What's new
Frozen In Carbonite

Welcome to FIC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Tangent, Derail, and Argument Thread

Rodyle

Socialist Slut
Banned
How does this post


Have anything to do with the rough draft for a Frozen in Carbonite Site Charter?
You mean that direct response to the admin of the site spitballing about what should or should not be allowed here vs what is allowed there, which pointed out WHY something is allowed there?

Wow yeah what a derail
 

Lord Inquisitor Adornable

The Community Outreach Mod
You mean that direct response to the admin of the site spitballing about what should or should not be allowed here vs what is allowed there, which pointed out WHY something is allowed there?

Wow yeah what a derail
The post in question was made on Sunday at 11:44 AM, while Hortons first reply was Yesterday at 12:20 PM a full 24 hours after your post was made.

So no I do not mean that.
 

Rodyle

Socialist Slut
Banned
The post in question was made on Sunday at 11:44 AM, while Hortons first reply was Yesterday at 12:20 PM a full 24 hours after your post was made.

So no I do not mean that.
Oh right I forgot I said it twice.

In that case it's irrelevant because this was before you tried to shut down the discussion was it not? It's a bit hard to tell because you've ripped the thread up.
 

Lord Inquisitor Adornable

The Community Outreach Mod
Oh right I forgot I said it twice.

In that case it's irrelevant because this was before you tried to shut down the discussion was it not? It's a bit hard to tell because you've ripped the thread up.
I issued a warning to cease derailment Yesterday at 11:52 AM
The Post Bearing the warning banner was made Sunday at 11:44 AM
A full day before I issued the warning.

So my apologies, I considered only moving posts made after my initial warning, but ultimately decided against it and took all off topic posting. That warning was applied while I mistakenly thought it was your first post after my warning instead of just the first post I considered to of been off topic.

Your offending reply is quoted below.


The ability to dismiss someone's politicians preferences is privilege, not maturity.

Also /international/ liberation is the rule for socialism, not the exception, so lol whining about "Imperialism" because you got called out on shit.
@Balerion posts an off topic political musing which Rufus responds to and then you responded to him.

On that note I'm issuing a verbal warning to @Rufus Shinra for thread derailment. While I am not issuing individual warnings to all derail participants Rufus does standout as the poster who enabled @Rodyle's infractable post. I had already issued a warning within the thread in regards to staying on topic.
 

Ravan

Gone
How does this post


Have anything to do with the rough draft for a Frozen in Carbonite Site Charter?
I assume he doesn’t want homophobes, Trump voters or, for some reason, boots as moderators here.
 

Lord Inquisitor Adornable

The Community Outreach Mod
I assume he doesn’t want homophobes, Trump voters or, for some reason, boots as moderators here.
While I understand the sentiment the charter only concerns poster rights so ergo Rodyle was off topic.
 

t-dugong

Beach bum, Esq.
You mean like ISIS, which utilizes religious scripture excerpts to justify a lot of atrocities and operates under widely-recognized religious laws, mostly just being considerably more hardass with them rather than adding new bullshit? And I did specify the characteristics of American protestantism I was wanting rammed down Islam's throat, the fractious and easily sect-forming nature, not the different, less outright dangerous, sort of fundamentalism. The reduction in threat comes from essentially making the Sunni/Shiite thing less violent and vastly more fragmented, so they're too busy arguing over the exact details to form a huge block of violent fundamentalists.

Well, since this would constitute a derailment of the Sargon thread I figure this would be the right place to... talk about it. Here's the thing about just about any religions and the extremist elements in them. All of them will use the primary source found within said religion, interpret it in the narrowest sense and sometimes outright distorting what was written down or said to justify their actions. ISIS isn't unique in that regard.

Me personally, I reject your suggestion for Islam to go down the path of American Protestantism, because what you envision for us Muslims is exactly the stuff that lead to your problems; Evangelicalism, seed gospel and in general, the reason why there are terms like casual christians bandied around. Also, who the fuck are you to ram things down our throats and dictate what my religion should evolve into? You straight out said you want Islam to be weak, to be easily breakable into small pieces you can deal with at your leisure. Sorry dude, I may not be a very devout Muslim but I draw the line at your high-handedness and arrogant notion that you can and would dictate my religion.

Like I wrote in my previous post when I quotes a whole sura' (book) to you, you do you and I do mine.
 

Morphile

Well-known member
Here's the thing about just about any religions and the extremist elements in them
And most of them haven't those extremists in charge of countries, nor have they usually formed the backbone of legal systems. And yet we have ISIS and Sharia Law, both extremely deeply entrenched in the wider theology beyond the book. The Middle East does define the "standard" form of Islam, and it is a highly oppressive religious standard.

Also, who the fuck are you to ram things down our throats and dictate what my religion should evolve into?
...Someone who's seen news of several incidences of the current two-hyperdominant-sects paradigm of Islam having open violence between them? And the numerous cases where they've justified atrocities with direct scripture quotes? This isn't a fringe thing, they still have an official, religiously-justified, death sentence for homosexuality in several major Middle Eastern countries.

You straight out said you want Islam to be weak, to be easily breakable into small pieces you can deal with at your leisure.
No, the point of the division is so that they can't violently overthrow governments, like ISIS did. Religious homogeneity leads to extremely bad things. The closest thing to ISIS that has happened with Christianity was the violent evangelizing in China... Which happened because only one or two particularly fundamentalist forms of Christianity ever got any foothold. Had there been a dozen different ones with stark differences, they'd have been too busy debating the proper version of Christianity among themselves to try to launch a violent coup to any real success. Importantly, the Bible does not explicitly condone such actions. The Quran, though? You have to dig extremely deep and have a pile of historic records backing you up to get a firm case against ISIS, and even then, it's largely not the big nasty things, but the exact details of the big nasty things.

Like I wrote in my previous post when I quotes a whole sura' (book) to you, you do you and I do mine.
How about you actually explain the verses listed here as permitting of peace with any kind of direct interpretation? If the translations are off, do explain how. Islam is not a religion of peace, going by the book. Neither are Christianity and Judaism! The biggest difference is that the bulk of Christians and Jews don't obsess over their scripture like Muslims obsess over the Quran. Islam will never be peaceful unless it is unable to effectively enact violence, or forced to make the book less important. Oh, and here's a link for some of the so-called "verses of peace", to debunk some of that apologia. Please do offer a coherent argument against the accusations, backed by the actual standards of the power center.

The issues isn't about how the book is interpreted. The issue is quite largely the book itself, because no interpretation of the words actually present describes a genuinely peaceful religion. It's more blatantly expansionist than Christianity, which at least limits to evangelizing in the book itself. Meanwhile, the Quran explicitly permits violent expansion of the area controlled by Islam in the chronologically later Suras. The Quran also has several blatant contradictions in it, and these are usually resolved by having the chronologically-later, and near universally more violence-supporting, verses override earlier ones when contradicted. Islam, according to the book, is considerably less peaceful than Christianity and Judaism, because the latter two have blanket rules against killing people, while the Quran refers only to Muslims.

If Islam is going to be tolerated in the modern world, it needs to ditch the Quran as its primary moral compass. You find the "casual Christians" contemptable, and yet are ignoring the explicit calls to conquest, made during a violent conquest, within your own scripture's holy texts. The morality espoused by the Quran, in isolation, is a violent, insular and expansionist one, rejecting of the legitimacy of other religions, with the best you get being literal taxing for not being Muslim.

Fuck off Morphile!
Maybe when your lot stops using ad-homonyms instead of refutations and stops misrepresenting my position. The entirety of the idea that I actually support Pinochet is a massive strawman, for example, because I've explicitly stated I consider him a net positive because the socialists were already in power and already doing things with a universal track record of ruining economies. Less. Bad.

Not helping yourself there, @Morphile. You may not be as crass as some of the other posters but you're basically saying things that are not acceptable. Seems to me you just dress your intentions nicely and hide it in a fricking haystack. Not cool.
Alternatively, you're a paranoid self-deluding asshole who refuses to accept that a person capable of considering anything worse than fascism without supporting fascism can exist (to use a rather extreme example). Among other failures to comprehend the fact nuance exists in politics. Or the fact your own religion's scripture actually advocates for forceful expansion, apparently.
 

t-dugong

Beach bum, Esq.
And most of them haven't those extremists in charge of countries, nor have they usually formed the backbone of legal systems. And yet we have ISIS and Sharia Law, both extremely deeply entrenched in the wider theology beyond the book. The Middle East does define the "standard" form of Islam, and it is a highly oppressive religious standard.
No they don't. Islam does not operate like Roman Catholicism, with a pope and papal bulls. With Islam, jurispudence experts convene on an issue and after gaining consensus issue out a ruling by an acknowledged authority, what is known as fatwa in Arabic. About ISIS, AQ and the Talibans, their positions are considered bunk by the other clerics with acknowledged authority in matters of jurispudence.

..Someone who's seen news of several incidences of the current two-hyperdominant-sects paradigm of Islam having open violence between them? And the numerous cases where they've justified atrocities with direct scripture quotes? This isn't a fringe thing, they still have an official, religiously-justified, death sentence for homosexuality in several major Middle Eastern countries.
Again, see what I wrote above. A fatwa in Islam is not papal bull or canon issued by the pope (especially in the classical sense of various pope's proclamations during the Middle Ages).

No, the point of the division is so that they can't violently overthrow governments, like ISIS did. Religious homogeneity leads to extremely bad things. The closest thing to ISIS that has happened with Christianity was the violent evangelizing in China... Which happened because only one or two particularly fundamentalist forms of Christianity ever got any foothold. Had there been a dozen different ones with stark differences, they'd have been too busy debating the proper version of Christianity among themselves to try to launch a violent coup to any real success. Importantly, the Bible does not explicitly condone such actions. The Quran, though? You have to dig extremely deep and have a pile of historic records backing you up to get a firm case against ISIS, and even then, it's largely not the big nasty things, but the exact details of the big nasty things.
ISIS overthrew the goverment by force of arms, not because Al-Baghdadi made a proclamation and people got compelled to follow it. There are people who didn't agree with him and his ilk and they promptly go to war after ISIS started killing other Muslims and blowing up mosques where the imams preach against their ideals.

Also, clerics debate about the proper way to interpret the verses of the Quran and the hadith all time. We just had our major split early when compared to Christians. Don't think Christians of different denominations didn't kill each others either. I still remember the persecutions of Catholics and Protestants in countries held by whichever majority denomination and how Christian sectarian differences influenced the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

Also, I remember reading about the dashing of children's head in the Bible, visiting iniquities to the fourth generations and other suitably gory passages. So yeah, the Bible does have passages that condone violence if I squint at it.

Find some other sites to quote about the Quran or better yet, pick a good translation and give it a read yourself. The site you quoted sourced a professional anti-Islamist listed on the Southern Piverty Law Center's hate list. It is also filled with sources from other sites and people with questionable methodology.

Also, Islam empires were established during a time where others have also established empires and following even older civilisation that established empires. Kinda strange the Mongols, the Romans, the Sasanids and other people get a pass for building empires and making war but Islam gets judged by 21st century morality here. I thought you were a big proponent of okaying distasteful things in the name of doing something that builds a nation or government and the economy?

Lastly, Islam's main tenets and teachings are sourced from the Quran and the Hadiths. You telling me that Islam should discard that and follow the example of 'casual christians' is kinda ridiculous. Also, read the sura I quoted at you. You go your way and I go mine. I don't say I want all Christians to reform their religion to my personal order and to my satisfaction and I appreciate it if you do the same.

About the jizya, that tax you were harping on about, it's a poll tax, which was sometimes lower than the taxes previous rulers take from their subjects. Also by paying that and kharaj, which is basically a land and agricultural tax, is the only taxes that non-Muslims paid that is proscribed by the Quran. Muslims have to pay what equates to poll taxes, land and agriculture taxes, even taxes for excess amounts of gold and jewellery via zakat. What, rulers can't tax their subjects now?

There you go. Hope I answered your questions and rebutted your arguments in a satisfactory manner. All I ask is you don't try to preach to me about what my religion should do to fit your personal tastes, at least not without a good base of knowledge first.
 

Morphile

Well-known member
Find some other sites to quote about the Quran or better yet, pick a good translation and give it a read yourself
Show me how it's wrong instead of just telling me it's wrong. You won't change my mind with claims alone. Hell, it actually points out some details of the translations to reinforce its conclusions. This kind of refutation just perpetuates the problem, because it devolves into demanding someone learn another language solely to back up their criticisms of a religious text. Demanding people read multi-hundred-page books themselves, when they've cited others who've done so that aren't actually being debunked, isn't going to get anywhere.

listed on the Southern Piverty Law Center's hate list
You mean the place that lost a slander lawsuit for calling an antiradicalization Muslim Islamophobic? The one infamous among damn near everyone who opposes the progressives for being mostly nonsense? Yeah, they're not actually a reasonable authority on hate speech, and sourcing them puts you on the "extremist loon" list for a lot of people.

Kinda strange the Mongols, the Romans, the Sasanids and other people get a pass for building empires and making war but Islam gets judged by 21st century morality here.
Actually, my pass for Imperialism centers on those being worse! And I'm judging modern Islam by 21st centers standards, the big problem is that it has changed little and was built on the back of a violent conqueror. Unlike your other examples of brutal expansion, the brutality wasn't codified into religious texts, and those texts haven't been revised since they were codified. We're talking about a book that needs so much interpretation that the notes exceed the length of the original text for a famously well-regarded publication.

What, rulers can't tax their subjects now?
Is it somehow okay to discriminate based on religion when it's explicitly allowed by yours? Because that's what this tax amounts to. You're outright defending a religious practice of explicit discrimination against other religions.

Hope I answered your questions and rebutted your arguments in a satisfactory manner
No, because you offered not a single citation, and used an ad-homonym rather than pointing out how the translation is wrong. On anything. Which should be trivial to get for the big, common things and refutations of the other side's common things.
 

t-dugong

Beach bum, Esq.
So Robert Spencer is a qualified source on Islam then? Good to know. You know what, I concede to you. You win, come change us all Muslims so that we too can leap forward into the 21st century or better yet, abandon our savage Dark Age religion and become enlightened people just like you.

What do I care, you would never budge on your views anyway.
 

Ravan

Gone
So, @Morphile, will you be providing that proof that Pinochet was good for the country, in defiance of the actual economic chart that was produced? Or will you finally admit that he was not, that he was a detriment to the economy, and your beliefs about him being in any way better are wrong?
 

Morphile

Well-known member
So Robert Spencer is a qualified source on Islam then? Good to know. You know what, I concede to you. You win, come change us all Muslims so that we too can leap forward into the 21st century or better yet, abandon our savage Dark Age religion and become enlightened people just like you.

What do I care, you would never budge on your views anyway.
Can you at least try to refute my points, and the points I relay, with citation? Or are you so utterly degraded in debating skills that it is beyond you to even bother linking an in-depth argument someone else made, as I have? Show me wrong. The reason I have refused to change my opinion is that nobody has been showing me I'm actually wrong, heavily because you lot apparently don't understand what my arguments actually are in the first place so your attempts at proving your views right are running into the problem of me disagreeing on details of it, rather than thinking you're completely wrong.

Again, if I'm wrong, directly show me how my view is wrong, instead of just claiming it and pointing me at multiple hours, if not days, of researching to "find out for myself".

So, @Morphile, will you be providing that proof that Pinochet was good for the country, in defiance of the actual economic chart that was produced? Or will you finally admit that he was not, that he was a detriment to the economy, and your beliefs about him being in any way better are wrong?
...I've gone over this before. Those numbers are a holding pattern, followed by a fairly sharp rise shortly before a peaceful surrender of power. If you want me to stop having this view, show me that Chile would have improved more under Socialism than it had under, and in the safely transferred to aftermath of, Pinochet's rule. My argument hinges on Pinochet causing less damage, not no damage. Less bad, not good nor non-bad. I fully accept he was horrible! But he kept Chile from collapsing under a complete system replacement, rather than modification of the existing system in a way that actually worked out decently well in the long run. Sure, wealth inequality got worse, but his peaceful surrender of power set the stage for a rather rapid period of growth to put Chile in a relatively good spot for the region. It's fairly accurate to say that I believe the single best thing Pinochet did was give up power peacefully, letting his regime's then-beginning-to-improve-Chile policies remain intact and be maintained and improved upon to continue the improvement.

He has said the Pinochet dictatorship and it's horrific crimes are justified by the hypothetical and unquantifiable damage that the democratically elected government would cause through Socialism and so it was justifiable for Pinochet to rape, murder, and torture the Socialists and any other political dissidents and minorities (I'm sure the suppression of gays was totally necessary in the fight against Leftism).
My argument is that the precedents for Socialism of the types similar to what was elected into power in Chile indicate a virtually guaranteed economic failure state, especially during the Cold War in a country with some industrial needs being import-only. By precedent, Chile would have failed under the Socialists. Again, "less bad", not "good" or "not bad". My statements have been entirely about the Socialists being worse, and you've focused entirely on trying to show me Pinochet was horrible, which I don't deny. But there's this thing called "scale", the thing that makes there be a different between an alt-right loon and the Nazi Party of Germany cercia 1938, and that weighs in on my decision to place Pinochet as the lesser harm.
 

Ravan

Gone
Can you at least try to refute my points, and the points I relay, with citation? Or are you so utterly degraded in debating skills that it is beyond you to even bother linking an in-depth argument someone else made, as I have? Show me wrong. The reason I have refused to change my opinion is that nobody has been showing me I'm actually wrong, heavily because you lot apparently don't understand what my arguments actually are in the first place so your attempts at proving your views right are running into the problem of me disagreeing on details of it, rather than thinking you're completely wrong.

Again, if I'm wrong, directly show me how my view is wrong, instead of just claiming it and pointing me at multiple hours, if not days, of researching to "find out for myself".


...I've gone over this before. Those numbers are a holding pattern, followed by a fairly sharp rise shortly before a peaceful surrender of power. If you want me to stop having this view, show me that Chile would have improved more under Socialism than it had under, and in the safely transferred to aftermath of, Pinochet's rule. My argument hinges on Pinochet causing less damage, not no damage. Less bad, not good nor non-bad. I fully accept he was horrible! But he kept Chile from collapsing under a complete system replacement, rather than modification of the existing system in a way that actually worked out decently well in the long run. Sure, wealth inequality got worse, but his peaceful surrender of power set the stage for a rather rapid period of growth to put Chile in a relatively good spot for the region. It's fairly accurate to say that I believe the single best thing Pinochet did was give up power peacefully, letting his regime's then-beginning-to-improve-Chile policies remain intact and be maintained and improved upon to continue the improvement.


My argument is that the precedents for Socialism of the types similar to what was elected into power in Chile indicate a virtually guaranteed economic failure state, especially during the Cold War in a country with some industrial needs being import-only. By precedent, Chile would have failed under the Socialists. Again, "less bad", not "good" or "not bad". My statements have been entirely about the Socialists being worse, and you've focused entirely on trying to show me Pinochet was horrible, which I don't deny. But there's this thing called "scale", the thing that makes there be a different between an alt-right loon and the Nazi Party of Germany cercia 1938, and that weighs in on my decision to place Pinochet as the lesser harm.
So you can’t prove shit, but you refuse to admit that you are a liar and a fascist. You have zero credibility at this point. You have no citations, you have only your “gut feeling” just like Trump. And just like him, you are completely divorced from reality. Provide proof or withdraw any claims that oppression is justified to protect corporate profits.
 

Chessia

Tranarcha-Feminist Antifa Supersoldier Catgirl
My argument is that the precedents for Socialism of the types similar to what was elected into power in Chile indicate a virtually guaranteed economic failure state, especially during the Cold War in a country with some industrial needs being import-only. By precedent, Chile would have failed under the Socialists. Again, "less bad", not "good" or "not bad". My statements have been entirely about the Socialists being worse, and you've focused entirely on trying to show me Pinochet was horrible, which I don't deny. But there's this thing called "scale", the thing that makes there be a different between an alt-right loon and the Nazi Party of Germany cercia 1938, and that weighs in on my decision to place Pinochet as the lesser harm.
This is an assertion you are making entirely without any basis, thus far your argument is "look at other states" but your selection pool is biased due to the fact that with the exception of Yugoslavia (which was vastly better than the Marxist-Leninist system used by the Soviets and their satellites by most metrics, but then destroyed by Liberalization demands when they had to take loans which their system wasn't prepared for which exacerbated the issues they already had) all other Socialist attempts were either couped by the CIA, couped by the Soviets, or were forced to kowtow to the Soviets or Chinese in order to avoid being knocked over by the two; there's no way you can demonstrate Chile would've been worse under Marxists or other Socialist than it was under Pinochet and so your trying to justify the murders of innocent people instead.
 
Last edited:

Morphile

Well-known member
So you can’t prove shit, but you refuse to admit that you are a liar and a fascist
...Your citations don't actually contradict my point, though. Again, I'm not saying Pinochet was good, I'm saying he was less bad, and as the overthrower, a net positive.

You have no citations, you have only your “gut feeling” just like Trump
See below. And basically any history lesson on the USSR's economy, Venezuela's current situation and the breakdown of government debts in Europe.

Provide proof or withdraw any claims that oppression is justified to protect corporate profits.
Proof of self-proclaimed Socialists driving economies into the ground? How about CNBC pinning the blame for Greece's economic failure on socialistic policies? As well as Puerto Rico's? How about the Foundation for Economic Education issuing a statement condemning Socialism as an unworkable system? How many places am I going to have to show you criticizing Socialism for constantly failing when tried for you to accept that it'd have virtually guaranteed far worse times for Chile than Pinochet's rule?

And again, you fail to actually understand my argument, because it was never about Capitalism being protected. It was about the Socialists being on track to upend the economy, given every single other example of that shit being tried. Had they gone for gradually implementing such policies so as to not flip the boat over and not immediately started seizing foreign business assets, we'd be having a very different conversation. Had the Socialists broken pattern outside winning the popular vote, we'd be having a different conversation.

Edit:
This is an assertion you are making entirely based on confirmation bias, like there's no way you can demonstrate Chile would've been worse than Pinochet and so you're trying to justify the murders of innocent people instead.
When dealing with "what if?" questions, the core principal of debate is precedent. What have similar situations caused in the past is the path of questioning that is generally used. In this case, the prior track record of Socialism is "universal collapse into nigh-omnipresent poverty and/or dictatorship", which we see occurring in Venezuela today. Furthermore, you're thinking that Chile would somehow be exempt from the blanket hostility towards Socialism present in every Capitalist economy during the Cold War. Where is the precedent that it could work out for Chile to be Socialist in the middle of the Cold War? Oh wait, that's exactly why Pinochet was put in charge by the US. Even if they somehow managed to make it not collapse, it would only have called down war upon their heads because of the surrounding situation.
 

Chessia

Tranarcha-Feminist Antifa Supersoldier Catgirl
When dealing with "what if?" questions, the core principal of debate is precedent. What have similar situations caused in the past is the path of questioning that is generally used. In this case, the prior track record of Socialism is "universal collapse into nigh-omnipresent poverty and/or dictatorship", which we see occurring in Venezuela today. Furthermore, you're thinking that Chile would somehow be exempt from the blanket hostility towards Socialism present in every Capitalist economy during the Cold War. Where is the precedent that it could work out for Chile to be Socialist in the middle of the Cold War? Oh wait, that's exactly why Pinochet was put in charge by the US. Even if they somehow managed to make it not collapse, it would only have called down war upon their heads because of the surrounding situation.
Morphile, you are not prepared to have this conversation, you are not prepared to even know you're not prepared. In your previous posts you've conflated Marxism, Socialism, Anarchism together, using those terms interchangably and considering them interchangeable since you want to murder anyone who is them. You have not been able to demonstrate that you know the difference between Anarchism and Socialism and that they're different but related things, you have been unable to distinguish between Communism and other kinds of Socialism, Marxism from other kinds of Communism, Marxist-Leninism from other forms of Marxism, or Stalinism and Maoism from other forms of Marxism-Leninism. You don't do these things because you don't care to, the information is freely available but like most reactionaries you don't give a fuck to figure out the systemic, ideological, or functional differences in these often vastly different theories. You don't care, you've demonstrated yourself a bigot prior and what matters is enforcing your vision on everyone else regardless of how many people actually get hurt.

On the matter of Chile vs Venezuella you have yet to demonstrate that Marxist or Socialist Chile would have been under the same resource constraints and have the same resources available as Venezuela.

And finally, you use a failure of liberal capitalism, it's hostility to competing systems of economics or organization, to attack Socialism. Like you are literally victim blaming. If we were talking about individual people you would be saying the woman deserved to be killed because her rapist hates women. You're a Fascist and people would be more justified in making sure you could not spread your beliefs because it would ultimately be an act of self defense, because you ultimately call for the murder of innocent people.
 
Last edited:

t-dugong

Beach bum, Esq.
@Morphile, I am not going to debate with you, since you have shown that you do not accept proof even when it was shown to you, such as the graph of Chile's GDP during the Pinochet years and after his rule.

This is me stating my position.

  1. Say : O ye that reject Faith!
  2. I worship not that which ye worship,
  3. Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
  4. Nor will I worship those whom you have worshipped;,
  5. Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
  6. To you be your Way, and to me mine.
That is the sura Al-Kafirun (meaning the chapter of the disbelievers). This chapter came when Muhammad was in Mecca after he has revealed himself as a Messenger of God. His tribespeople offered him riches, women and power in their tribal structure if only he would renounce Allah. After that they asked for compromise, in that they asked if he would continue to preach about his religion they would place it equally with their gods. That is when this bit of was revealed, along with other verses.

So in short, we Muslims would try and work out our problems in the matter of our own faith within the framework of doctrine that was already revealed to us. Your suggestion, for Islam to break apart into hundreds or thousands of small cells that would break, re-join and break again with stuff invented willy nilly, I reject.

I say, to you your own way, to me mine. If any terrorist professing to be Muslims attacked you and yours, you're welcome to retaliate on those terrorists, and only those terrorists.
 

Rabe

I identfy as a 9000 series intelligences
The Catholics were just more effective then Islam was when erasing the competing sects back in the early days, they didn't get everthing mind but the people following the those sects those they killed dead
 

Ravan

Gone
...Your citations don't actually contradict my point, though. Again, I'm not saying Pinochet was good, I'm saying he was less bad, and as the overthrower, a net positive.


See below. And basically any history lesson on the USSR's economy, Venezuela's current situation and the breakdown of government debts in Europe.


Proof of self-proclaimed Socialists driving economies into the ground? How about CNBC pinning the blame for Greece's economic failure on socialistic policies? As well as Puerto Rico's? How about the Foundation for Economic Education issuing a statement condemning Socialism as an unworkable system? How many places am I going to have to show you criticizing Socialism for constantly failing when tried for you to accept that it'd have virtually guaranteed far worse times for Chile than Pinochet's rule?

And again, you fail to actually understand my argument, because it was never about Capitalism being protected. It was about the Socialists being on track to upend the economy, given every single other example of that shit being tried. Had they gone for gradually implementing such policies so as to not flip the boat over and not immediately started seizing foreign business assets, we'd be having a very different conversation. Had the Socialists broken pattern outside winning the popular vote, we'd be having a different conversation.

Edit:

When dealing with "what if?" questions, the core principal of debate is precedent. What have similar situations caused in the past is the path of questioning that is generally used. In this case, the prior track record of Socialism is "universal collapse into nigh-omnipresent poverty and/or dictatorship", which we see occurring in Venezuela today. Furthermore, you're thinking that Chile would somehow be exempt from the blanket hostility towards Socialism present in every Capitalist economy during the Cold War. Where is the precedent that it could work out for Chile to be Socialist in the middle of the Cold War? Oh wait, that's exactly why Pinochet was put in charge by the US. Even if they somehow managed to make it not collapse, it would only have called down war upon their heads because of the surrounding situation.
The FEE is not a valid source. They exist for the sole purpose of pushing unrestricted capitalism. They lie constantly.

Your CNBC article in an opinion piece by a man so divorced from reality that he thinks what went wrong in Kansas was that they didn’t cut ENOUGH.

Get something from a source that isn’t ideologically devoted, beyond all reason, to unrestrained capitalism. Get something by real economists. (The FEE are not)
 

Ravan

Gone
The Catholics were just more effective then Islam was when erasing the competing sects back in the early days, they didn't get everthing mind but the people following the those sects those they killed dead
There’s some belief that one of those that they missed (Nestorian Schism) may actually have laid the foundations of Islam.
 

Ravan

Gone
@Morphile, I am not going to debate with you, since you have shown that you do not accept proof even when it was shown to you, such as the graph of Chile's GDP during the Pinochet years and after his rule.

This is me stating my position.

  1. Say : O ye that reject Faith!
  2. I worship not that which ye worship,
  3. Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
  4. Nor will I worship those whom you have worshipped;,
  5. Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
  6. To you be your Way, and to me mine.
That is the sura Al-Kafirun (meaning the chapter of the disbelievers). This chapter came when Muhammad was in Mecca after he has revealed himself as a Messenger of God. His tribespeople offered him riches, women and power in their tribal structure if only he would renounce Allah. After that they asked for compromise, in that they asked if he would continue to preach about his religion they would place it equally with their gods. That is when this bit of was revealed, along with other verses.

So in short, we Muslims would try and work out our problems in the matter of our own faith within the framework of doctrine that was already revealed to us. Your suggestion, for Islam to break apart into hundreds or thousands of small cells that would break, re-join and break again with stuff invented willy nilly, I reject.

I say, to you your own way, to me mine. If any terrorist professing to be Muslims attacked you and yours, you're welcome to retaliate on those terrorists, and only those terrorists.
There are, of course, competing theories even within Islam. Even prominent scholar disagree on things like whether Mary should be considered a prophet (since god sent her a direct message via angels), or not (several sunni sects believe a woman cannot be a prophet by definition), the existence of the so-called Satanic Verses (Muhammed throwing a sop to the local pagans in Mecca), and of course the Sunni/Shia split regarding church government.
 

t-dugong

Beach bum, Esq.
There are, of course, competing theories even within Islam. Even prominent scholar disagree on things like whether Mary should be considered a prophet (since god sent her a direct message via angels), or not (several sunni sects believe a woman cannot be a prophet by definition), the existence of the so-called Satanic Verses (Muhammed throwing a sop to the local pagans in Mecca), and of course the Sunni/Shia split regarding church government.
At least you took the time to study the topic. Morphile just went straight to 'I don't like it, so they must change to suit me'.

I think the argument was Mary was not a prophet since while she was given a divine message, that message was for herself only, if I remember correctly. The satanic verses was not widely believed by clerics because the chain of evidence was weak and the Sunni/Shia split was as much about temporal authority as it was doctrinal and eccelastical.
 

Ravan

Gone
At least you took the time to study the topic. Morphile jusy went straight to 'I don't like it, so they must change to suit me'.

I think the argument was Mary was not a prophet since while she was given a divine message, that message was for herself only, if I remember correctly. The satanic verses was not widely believed by clerics because the chain of evidence was weak and the Sunni/Shia split was as much about temporal authority as it was doctrinal and eccelastical.
There’s several arguments on both sides for Mary, but yes. The Satanic Verses seem believable to me because this was at a time when he was trying to make peace with the Meccan Polytheists, and it resembles the Catholic practice of accepting the Irish/Celtic gods as saints. It seems like something a leader would do at the time basically, as a way to lead them into full conversion. The Sunni/Shia split is interesting because it parallels the Catholic/Orthodox one, where temporal reasons initially have led to greater doctrinal divergence later.
 

Top