing people with different ideologies is similar to American foreign policy, is firstly slightly tongue in cheek but also correct.

    In many conflicts the US has intervened to other-throw a "corrupt" dictator, but corrupt is a classification universally full of people who do not fit the Western ideals of leadership. These ideals, by definition are ideologically based.

    Hence, when the US intervenes to other throw dictators, they do this through military intervention - or "bombings". Hence, by bringing everything I have said together...

    US foreign policy often consists of bombing people who have different ideologies to themselves.
    That is irrelevant to what you said in the previous post, though. You simply disagree with me, which is fine.

    And viewed thus, I never said America is an angelic utopia, did I? What is ridiculous is that people even use it as an excuse towards the actions of Islamic terrorists.

    Corrupt is not subjective at all - we have ample corruption in the Western world. Compared to the so called "third-world countries", however, not even comparable. Some ideals are not just ideas that we think should exist - they simply should. Everyone should be allowed to choose a religion, to freely express their sexuality, to walk in the streets without racial discrimination and whatnot. Just as much, everyone should be allowed to be free of getting bombed. Evidently, these basic rights are abused consistently in the countries you're advocating. I don't know about you, but to me these are not simply ideologies, and are not -or should not be- subject to abolition.

    As for the bombings, I certainly do not agree, but in many cases it fastens the inevitable.

    (Original post by Jamie S)
    Notice, I have written a post with no ad hominem and no moral judgement.
    That's because you did all of that in the previous post, lol.

    That said, an ad-hominem refers to the use of insults as a substitute to an actual argument. I did no such thing - I offered my argument clearly. I have no intention of being calm on an online forum.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jamie S)
    The whole idea that bombing people with different ideologies is similar to American foreign policy, is firstly slightly tongue in cheek but also correct.
    Thanks.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    That said, an ad-hominem refers to the use of insults as a substitute to an actual argument. I did no such thing - I offered my argument clearly. I have no intention of being calm on an online forum.
    Not all that clearly.
    But can't fault that second sentence.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    That is irrelevant to what you said in the previous post, though. You simply disagree with me, which is fine.

    And viewed thus, I never said America is an angelic utopia, did I? What is ridiculous is that people even use it as an excuse towards the actions of Islamic terrorists.

    Corrupt is not subjective at all - we have ample corruption in the Western world. Compared to the so called "third-world countries", however, not even comparable. Some ideals are not just ideas that we think should exist - they simply should. Everyone should be allowed to choose a religion, to freely express their sexuality, to walk in the streets without racial discrimination and whatnot. Just as much, everyone should be allowed to be free of getting bombed. Evidently, these basic rights are abused consistently in the countries you're advocating. I don't know about you, but to me these are not simply ideologies, and are not -or should not be- subject to abolition.
    The things you mention here are liberal ideologies, with ideologies meaning:

    Ideology is a collection of doctrines or beliefs shared by members of a group.

    We share the belief that homosexuality is allowed (for example), but in some Muslim ideologies that is not the case. I am not advocating anything. These just simply by definition are moral, normative judgements which by definition are ideologies.

    (Original post by *Stefan*)

    As for the bombings, I certainly do not agree, but in many cases it fastens the inevitable.

    That's because you did all of that in the previous post, lol.

    That said, an ad-hominem refers to the use of insults as a substitute to an actual argument. I did no such thing - I offered my argument clearly. I have no intention of being calm on an online forum.
    Being calm when giving an argument is important, as not doing so lowers how serious people take our claims and can lead to fallacies.

    also:

    "Ignoring your pathetic delirium at hand, Islam doesn't do that because it's an ideology - did you seriously just use this argument? Or are you going to argue that ISIS, Al'Qaeda or whatever do not fall under the umbrella of Islam? Are they not true Muslims?So yes, don't divert your idiocy to what you think is an argument." - ad hominem
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I'd hate to misunderstand you. I presume you are calling me a psychopath.
    Don't take it personally hun

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    You said I was an 'easy target' so I joked that you were trolling me all this time. It's such a simple thing.
    The 'easy target' point was referring to how easy it was to manipulate your words. But let's forget it for now.

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I thought you were arguing that America's foreign policy is all flowers and rainbows not that there are bad eggs who follow Islam. As an atheist I'm not interested in sitting here and defending archaic religions. I am interested in asserting the fact that US foreign policy involves killing people you disagree with.
    What??? In what way did I imply that America is a bucket full of flowers? Obviously I'm not as suspicious as you, but that doesn't mean I consider it "angelic", as I said above.

    What I said is that it is pathetic to even compare the two, as if one actually excuses the other (yes, before you deny it, you did that in the first post of yours here). And you also made the terrible mistake of uniting it as a "western world" - as if, even if America bombed everything it didn't like, it would in some way explain (not to say justify) why ISIS, say, bombs the EU.

    That's what it cannot be compared. All ISIS wants is to destroy the Western world - that's its sole purpose. America's (even for third-world countries)? Definitely not.

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    You talk about my playing the innocence card but I'm defending my one-liner whilst occasionally batting away the odd critique of Islam.
    I'm afraid to say that the one-liner, viewed next to my own post, is indefensible.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Islam. Obviously.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jamie S)
    The things you mention here are liberal ideologies, with ideologies meaning:

    Ideology is a collection of doctrines or beliefs shared by members of a group.

    We share the belief that homosexuality is allowed (for example), but in some Muslim ideologies that is not the case. I am not advocating anything. These just simply by definition are moral, normative judgements which by definition are ideologies.
    You missed my point - there are ideologies, as in actual ideologies, and then there are rights.

    The first will obviously vary. The latter should definitely not. You are you're not advocating anything here, but it's obvious that you do. You clearly imply that if they believe that, they should be able to do it.

    Well, I openly oppose that. If I have to take a side, I'd take the person's who is oppressed for something like his sexuality - not the oppressor who imposes his bigotry. That applies to any other element of course, including religion.


    (Original post by Jamie S)
    Being calm when giving an argument is important, as not doing so lowers how serious people take our claims and can lead to fallacies.
    I agree, just not with regards to an online forum - especially TSR.

    (Original post by Jamie S)
    also "Ignoring your pathetic delirium at hand, Islam doesn't do that because it's an ideology - did you seriously just use this argument? Or are you going to argue that ISIS, Al'Qaeda or whatever do not fall under the umbrella of Islam? Are they not true Muslims?So yes, don't divert your idiocy to what you think is an argument." - ad hominem
    No - you simply have a skewed definition of the fallacy. I asked a specific question taken specifically from what he said (ignoring the fact that you took this par on its own). It would be an ad-hominem if I said "Did you seriously use this argument? You are stupid so obviously you are wrong" - the ad-hominem literally means being against the subject himself/herself and using that to portray him/her as weak without qualifying what they said.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    Don't take it personally hun

    The 'easy target' point was referring to how easy it was to manipulate your words. But let's forget it for now.

    What??? In what way did I imply that America is a bucket full of flowers? Obviously I'm not as suspicious as you, but that doesn't mean I consider it "angelic", as I said above.

    What I said is that it is pathetic to even compare the two, as if one actually excuses the other (yes, before you deny it, you did that in the first post of yours here). And you also made the terrible mistake of uniting it as a "western world" - as if, even if America bombed everything it didn't like, it would in some way explain (not to say justify) why ISIS, say, bombs the EU.

    That's what it cannot be compared. All ISIS wants is to destroy the Western world - that's its sole purpose. America's (even for third-world countries)? Definitely not.

    I'm afraid to say that the one-liner, viewed next to my own post, is indefensible.
    Of course not.

    Ok then.

    I'm not particularly anti-America but they use a whole load of violence in the name of their beliefs.

    This is a the crux of the matter right here. You have 'ISIS' floating about in your head and I have 'Islam' wringing in my ears. Though you may be critical of ISIS the post I responded to criticised the currently peaceful adherents of a major world religion who might be pushed towards radicalisation by the growing climate of fear and division. Now, we wouldn't judge our cousins across the pond for what the US government didn't in South America in the 1980s and yet the US government represents Americans in a way that ISIS can't possible represent Muslims - never mind the ones that live in the western world.

    I did not speak of the Western world but of Western hypocrisy. As in the mindset of the developed, westernised world that the people don't see how detrimental their own governments can be to world peace. And whilst the US rarely seeks to eliminate entire countries, it has sought to topple ideologically unfavourable governments on so many occasions - and a lot of innocents have died in the process. This is true regardless of the actions of ISIS. You can't put the word 'Islam' in your post then switch it to 'ISIS' a few posts down the line and then hold me to your choosing to be less incendiary.


    The irony being that I subscribe to the doctrine of liberal interventionism.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    You missed my point - there are ideologies, as in actual ideologies, and then there are rights.

    The first will obviously vary. The latter should definitely not. You are you're not advocating anything here, but it's obvious that you do. You clearly imply that if they believe that, they should be able to do it.

    Well, I openly oppose that. If I have to take a side, I'd take the person's who is oppressed for something like his sexuality - not the oppressor who imposes his bigotry. That applies to any other element of course, including religion.
    You have changed what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that:

    The US foreign policy sometimes consists of bombing people with different ideologies.

    I am not talking about rights, or which ideologies are morally just. I'm arguing what is written above, no more, no less.


    (Original post by *Stefan*)

    I agree, just not with regards to an online forum - especially TSR.



    No - you simply have a skewed definition of the fallacy. I asked a specific question taken specifically from what he said (ignoring the fact that you took this par on its own). It would be an ad-hominem if I said "Did you seriously use this argument? You are stupid so obviously you are wrong" - the ad-hominem literally means being against the subject himself/herself and using that to portray him/her as weak without qualifying what they said.
    The definition of ad hominem isn't to portray anyone as weak, but their argument as weak by association with something/a quality of the agent giving the proposition. Saying "did you seriously agree that?" demeans the person, calling the stupid and hence demeaning their entire argumentative stance.

    But anyway, I'm more interested in the first quote
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frankieboy)
    One is a threat to one society, whereas the other is a threat to the other.

    Sooner the world wakes up and drags itself out of this ridiculous dark age God-of-the-gaps superstitious religious mindset and becomes secular the better for everyone IMHO.

    To think that we're now in the year 2016 and still subscribe to any kind of religion at all is a mystery to me.

    Having said that, Islam in itself isn't a threat to anything. It's the people who commit atrocities "in the name of" Islam that are the threat.
    I agree 100% with this. It completely baffles me how supposedly intelligent individuals, who live in a technologically advanced world, can suddenly abandon all logic in the name of religion.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ethereal World)
    Loooool perfect and so true.
    Ffs. :sigh:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jamie S)
    US foreign policy often consists of bombing people who have different ideologies to themselves.
    Yes, but not merely because they have a different 'ideology' (however you are defining this).


    Not since Vietnam, anyway.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Christ Redeems)
    Ffs. :sigh:
    I sometimes go round and do that, hoping you will see it...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ethereal World)
    I sometimes go round and do that, hoping you will see it...
    Consciously trying to trigger me?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Christ Redeems)
    Consciously trying to trigger me?
    :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    If you look at the reasons why people become terrorists, one reason is discrimination. If we treat Muslims less favourably than other religious groups, there would be more Muslims who would hate the west. Is that illogical? If we treat Muslims equally, there will be no/less reasons for someone to become radicalised.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Christ Redeems)
    Ffs. :sigh:
    The casual anti-Americanism and the seemingly irrelevant reference to inequality are lamentable, but I can't say that it's too far off the mark with regards to a lot of post-1945 American foreign policy.

    I would say, though, that this is neither unique to America nor necessarily a bad thing (which is the clear implication) -- I don't think anybody of any mentionable moral fibre was arguing that this was a bad approach to take with European fascism in the 1940s, for instance.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.