Current Affairs Liverpool Womens Hospital

[Kev50]

Think it’s more how you put across your argument than the argument you’re putting across.

maybe.

 

[Papa Shango]

His argument is absolutely terrible as well mind, it brings one to mind thoughts of those monks who drew rhinos and giraffes without ever having seen them.

?

 

[ForeverBlue92]

I can only speak for myself but I’m a lefty progressive and I think all organised religion should be in the bin. Faith and spirituality is a different matter. But organised religion isn’t about faith. It’s about power and control and things like patriarchy. The structures in place are what I have a problem with. I see all organised religions in the same light because they are all the same.

But as I said in my previous post, it’s impossible to disentangle the impact of organised religion from other socio economic factors, aswell as the apparent idiosyncratic factors of this particular case (mental health, trauma etc).

It’s problematic to me that people are so quick to blame *people* of a particular *faith*. Without drawing comparisons with other organised religions and the problems they have (you only have to look at Christianity in the US to see it’s just as big a problem).

I’ve got no problem with debating those things at all. Especially when relevant.

I take issue with the fact that Islam has dominated this particular thread based when the evidence suggests it’s not a major factor. The assumption that it is I find problematic.

If we lived in a Islamic system/culture how many wives would you have lad?

 

[wandyr79]

If you look at this thread it is obvious how difficult it is to criticise Islam, in the way that we would have no hesitation in criticising Christianity. It's amazing really. People are endlessly fascinating. You can take a progressive, and ask him to name the principles that matter to him. What would be on that list? Respect for democracy, equality for women, safety for the LGBT community, maybe even the right to say what you think might even make it on there. So you have this aware political person, with his principles above that he will defend to the last. But know this. He will throw each and every one of those principles under the bus if the opposite to those principles is couched in the terms of a 'religion'. If a creed which is anti democratic, treats women like chattels, executes gays, and brooks no opposition at all on pain of death passes the test of being a religion, then the lefty progressive will defend this religion to his dying breath, even if it must result in the denial of everything he holds dear. This article on Ayaan Hirsi Ali covers this phenomenon in greater depth below

Why Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Criticism of Islam Angers Western Liberals

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a vocal critic of misogyny in the Muslim world, but her advocacy has produced a backlash among Western liberals.

observer.com

There is nothing wrong with condemning religious activities that you find abhorrent but nobody on here is doing that in this context because there is a massive irrelevance to it.

When we see one bomb going off, it is straight to 'Muslims this, Islam that'. That is abhorrent in its own way, it is an uneducated way of thinking. Even when it has been found out that the guy was not a Muslim you still went on your reform cycle of comments. We have to ask, why did you feel it necessary to attribute this act with the Islamic world directly and why did you continue this rhetoric in the face of evidence that it was irrelevant to do so?

You initially wanted a debate, I have not noticed one post, by yourself, that indicates any debating. It is just random shouts, mostly not even directed to the post you quote or the question/point that was raised to you.

 

[tsubaki]

so many eh. list them.

Well for a start you’ve claimed this thread shows how difficult it is to criticise Islam. It’s blatantly clear from this thread that you don’t actually know what Islam actually is.

Then you claim people would be free to criticise Christianity in similar circumstances, even though it’s abundantly clear (from the criticism of evangelicals in the US for example) that when Christians are criticised it’s invariably for their acts rather than their religion (and so not moronic demands like the religion as a whole needs to be reformed / good Christians need to condemn this).

Then there’s the whole progressive bit, which let’s be honest kind of exposes you as someone who gets all their political information from a sewer anyway.

You define what progressives believe (apparently based on an OANN survey of 1000 random loons) and then claim they abandon them all when asked to criticise that religion, something which both wrong (as there’s very little overlap between these Islamists and socialists politically) and deeply hypocritical (given that the only person who has repeated the demands of these Islamists on here is you).

 

[Bruce Wayne]

that terrible argument, what is it again? remind me.

 

[Kev50]

There is nothing wrong with condemning religious activities that you find abhorrent but nobody on here is doing that in this context because there is a massive irrelevance to it.

When we see one bomb going off, it is straight to 'Muslims this, Islam that'. That is abhorrent in its own way, it is an uneducated way of thinking. Even when it has been found out that the guy was not a Muslim you still went on your reform cycle of comments. We have to ask, why did you feel it necessary to attribute this act with the Islamic world directly and why did you continue this rhetoric in the face of evidence that it was irrelevant to do so?

You initially wanted a debate, I have not noticed one post, by yourself, that indicates any debating. It is just random shouts, mostly not even directed to the post you quote or the question/point that was raised to you.

you think that the acts of terror we have seen here and throughout the world for the last twenty years have no relevance to Islam. Even when nearly each and every one of the people carrying these acts proclaims they are doing it in the name of Allah? Yes, you can hold that view, but I don't think it's a convincing argument.
so how is a society supposed to react when somebody commits mass murder in the name of Allah. your position is it's crass and rank bad manners to raise the issue of the religion. I agree that the tone is important, but the religion absolutely has to be discussed. We are twenty years down the line now, the situation aint going away. I'm not going to get into the debate of just how christian or Muslim the would be bomber was, for the purposes of the debate it's irrelevant. We have been dealing with an ongoing massive terrorist threat for years, and that threat has overwhelmingly been carried out by islamic fundamentalists.

 

[Kev50]

Well for a start you’ve claimed this thread shows how difficult it is to criticise Islam. It’s blatantly clear from this thread that you don’t actually know what Islam actually is.

Then you claim people would be free to criticise Christianity in similar circumstances, even though it’s abundantly clear (from the criticism of evangelicals in the US for example) that when Christians are criticised it’s invariably for their acts rather than their religion (and so not moronic demands like the religion as a whole needs to be reformed / good Christians need to condemn this).

Then there’s the whole progressive bit, which let’s be honest kind of exposes you as someone who gets all their political information from a sewer anyway.

You define what progressives believe (apparently based on an OANN survey of 1000 random loons) and then claim they abandon them all when asked to criticise that religion, something which both wrong (as there’s very little overlap between these Islamists and socialists politically) and deeply hypocritical (given that the only person who has repeated the demands of these Islamists on here is you).

The reason people have moved to the religion rather than the people is because of the number. If there were a handful of nut jobs every year carrying out atrocities then the reaction would be different. People have moved to the religion because of the scale of the problem..
I mean you'r right, people who criticise progressives must get their politics from a sewer. Of course.
You've misurnderstood. When I criticise anti democratic practices, the subjugation of women, the persecution of gays, and the threats of death to critics, I'm not levelling fire at islamists, but at each and every islamic society on earth. They are all like this. Coincidence?

 

[edge]

If we lived in a Islamic system/culture how many wives would you have lad?

I would have the same number as now, once bitten twice shy.
Thinking about it 6 would be OK ,see them once a week for each of them and a days rest sounds about right.
saying that I wouldn't last long under an Islamic system, to lazy to keep up with all the praying, would end up getting stoned to death or something as a heretic.

 

[wandyr79]

you think that the acts of terror we have seen here and throughout the world for the last twenty years have no relevance to Islam. Even when nearly each and every one of the people carrying these acts proclaims they are doing it in the name of Allah? Yes, you can hold that view, but I don't think it's a convincing argument.
so how is a society supposed to react when somebody commits mass murder in the name of Allah. your position is it's crass and rank bad manners to raise the issue of the religion. I agree that the tone is important, but the religion absolutely has to be discussed. We are twenty years down the line now, the situation aint going away. I'm not going to get into the debate of just how christian or Muslim the would be bomber was, for the purposes of the debate it's irrelevant. We have been dealing with an ongoing massive terrorist threat for years, and that threat has overwhelmingly been carried out by islamic fundamentalists.

OK, just a silly hypothetical for you.

Somebody shouts the name of Dixie Dean while blowing something up or just doing something less bad. Does that straight away mean that the whole of Everton Football Club from top to bottom needs reform, needs to change on the back of this individual act.

Now, I know that this is a bit ridiculous but for me this hypothetical shows that you cannot just jump on something and claim it to be true when it is far, far, far more complex than simply attributing a religion, that is practiced in so many different ways across so many different countries, to acts made by individual people. If an atheist killed people using Darwins name, would that mean that Atheism had to reform as a whole, does science need to look at itself in a simplistic way and say that we need to change the whole belief system in science and medicine. No, in all these scenarios you look at the individual, you look at what caused 'them' to do this. If it happens to be religion then it still their own interpretation of the said religion, it does not mean that all people within that religion believe the same thing. Religious text is just a book, at the end of the day and like all books different people perceive the text in different ways. Unfortunately, some people have not evolved enough and still see the text in the same way as it was 1500 years ago. That is on them, not the religion.

The other bold part is a strange one. You say that the religiousness of the person is irrelevant yet here you are bringing up your opinions about the assumed (and now proven to be wrong) religion on a thread on this very subject. Do you not read/hear what you are saying, it is all over the place.

 

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

If we lived in a Islamic system/culture how many wives would you have lad?

1. Katie Price. Just to annoy you. Xx

 

[lancs blue]

Spending eight months with Derby and Joan would be enough to send anyone over the edge. Was he a Muslim converting to Christianity to stay in this country? Maybe. Fact remains I'm grateful he didn't kill anyone except himself. Even alqaeda are too embarrassed to claim this one.

We need a reformation party in this country....

 

[tsubaki]

The reason people have moved to the religion rather than the people is because of the number. If there were a handful of nut jobs every year carrying out atrocities then the reaction would be different. People have moved to the religion because of the scale of the problem..
I mean you'r right, people who criticise progressives must get their politics from a sewer. Of course.
You've misurnderstood. When I criticise anti democratic practices, the subjugation of women, the persecution of gays, and the threats of death to critics, I'm not levelling fire at islamists, but at each and every islamic society on earth. They are all like this. Coincidence?

They aren’t all like that though, and there are also very many non-Islamic societies (two of which are in the news nightly) that you can say exactly the same thing about.

Also as people have repeatedly pointed out to you (so I won’t hold my breath now) the fraction of attacks carried out by Islamists compared to the number of Muslims worldwide is minuscule, and the majority of those victims are other Muslims.

 

[lancs blue]

1. Katie Price. Just to annoy you. Xx

She's just got hitched mate to the seventeenth poor bloke. She must have a bomb Bay like a lancaster bomber by now

 

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

The reason people have moved to the religion rather than the people is because of the number. If there were a handful of nut jobs every year carrying out atrocities then the reaction would be different. People have moved to the religion because of the scale of the problem..
I mean you'r right, people who criticise progressives must get their politics from a sewer. Of course.
You've misurnderstood. When I criticise anti democratic practices, the subjugation of women, the persecution of gays, and the threats of death to critics, I'm not levelling fire at islamists, but at each and every islamic society on earth. They are all like this. Coincidence?

Can we have stats to back this up please? Regional, national and international? Comparison between religions / causes would be lovely too.

I'm hoping this goes as well as your reading summary provision.