• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2 Israeli Embassy staff members killed in shooting outside of event at the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, DC

I don't know what MacDonald meant by that joke and he isn't around to tell me. All you can tell me is what that joke meant to you. You trying to tell me what that joke meant to MacDonald is you doing literal make believe.
The joke's skewering of the Lefties is implied in its construction. It's simple and elegant, while your BS ideological interpretation has to huff and puff to try to make it into something that suits you.
I'm happy to share my feelings that I think it's tragic when anyone is killed by a radical fundamentalist of any religion regardless of their religion. I'm not ashamed of my sentiments. You're the one pretending your sentiments arent your sentiments. Why? Why the fragility? 😂
My sentiments in this case are the same as MacDonald's: Leftie priorities re which persons or groups do or don't earn sympathy are extremely brain-fried. Your sentiments are directed not as actual observations but as ideological constructions. Even the use of "fragility" comment is just you echoing the sentiments of brain-fried ideologues.
 
The joke's skewering of the Lefties is implied in its construction. It's simple and elegant, while your BS ideological interpretation has to huff and puff to try to make it into something that suits you.
Because in your frail mentality everyone has to see receive it the same way you do and if they don't it's bullshit? That's some of the frailest shit I've ever heard in my life.

😂
My sentiments in this case are the same as MacDonald's: Leftie priorities re which persons or groups do or don't earn sympathy are extremely brain-fried.
So because we have different priorities than you you feel the need to pretend lefties are brain fried and I'm not supposed to find this hilarious and frail?
Your sentiments are directed not as actual observations but as ideological constructions. Even the use of "fragility" comment is just you echoing the sentiments of brain-fried ideologues.
Yes, I'm voicing my opinion and happy enough to let my opinion stand. I'm not trying to support my opinion by pretending there's something wrong with your brain because you disagree with me. Pretending and make believing isn't my thing, it's yours.
 
Because in your frail mentality everyone has to see receive it the same way you do and if they don't it's bullshit? That's some of the frailest shit I've ever heard in my life.
Ooh, that's "new." A Lib whines about lack of tolerance for his views while he distorts the statement of a public figure.
😂

So because we have different priorities than you you feel the need to pretend lefties are brain fried and I'm not supposed to find this hilarious and frail?
I'm sure you find everything that doesn't fit your view of things hilarious and frail, because those are your favorite words, though they indicate your lack of appreciation for nuance.
Yes, I'm voicing my opinion and happy enough to let my opinion stand. I'm not trying to support my opinion by pretending there's something wrong with your brain because you disagree with me. Pretending and make believing isn't my thing, it's yours.
Within the context of a joke, it's perfectly valid to call the political opposition "brain-fried" or anything else. Not that both sides don't make that claim as everyday statements of reality. But you are pretending when you claim that MacDonald meant something in his simple putdown of Liberals that he clearly did not mean. Instead of distorting what MacDonald meant, why don't you hit back by quoting whoever you think made a good joke at the expense of Cons?
 
Ooh, that's "new." A Lib whines about lack of tolerance for his views while he distorts the statement of a public figure.
😂

Why would I whine about your weak argument? I'm making the arguments that your description is frail and make believe. We don't disagree on what the words say so there's no distortion there. And I said quite clearly that I have no idea what the author of the words meant by it, so all that's left is what those words meant to me. Are you accusing me of distorting my own perception? 😂 What frail argument are you trying to make now to cover for the objective fact that all your arguments make no rational sense.
I'm sure you find everything that doesn't fit your view of things hilarious and frail, because those are your favorite words, though they indicate your lack of appreciation for nuance.
I do appreciate that we have different views, its you that has to pretend there's some distortion going on on my part even though I clearly said in a previous post that I have no idea what the MacDonald meant by that. Its this practice of basing your arguments on pretend and make believe that I see as frail. Come at me with some real shit. Why pretend? Especially when I'm going to call you on it and detail with quotes what you got factually wrong.
Within the context of a joke, it's perfectly valid to call the political opposition "brain-fried" or anything else.
Oh... so it was a joke. Ok. You were being like the forum Jester. If that's the case why are you all salty that I'm laughing at you? 😂
Not that both sides don't make that claim as everyday statements of reality. But you are pretending when you claim that MacDonald meant something in his simple putdown of Liberals that he clearly did not mean.
Am I? Exactly how am I doing that by admittinng I don't know what he's supposed to mean? Explain that one to me. 😂
Instead of distorting what MacDonald meant, why don't you hit back by quoting whoever you think made a good joke at the expense of Cons?
Here's the quote for everyone else of me distorting what MacDonald meant so they can all be in on the jokes that are you and your arguments. 😂

Is the joke supposed to ignorantly be that there are no innocent Muslims?

I don't know what MacDonald meant by that joke and he isn't around to tell me.
Why do you pretend so damn much?

😂😂😂
 
Why is that?

I thinlwhat Sweden is getting at and I do not mean to speak for him just I have read many of his posts and support him and his views, is that at this current time in Islam, the vast majority of Muslims are still illterate and do not read. That is not meant as an insult just a fact. As a result they heavily depend on a Mullah or Imam to tell them what to believe. That in itself is what he and I who are not Muslims as well as progressive Muslims point out. We forget that the entirety of Islamic thought has not evolved to a point where the majority of its followers can engage in critical analysis and question it or there is one unifiied approach to it that is peaceful and tolerant of non Muslim beliefs. Islam teaches a non Muslim is an infidel not entitled to the same rights as Muslims let alone permitted to go to heaven. Its still used to define non Muslims in a degrading and divisive manner, let alone its own different sects. Within Islam its Mullahs and Imams still use it to foster terrorist beliefs, hatred of gays and lesbians, women, and sub-sects within its own Muslim societies let alone when interacting with non Muslims.

Sweden like myself feel any religion can be used progressively or peacefulluy we just don;t think its realistic to believe Islam in most states today is being used peacefully or assimilates to democratic institutions, values.

In fact the conflict between "Palestinians" and "Israelis" is but one sub-conflict of a never ending set of inter-connected conflicts between different sects of Muslims, Muslims and Jews, Muslims and Christians, Muslims with other religious and ethnic groups such as Bahais, Druze, Berbers, Kurds, Coptics, animists, Zoroastrians, Seiks, Hindus, atheists, people who believe the state should be separated from religion, etc.

I think what Sweden and I are getting at and again I apologize and Sweden can tell me to shut the phack up I do not mean to speak for him-we both know say Ismaili Muslims or Amidyah Muslims are peaceful and progressice and Ismailis are often professionals so those two sects are practicing necessarily a benign kind of Islam. However those two sects would be the first to tell you the discrimination they undergo from other Muslims.

Now we apply the same standards when talking about other religions. We are not deluded into thinking some religions are perfect and more civilized or benign. In all religions are assholes and extremist fundamentalists using their religion as a weapon to hate. We are just saying at the present time, Islam as a religious network that is influencing government states and terror groups to cause intolerance and damage when in contact with their own Muslims and when interacting outside their religion.

However we reach out to and acknowledge modern or progressive or peaceful Muslims.

Hope that answers it. Excuse me Sweden but I thought I would but my face in because both of us are very specific when we have explained it in the past.
 
Last edited:
I thinlwhat Sweden is getting at and I do not mean to speak for him just I have read many of his posts and support him and his views, is that at this current time in Islam, the vast majority of Muslims are still illterate and do not read. That is not meant as an insult just a fact. As a result they heavily depend on a Mullah or Imam to tell them what to believe. That in itself is what he and I who are not Muslims as well as progressive Muslims point out. We forget that the entirety of Islamic thought has not evolved to a point where the majority of its followers can engage in critical analysis and question it or there is one unifiied approach to it that is peaceful and tolerant of non Muslim beliefs. Islam teaches a non Muslim is an infidel not entitled to the same rights as Muslims let alone permitted to go to heaven. Its still used to define non Muslims in a degrading and divisive manner, let alone its own different sects. Within Islam its Mullahs and Imams still use it to foster terrorist beliefs, hatred of gays and lesbians, women, and sub-sects within its own Muslim societies let alone when interacting with non Muslims.

Sweden like myself feel any religion can be used progressively or peacefulluy we just don;t think its realistic to believe Islam in most states today is being used peacefully or assimilates to democratic institutions, values.

In fact the conflict between "Palestinians" and "Israelis" is but one sub-conflict of a never ending set of inter-connected conflicts between different sects of Muslims, Muslims and Jews, Muslims and Christians, Muslims with other religious and ethnic groups such as Bahais, Druze, Berbers, Kurds, Coptics, animists, Zoroastrians, Seiks, Hindus, atheists, people who believe the state should be separated from religion, etc.

I think what Sweden and I are getting at and again I apologize and Sweden can tell me to shut the phack up I do not mean to speak for him-we both know say Ismaili Muslims or Amidyah Muslims are peaceful and progressice and Ismailis are often professionals so those two sects are practicing necessarily a benign kind of Islam. However those two sects would be the first to tell you the discrimination they undergo from other Muslims.

Now we apply the same standards when talking about other religions. We are not deluded into thinking some religions are perfect and more civilized or benign. In all religions are assholes and extremist fundamentalists using their religion as a weapon to hate. We are just saying at the present time, Islam as a religious network that is influencing government states and terror groups to cause intolerance and damage when in contact with their own Muslims and when interacting outside their religion.

However we reach out to and acknowledge modern or progressive or peaceful Muslims.

Hope that answers it. Excuse me Sweden but I thought I would but my face in because both of us are very specific when we have explained it in the past.
You explain our thinking so well there is little for me to add Mika-El. Thanks.

We should certainly listen to liberal Muslims - as well as former Muslims like Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Those unfamiliar wkith her writing might like to read this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali
 
I thinlwhat Sweden is getting at and I do not mean to speak for him just I have read many of his posts and support him and his views, is that at this current time in Islam, the vast majority of Muslims are still illterate and do not read. That is not meant as an insult just a fact.
Is it though? Can you verify that fact for me? When I look at literacy rates in places like Saudi Arabia or Iran they have higher reported rates of literacy than we do here in America. For both adults and children.
As a result they heavily depend on a Mullah or Imam to tell them what to believe.
Get back to me with those literacy rates and then we'll see who's believing what just because they heard it somewhere that one time..... 😂
 
You explain our thinking so well there is little for me to add Mika-El. Thanks.

We should certainly listen to liberal Muslims - as well as former Muslims like Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Those unfamiliar wkith her writing might like to read this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali
Thanks Sweden. I am your loyal ally on this board.

Lol I hope our new PM turns to Sweden for our fighter jets. We are buying your anti tank guns. I hate to admire Sweden for your military only, but I am glad you are our NATO ally now and we can turn to you for help in our rebuild. Your country and Denmark, Norway and Finland share out concern for the Arctic, environment, Russia, social and medical issues in pretty much the same way. We of course are tied to France and the UK culturally and Holland because of WW2, but you guys are important to us now that the US under Trump is so unreliable.

As a supporter of Israel you know I am greatly concerned about Netanyahu policies and you know why. I will leave it at that for now.
 
Is it though? Can you verify that fact for me? When I look at literacy rates in places like Saudi Arabia or Iran they have higher reported rates of literacy than we do here in America. For both adults and children.

Get back to me with those literacy rates and then we'll see who's believing what just because they heard it somewhere that one time..... 😂
There may or may not be high literacy in Saudi Arabia. What is certain though is that what Saudis are allowed to read is very limited. Any published criticism of Islam or the ruling family would result in harsh punishment.
 
Is it though? Can you verify that fact for me? When I look at literacy rates in places like Saudi Arabia or Iran they have higher reported rates of literacy than we do here in America. For both adults and children.

Get back to me with those literacy rates and then we'll see who's believing what just because they heard it somewhere that one time..... 😂
I am not sure what you find so funny.

First off I am going to concede without argument we use the no. 40% not 80%. which I used representing engage university level critical thinking to be able to think abstractly and challenge the Koran without simply feeding it back without question. I will agree that 80% is unfair and simply use the 40% illteracy number most sources today will quote including:

:https://ummid.com/news/2015/February/11.02.2015/literacy-in-muslim-world.html

which states:

" Illiteracy is stunningly rampant in the Muslim world. Nearly 40 percent - with varying percentages in the member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), of the Muslim world's population cannot read or write.

It means that there are hundreds of millions of illiterates in the OIC countries, mostly female, according to a report prepared by the OIC.

The report, a copy of which is obtained by the International Islamic News Agency (IINA), showed that adult literacy rate in the OIC countries is roughly 73 percent, lower than the global adult literacy rate (82 percent), and the rate of other developing countries (85 percent), based on 2013 statistics.
...
The illiteracy rate in the Muslim world ranges between 40 percent among males and 65 percent among females, with rural areas lagging behind urban areas by over 10 percent, said the Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (ISESCO).

Literacy indicators are still not encouraging, given the fact that there are still 57 million children (many of them in the Muslim world) out of school worldwide, a matter which will constitute a growing burden of illiteracy rates in the long run."

Also I refer to: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1159514.pd which stated:

"Illiteracy in the Arab world is becoming an urgent necessity particularly facing problems of poverty, ignorance, extremism, which impede the required economic, social, political and cultural development processes. Extremism, violence and terrorism, in the Arab world, can only be eliminated by spreading of knowledge, fighting illiteracy. The study shows that illiteracy rate among males in the Arab world is 25% for males, (46%) for Females. Results of the study show that if the educational situation in all Arab countries does not change, illiteracy rates will increase in the Arab world, and the number of illiterates in the Arab world will reach 49 million in the category of age of 15 years, and by 2024,it may reach 5.5 million of youth (15-24 years). The study identifies factors affecting the rise of illiteracy in the Arab world, particularly: "Low economic level of many Arab countries, the growing security, political turmoil and internal problems experienced by most Arab countries, Social reasons, and random policies and contradiction in the trends and areas of combating illiteracy." The study concluded that illiteracy has a significant impact on social behavior, and that democracy, political participation, violence, cultural development, respect, pluralism, and accepting diversity, are all affected by illiteracy. The study recommends that Arab governments must formulate clear strategies linked to development plans to save 100 million Arab citizens who suffer from illiteracy, and ignorance. Illiteracy is to be taken seriously because it entails misunderstanding democracy, lack of youth interest in political affairs, corruption, and therefore the absence of comprehensive reform programs."

The percentage no. is not the issue and illteracy in the Muslim world is not a laughing matter.
 
There may or may not be high literacy in Saudi Arabia. What is certain though is that what Saudis are allowed to read is very limited. Any published criticism of Islam or the ruling family would result in harsh punishment.
That's not certain, at least not just based on your say so internet guy. Maybe that impresses people like @Mika-El but not me. 😂
 
I mean the starvation and withholding of supplies was an intentional act as many on this forum have told me. The attacking of aid workers and journalists too appears to be deliberate.
 
I am not sure what you find so funny.

First off I am going to concede without argument we use the no. 40% not 80%. which I used representing engage university level critical thinking to be able to think abstractly and challenge the Koran without simply feeding it back without question. I will agree that 80% is unfair and simply use the 40% illteracy number most sources today will quote including:

:https://ummid.com/news/2015/February/11.02.2015/literacy-in-muslim-world.html

which states:

" Illiteracy is stunningly rampant in the Muslim world. Nearly 40 percent - with varying percentages in the member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), of the Muslim world's population cannot read or write.

It means that there are hundreds of millions of illiterates in the OIC countries, mostly female, according to a report prepared by the OIC.

The report, a copy of which is obtained by the International Islamic News Agency (IINA), showed that adult literacy rate in the OIC countries is roughly 73 percent, lower than the global adult literacy rate (82 percent), and the rate of other developing countries (85 percent), based on 2013 statistics.
...
The illiteracy rate in the Muslim world ranges between 40 percent among males and 65 percent among females, with rural areas lagging behind urban areas by over 10 percent, said the Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (ISESCO).

Literacy indicators are still not encouraging, given the fact that there are still 57 million children (many of them in the Muslim world) out of school worldwide, a matter which will constitute a growing burden of illiteracy rates in the long run."

Also I refer to: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1159514.pd which stated:

"Illiteracy in the Arab world is becoming an urgent necessity particularly facing problems of poverty, ignorance, extremism, which impede the required economic, social, political and cultural development processes. Extremism, violence and terrorism, in the Arab world, can only be eliminated by spreading of knowledge, fighting illiteracy. The study shows that illiteracy rate among males in the Arab world is 25% for males, (46%) for Females. Results of the study show that if the educational situation in all Arab countries does not change, illiteracy rates will increase in the Arab world, and the number of illiterates in the Arab world will reach 49 million in the category of age of 15 years, and by 2024,it may reach 5.5 million of youth (15-24 years). The study identifies factors affecting the rise of illiteracy in the Arab world, particularly: "Low economic level of many Arab countries, the growing security, political turmoil and internal problems experienced by most Arab countries, Social reasons, and random policies and contradiction in the trends and areas of combating illiteracy." The study concluded that illiteracy has a significant impact on social behavior, and that democracy, political participation, violence, cultural development, respect, pluralism, and accepting diversity, are all affected by illiteracy. The study recommends that Arab governments must formulate clear strategies linked to development plans to save 100 million Arab citizens who suffer from illiteracy, and ignorance. Illiteracy is to be taken seriously because it entails misunderstanding democracy, lack of youth interest in political affairs, corruption, and therefore the absence of comprehensive reform programs."

The percentage no. is not the issue and illteracy in the Muslim world is not a laughing matter.
I find this entire diatribe and essay funny because it's all unnecesay. Literacy has more to do with economic stability and opportunity in your country than Muslim. As I've said and as you've conceded, there are Muslim countries with high rates of literacy so Muslim isnt the key factor there. You could try to make the same argument about predominantly black African countries but the bigotry would be more glaring there.
 
That's not certain, at least not just based on your say so internet guy. Maybe that impresses people like @Mika-El but not me. 😂
Do you really, truly, honestly think that there is freedom of expression is Saudi Arabia? I think you are better informed than you pretend.
 
Do you really, truly, honestly think that there is freedom of expression is Saudi Arabia? I think you are better informed than you pretend.
No that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that restrictions on freedom in Muslim countries by muslim leaders are being done to Muslims so maybe don't victim blame those same Muslims by being simple and blaming Muslim. I'll give an analogy.

Here in the US white Christians used laws to deny education to black Americans who are also largely Christian. If you were simple you could look at that and blame Christianity if you want to but the church also played a big role in helping to educate black Americans. Just as Islam has in raising literacy rates in countries like Saudi Arabia. The moral being there are good Christians and bad Christians. At one point in time Christianity was the religion of the illiterate and uneducated who had no political or economic power.
 
Who do you think will receive that food once the blockade is removed? Hamas or Palestinian civilians?

I imagine that it would go similarly to how it was before the Israelis engaged in cutting off food aid. That is, both Palestinian civilians AND Hamas would get the food, just as both Palestinian civilians AND Hamas used the water, and both Palestinian civilians AND Hamas were using the electricity. The fact that a murderous militant organization uses the basic necessities of life to survive is literally no justification to cut off the necessities of life to the wider civilian population.
 
😂

Why would I whine about your weak argument? I'm making the arguments that your description is frail and make believe.

This-- "everyone has to see receive it the same way you do"-- is you whining and crying when someone doesn't agree with an interpretation you made, and one I doubt you even believe yourself.
We don't disagree on what the words say so there's no distortion there. And I said quite clearly that I have no idea what the author of the words meant by it, so all that's left is what those words meant to me.

In all likelihood the only thing on your mind with your interpretation of the MacDonald joke was to make a hypothetically smart comeback. You failed, and now you're trying to play cleanup on Aisle Seven.
Are you accusing me of distorting my own perception? 😂 What frail argument are you trying to make now to cover for the objective fact that all your arguments make no rational sense.
I accuse you of making a nonsensical declaration and then trying to defend it just to defend your attempt to distort the meaning of the joke, which was clearly meant to criticize Leftist priorities.
I do appreciate that we have different views, its you that has to pretend there's some distortion going on on my part even though I clearly said in a previous post that I have no idea what the MacDonald meant by that. Its this practice of basing your arguments on pretend and make believe that I see as frail. Come at me with some real shit. Why pretend? Especially when I'm going to call you on it and detail with quotes what you got factually wrong.
Your phony reverse-interpretation was pretend and make believe from the word go.
Oh... so it was a joke. Ok. You were being like the forum Jester. If that's the case why are you all salty that I'm laughing at you? 😂
I said that one of your posts reminded me of the sort of Lefties MacDonald clearly parodied. You couldn't take being the butt of the joke so now you're trying to play Socrates, which is even more funny because Libs turn to clumsy imitations of Socrates whenever they seek to defend relativism; i.e., "my interpretation is just as good as yours even if I can't prove mine."
Am I? Exactly how am I doing that by admittinng I don't know what he's supposed to mean? Explain that one to me. 😂
Just as I can read MacDonald's intent by the structure of his joke, I can read yours by the structure of your lame comeback.
Here's the quote for everyone else of me distorting what MacDonald meant so they can all be in on the jokes that are you and your arguments. 😂




Why do you pretend so damn much?

😂😂😂
Thanks for repeating your faux interpretation and thus proving how little your faux-Socrates style of questioning means.
 
This-- "everyone has to see receive it the same way you do"-- is you whining and crying when someone doesn't agree with an interpretation you made, and one I doubt you even believe yourself.
I don't care if you don't agree with my interpretation, that's what subjectivity is and what I've been arguing for. Why are you pretending that's some quote of mine? 😂

Me asking you what it means to you is an acknowledgement of the subjectivity.
In all likelihood the only thing on your mind with your interpretation of the MacDonald joke was to make a hypothetically smart comeback. You failed, and now you're trying to play cleanup on Aisle Seven.
Failed at what? A subjective interpretation? Make up your mind guy. Subjective things aren't right or wrong. My interpretation isn't wrong and yours right, they're just different. Your argument can't even remain consistent paragraph to paragraph. 😂😂😂
I accuse you of making a nonsensical declaration and then trying to defend it just to defend your attempt to distort the meaning of the joke, which was clearly meant to criticize Leftist priorities.
My first comment about the joke was a question, not a declaration. I even quoted it for you. Do you need me to do it again frail pretender? 😂


Your phony reverse-interpretation was pretend and make believe from the word go.
So the "everyone has to receive it the same way you do" is actually your argument?
😂😂😂
I said that one of your posts reminded me of the sort of Lefties MacDonald clearly parodied. You couldn't take being the butt of the joke so now you're trying to play Socrates, which is even more funny because Libs turn to clumsy imitations of Socrates whenever they seek to defend relativism; i.e., "my interpretation is just as good as yours even if I can't prove mine."
Prove what? How I felt about the joke. I explained how I felt with my response which was to mainly be confused about whether or not I supposed to assume there were no innocent Muslims. You're the one accusing my perspective of being a lie without proof. 😂
Just as I can read MacDonald's intent by the structure of his joke, I can read yours by the structure of your lame comeback.
Did you manage to read the question mark at the end? Guess what a question mark signifies? It's not a declarative statement. That's hint. 😉
Thanks for repeating your faux interpretation and thus proving how little your faux-Socrates style of questioning means.
What is a faux interpretation? Is there only your interpretation that me must all accept? How hilariously frail of you. 🤣🤣🤣
 
That's not certain, at least not just based on your say so internet guy. Maybe that impresses people like @Mika-El but not me. 😂
Sweden is an impressive person yes. I will let the readers of this forum decide between the 3 of us who is the most impressive. My photos were leaked by Peter Hegseth from US military files:

1. Sweden

1748717530070.webp

2. Master Debator
1748717686944.webp


3.Mika-El

1748717830731.webp
 
I find this entire diatribe and essay funny because it's all unnecesay. Literacy has more to do with economic stability and opportunity in your country than Muslim. As I've said and as you've conceded, there are Muslim countries with high rates of literacy so Muslim isnt the key factor there. You could try to make the same argument about predominantly black African countries but the bigotry would be more glaring there.

What do you mean"key f actor" and to what? Its not what I responded to. I was explaining why Islam as a religion is oppressive in current practice. What I stated has nothing to do with bigotry and is precisely why I quoted Muslim sources because anyone who is reading you knew you were going to play some kind of Muslim bigotry card.

You asked for an explanation of why Muslim countries are unstable. Now you try twist it as if I am attacking all Muslims unfairly because they are Muslim.

I was explaining that in Muslim countriues controlled currently by Muslim theocracies that often to not separate state from religion, literacy rates of citizens and their ability to develop their countries is a problem and that leads those religious and clerical regimes or military regimes which claim to implement what they do as Muslim doctrine oppressive. People who have sufficient education to be able to read, write, challenge, debate are more likely to challenge unfair laws, opressive or unfair thoughts and provide alternative approaches to leading countries and developing their success. If people are of limited ability (and that is not an insult) they are less likely to have the confidence to speak out, challenge, be able to express themselves.

If you want to pretend you do not know the mix of oppressive Muslim doctrine and goverments in say Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey, Chad, Niger, half of Nigeria, knock yourself out denying it. There is a direct corelation to their forms of traditional totalitarian Islamic rule (through sharia law) and lack of economic and other development.

I will also say any country with low literacy rates suffers the exact same developmental issues regardless of skin colour, religion and so for you to try twist what I said as bigoted against just Muslims is nonsensical.

Next since you brought up economic stability here is but one article that explains to you the corelation between
religion and economic peformance since you not IU raised it and try make the two look exclusive: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305750X05000823

Now since you want to deflect and try suggest what I gave raised is anti Muslim and not accurate I again will let a Muslim discuss their view as to how Sharia law in Muslim states is oppressive:


The above does not mean all Muslims are illiterate but it does mean when its used toi oppress that same exercuse supresses the kind of thought needed to develop successful economies that distribute wealth and capital and investment in a way that the majority of the citizens of the Muslim nation can enjoy.

Chose any of the Muslim countries of Africa, the Middle East, Indonesia, Philippines. Malaysia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, show me any Muslim regime with a stable, progressive democracy with successful economic institutions. Wealthy nations such as Saudi ARabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, condense the wealth in oligarchies and freedom of speech and democratic institutions do not exist. In fact these nations import slave cheap labour Muslims from Africa Mauritania, Senegal, Malawi, Tanzania, Somalia, Chad, Niger, Dahomey, Libya) Pakistan, the Philippines, Indonesia, as cheap labour and define themselves by a skin colour and class system.

Save the feigned righteous pose. I have witnessed the treatment of Muslims by Muslims in such countries. Save it.
 
Last edited:
The point I made about why Islamic nations today have so many problematic nations and how it relates to their literacy rates is best stated as follows and again I quote a Muslim so that Master Debater's race card bigotry argument is neutralized. I also repeat this argument as it applies to any country with problematic educational levels and I never argued it is specific to only Islamic nations but I would argue is most often symptomatiuc of many if not the majority:


"My personal, sad conclusion is: all those who lack qualitative education and conscientization (critical consciousness) are prone to being influenced by fanatic, reductionist, destructive ideologies; Muslim or non-Muslim. They are also prone, in the same way, to being oblivious agents of the present-day systems of oppression, either serving their self-interest or being largely clueless about the impact of their participation in propagating such systems."
...
"Being devastated by the oppression and dehumanization we see and experience in the world today has little to do, overall, with resolving to fanatic, reductionist and anti-human convictions. Even when some choose to be armed militants, they have a choice to make as to what kind of armed militants they want to be: an uneducated, dogmatic one, or one with critical consciousness and pro-human vision."

,,,

"The many fanatic and violent groups in our world today that claim to represent the only legitimate version of Islam do not have enough legitimacy to act in the name of oppressed Muslims, and they do not even consider that legitimacy a priority."

and here is the most powerful of his words I quote to Master Debaror:

"Religion is a powerful motivational vehicle, as it has mostly been throughout history, due to its proven strong influence on our collective and individual human psychology. If we dismiss this self-evident point from our analyses, we do so at our own peril."

The above applies to all religious extremists but is a legitimate explanation for why Sweden, I and others argue that in today's Islamic nations, the connection between its fundamental practices of Islam and its citizens may not be at a wide spread level that allows the belief that people of other faiths are equal.
 
What do you mean"key f actor" and to what? Its not what I responded to. I was explaining why Islam as a religion is oppressive in current practice. What I stated has nothing to do with bigotry and is precisely why I quoted Muslim sources because anyone who is reading you knew you were going to play some kind of Muslim bigotry card.
It is bigotry. You're talking about an entire religion with billions of followers. People are oppressive, religions are tools. I say that as an agnostic. To me that's what religion is. A tool for organization. People use the tools at their disposal to oppress or uplift people.
You asked for an explanation of why Muslim countries are unstable. Now you try twist it as if I am attacking all Muslims unfairly because they are Muslim.
No I didn't. 😂

I asked Sweden why he responded to my post with the statement that there is no benign Islam.
If you want to pretend you do not know the mix of oppressive Muslim doctrine and goverments in say Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey, Chad, Niger, half of Nigeria, knock yourself out denying it. There is a direct corelation to their forms of traditional totalitarian Islamic rule (through sharia law) and lack of economic and other development.
Correlation isn't causation. I don't have to pretend you haven't shown causation because you haven't.
I will also say any country with low literacy rates suffers the exact same developmental issues regardless of skin colour, religion and so for you to try twist what I said as bigoted against just Muslims is nonsensical.

Next since you brought up economic stability here is but one article that explains to you the corelation between
religion and economic peformance since you not IU raised it and try make the two look exclusive: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305750X05000823
Did you even read that? 🤣🤣🤣 I'll quote the summary for you.

SUMMARY

This paper investigates the relationship between religion and economic performance. In both cross-country and within-country regressions, the null hypothesis that religious affiliation is uncorrelated with performance can frequently be rejected (i.e., religion matters), though the regressions do not yield a robust pattern of coefficients with respect to particular religions. The results with respect to Islam do not support the notion that it is inimical to growth. On the contrary, virtually every statistically significant coefficient on Muslim population shares reported in this paper—in both cross-country and within-country statistical analyses—is positive. If anything, Islam promotes growth.
🤣🤣🤣

Now since you want to deflect and try suggest what I gave raised is anti Muslim and not accurate I again will let a Muslim discuss their view as to how Sharia law in Muslim states is oppressive:

Sharia law doesn't speak for all of Islam any more than fundamentalist Christians speak for all of Christianity.
The above does not mean all Muslims are illiterate but it does mean when its used toi oppress that same exercuse supresses the kind of thought needed to develop successful economies that distribute wealth and capital and investment in a way that the majority of the citizens of the Muslim nation can enjoy.
I'm not arguing that Islam can't be used to oppress, Im questioning the claim that it can't be benign.
Chose any of the Muslim countries of Africa, the Middle East, Indonesia, Philippines. Malaysia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, show me any Muslim regime with a stable, progressive democracy with successful economic institutions. Wealthy nations such as Saudi ARabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, condense the wealth in oligarchies and freedom of speech and democratic institutions do not exist. In fact these nations import slave cheap labour Muslims from Africa Mauritania, Senegal, Malawi, Tanzania, Somalia, Chad, Niger, Dahomey, Libya) Pakistan, the Philippines, Indonesia, as cheap labour and define themselves by a skin colour and class system.

Save the feigned righteous pose. I have witnessed the treatment of Muslims by Muslims in such countries. Save it.
So your personal anecdote is supposed to override your own scientific study that shows Islam can be a positive influence on growth?
 
Last edited:
The point I made about why Islamic nations today have so many problematic nations and how it relates to their literacy rates is best stated as follows and again I quote a Muslim so that Master Debater's race card bigotry argument is neutralized. I also repeat this argument as it applies to any country with problematic educational levels and I never argued it is specific to only Islamic nations but I would argue is most often symptomatiuc of many if not the majority:


"My personal, sad conclusion is: all those who lack qualitative education and conscientization (critical consciousness) are prone to being influenced by fanatic, reductionist, destructive ideologies; Muslim or non-Muslim. They are also prone, in the same way, to being oblivious agents of the present-day systems of oppression, either serving their self-interest or being largely clueless about the impact of their participation in propagating such systems."
...
"Being devastated by the oppression and dehumanization we see and experience in the world today has little to do, overall, with resolving to fanatic, reductionist and anti-human convictions. Even when some choose to be armed militants, they have a choice to make as to what kind of armed militants they want to be: an uneducated, dogmatic one, or one with critical consciousness and pro-human vision."

,,,

"The many fanatic and violent groups in our world today that claim to represent the only legitimate version of Islam do not have enough legitimacy to act in the name of oppressed Muslims, and they do not even consider that legitimacy a priority."

and here is the most powerful of his words I quote to Master Debaror:

"Religion is a powerful motivational vehicle, as it has mostly been throughout history, due to its proven strong influence on our collective and individual human psychology. If we dismiss this self-evident point from our analyses, we do so at our own peril."

The above applies to all religious extremists but is a legitimate explanation for why Sweden, I and others argue that in today's Islamic nations, the connection between its fundamental practices of Islam and its citizens may not be at a wide spread level that allows the belief that people of other faiths are equal.
You trying to quote Muslims to defend Swedens claim that there is no such thing as benign Islam is adorable. 😂😂😂
 
It is bigotry. You're talking about an entire religion with billions of followers. People are oppressive, religions are tools. I say that as an agnostic. To me that's what religion is. A tool for organization. People use the tools at their disposal to oppress or uplift people.

No I didn't. 😂

I asked Sweden why he responded to my post with the statement that there is no benign Islam.

Correlation isn't causation. I don't have to pretend you haven't shown causation because you haven't.

Did you even read that? 🤣🤣🤣 I'll quote the summary for you.


🤣🤣🤣


Sharia law doesn't speak for all of Islam any more than fundamentalist Christians speak for all of Christianity.

I'm not arguing that Islam can't be used to oppress, Im questioning the claim that it can't be benign.

So your personal anecdote is supposed to override your own scientific study that shows Islam can be a positive influence on growth?
I have indeed said there is no such thing as benign Islam. Islam is a totalitarian and absolutist word view with a cruel and unjust legal system, Sharia attached. It criminalises dissent or criticism. It is totally intolerant of any form of democracy. Islam oppresses all who come under its rule and seeks seeks to inflict terror on the rest. Islam is the enemy of decency and humanity and if we are so foolish to let it thrive we do so at our peril.
 
Back
Top Bottom