Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Shady

Bill Maher Destroys The Liberal Utopian Vision of Islam

Recommended Posts

Fair enough. How about the election of the MB. Is that a poll that you can pay attention too?

MB?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Muslim Brotherhood.

There was a poll that elected the Muslim Brotherhood? Or did you mean to say election?

Were the elections fair, or was it a matter of intimidation and/or corruption that got them elected?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a poll that elected the Muslim Brotherhood? Or did you mean to say election?

Were the elections fair, or was it a matter of intimidation and/or corruption that got them elected?

I'm led to believe an Election is a giant poll.

I believe the MB was elected in a legit manner. At least as best it could be when the previous leader was forced out by mass protests.

Of course the MB leader was later taken out by a Military Coupe.

Morsi was actually elected using a Run-off model that many in this country want.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_presidential_election,_2012

Edited by Boges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm led to believe an Election is a giant poll.

No, a poll is not the same as an election. A poll gauges support based on a statistically relevant (in theory) proportion of the overall population and then extrapolates the outcome. An election (or a plebiscite) uses the entire population and is an absolute number with 100% confidence.

I believe the MB was elected in a legit manner. At least as best it could be when the previous leader was forced out by mass protests.

Of course the MB leader was later taken out by a Military Coupe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_presidential_election,_2012

According to your link, voter turnout was 41%.

Assuming it was legit, do you think you can say that 51% of Egypt support the MB policies when only 41% turned up to vote?

Morsi was actually elected using a Run-off model that many in this country want.

I doubt that Egypt would be a model of democracy for Canada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, a poll is not the same as an election. A poll gauges support based on a statistically relevant (in theory) proportion of the overall population and then extrapolates the outcome. An election (or a plebiscite) uses the entire population and is an absolute number with 100% confidence.

Fair enough but the places you go to vote are called "polls"

According to your link, voter turnout was 41%.

Assuming it was legit, do you think you can say that 51% of Egypt support the MB policies when only 41% turned up to vote?

Once given the opportunity to actually elect a leader the country opts for a fundamentalist Muslim. I think the 41% was for the first round.

I doubt that Egypt would be a model of democracy for Canada.

I'm just saying the voting model where you get runoff elections. Under this model you get 2 options at the end so a leader can claim a legit majority unlike in the FPTP system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once given the opportunity to actually elect a leader the country opts for a fundamentalist Muslim. I think the 41% was for the first round.

I agree, that's what happened.

But to extrapolate that election to "51% of Egypt wants people beheaded for blasphemy" is a huge stretch. And this is what you were getting at by saying Egypt elected the MB.

It's not so black and white...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not so black and white...

I guess not, but it's clear that a good number of Egyptians are at least ambivalent to being ruled by Fundamentalist Muslims.

If you watch the Maher video from this past Friday, the author talks about concentric circles around the ISIS types of people of people that don't do what ISIS does but might not be opposed to some of the stuff they do.

He obviously has some ability to backup his claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess not, but it's clear that a good number of Egyptians are at least ambivalent to being ruled by Fundamentalist Muslims.

If you watch the Maher video from this past Friday, the author talks about concentric circles around the ISIS types of people of people that don't do what ISIS does but might not be opposed to some of the stuff they do.

He obviously has some ability to backup his claims.

You won't find me defending the views of nutbar religious extremists in Muslim countries.... but I won't be making sweeping generalizations that they're all this way either. Often it is the leadership and rulers who are this way, not the people.

Iran is a great example... if the people weren't ruled by religious extremists, that country would be much different. Iranians are not the problem.

I don't think intervention (military or assisting coups) helps matters though. It often makes things much worse. See: America in Iran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're going to simply ignore the Pew Research cite, right?

Why should I pay attention to your Pew Research cite when you've completely ignored the countless examples that make your incessant bloviating about Muslims look foolish?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deleted - missed two pages...

Read them!

It's pretty bad when Cracked of all websites debunks the nonsense that comes off some people's keyboards here.

Five Ridiculous Things You Probably Believe about Islam

  1. If you're Muslim woman, you have to wear the veil.
  2. The Founding Fathers would have never tolerated this Muslim nonsense.
  3. "Muslim" Equals "Arab"
  4. Western cultures are far more humane than the bloodthirsty Muslims
  5. Islam is stuck in the Dark Ages

http://www.cracked.com/article_18911_5-ridiculous-things-you-probably-believe-about-islam.html

We've seen every single one of these these trotted out here as arguments from our esteemed posters, except for the American specific "Founding Fathers" one. Cracked addresses each one of them.

Ha ha ha, love this bit:

There are really three big negative stereotypes about Islam -- that it hates women, that it's violent and that it hates any kind of scientific progress. We've covered the first two already, but how can you argue against the third? Their governments are based on ancient religious texts! And what diseases has Iran cured?

No, I'm afraid you haven't covered anything. You've done what liberals do. Danced around the treatment of women by some Muslims, and trotted out the treatment by others as an indication that all is well for women all over Islam. (In fact, if any poster on this site lumped Muslims into one group as Cracked has done, they would have been shouted down immediately)

Used a couple of hundred European women who maybe choose to wear a veil as proof that women in Islam are all doing just fine, when the veil is not considered by Islamic scholars to be a requirement of Islam. (That doesn't mean it's not considered to be a requirement by some Muslims who might not be as enlightened as those worthies)

Then used the hoary old, ridiculous argument that because Christianity treated people badly way back when, it's okay to kill people now. Or at least, if Muslims are killing people now, we are as bad because Christians killed people then. For Pete's sake!

I haven't actually ever met anyone who thought all Muslims are Arabs. Or all Arabs are Muslim.

As for the dark ages, those parts of Islam that are stuck there are, and those bits that aren't, aren't. Again, I'm shocked that Cracked would lump all Muslims together. That's how stereotypes take hold! Don't they know that?

No, they're a dumb internet humour magazine. Why should they?

Edited by bcsapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You won't find me defending the views of nutbar religious extremists in Muslim countries.... but I won't be making sweeping generalizations that they're all this way either.

This is the mistake that keeps some progressives clinging to the BS Islamophobia label.

Harris and Maher aren't saying all Muslims are a problem, so the arguments about sweeping generalizations, that all religions have extremists or not all Muslims are terrorists are off the mark. I won't go as far as calling them straw man arguments because I don't think the misunderstanding is intentional. The argument being made is that Islam is currently a bigger problem than other religions. Acknowledging that fact is not the same as saying Muslim = Terrorist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the mistake that keeps some progressives clinging to the BS Islamophobia label.

Harris and Maher aren't saying all Muslims are a problem, so the arguments about sweeping generalizations, that all religions have extremists or not all Muslims are terrorists are off the mark. I won't go as far as calling them straw man arguments because I don't think the misunderstanding is intentional. The argument being made is that Islam is currently a bigger problem than other religions. Acknowledging that fact is not the same as saying Muslim = Terrorist.

Well said. I don't know why this concept is so difficult for some to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the mistake that keeps some progressives clinging to the BS Islamophobia label.

Harris and Maher aren't saying all Muslims are a problem, so the arguments about sweeping generalizations, that all religions have extremists or not all Muslims are terrorists are off the mark. I won't go as far as calling them straw man arguments because I don't think the misunderstanding is intentional. The argument being made is that Islam is currently a bigger problem than other religions. Acknowledging that fact is not the same as saying Muslim = Terrorist.

Absolutely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely.

Yay! It only took 8 pages!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yay! It only took 8 pages!

ok then.... maybe brush up on your comprehension skills and you won't be so lost... all these words and ideas are very confusing for you... I know...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the mistake that keeps some progressives clinging to the BS Islamophobia label.

Harris and Maher aren't saying all Muslims are a problem, so the arguments about sweeping generalizations, that all religions have extremists or not all Muslims are terrorists are off the mark. I won't go as far as calling them straw man arguments because I don't think the misunderstanding is intentional. The argument being made is that Islam is currently a bigger problem than other religions. Acknowledging that fact is not the same as saying Muslim = Terrorist.

1/3 of the world's population is Islamic. If Islam was as big of a problem as they're making it out to be, the rest of us would have been wiped out several times over. The fact is the VAST majority of Muslims are peaceful and productive members of society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact is the VAST majority of Muslims are peaceful and productive members of society.

Agreed. Islam is also currently being used to create more extremists and sympathizers than any other religion in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1/3 of the world's population is Islamic.

Huh? I thought the world population was about 7 billion. And I keep hearing that there are 1.5 billion muslims. That's one third?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh? I thought the world population was about 7 billion. And I keep hearing that there are 1.5 billion muslims. That's one third?

Splitting hairs because you have nothing else to offer, I see. Even if I go with your numbers, 23% of the world's population is Muslim. If it was as big of a problem as you say, they would have wiped the rest of us out several times over already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Splitting hairs because you have nothing else to offer, I see. Even if I go with your numbers, 23% of the world's population is Muslim. If it was as big of a problem as you say, they would have wiped the rest of us out several times over already.

So being factual is splitting hairs? Regardless, even if a VAST majority aren't violent, they can still hold extremist views. Like the large percentages that are accepting of death for leaving Islam, and honour killings, violently anti-gay, subjigation of women, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So being factual is splitting hairs?

When it does nothing to change or refute the argument you're addressing, yeah it's splitting hairs.

Regardless, even if a VAST majority aren't violent, they can still hold extremist views. Like the large percentages that are accepting of death for leaving Islam, and honour killings, violently anti-gay, subjigation of women, etc.

And yet the point still stands. If the majority of Muslims were extremists, then they would have wiped out the rest of us by now. You're just afraid that Muslims will start doing what Christians in the South have done. That is pass legislation to have their religious dogma taught in public schools. I'm more concerned about that right now, since Christians are the majority, have had these laws passed, and there doesn't appear to be any sign of our country or the US passing Sharia Law rules any time soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it's funny how you bring up "honour killings" and "anti-gay" in the context of Islam, but says nothing about the anti-gay agenda that keeps same-sex couples from marrying in the US or sees countless people beaten in the streets for being gay here. Nor do you speak out about violence against women in Canada or the disproportionate amount of violence faced by aboriginal women here. Yet bring up Islam, and suddenly you're a social justice warrior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hypocritical and smacks of thinly veiled bigotry. Muslims this and Muslims that.

Hell, just take honour killings alone. You sit here and condemn Islam for honour killings as though this is somehow a Muslim problem when that's not even remotely close to the truth. A survey of 500 young British Asians who were Sikh, Hindu, and Christian found that 1 in 10 would condone the murder of someone who disrespected their family (source).

You're uninformed and you use this forum as your soapbox. You have absolutely no depth of knowledge about any of the issues that you condemn. Instead, you use it as an excuse just to talk about how disgusted you are with Muslims. There's a difference in actually caring about the victims and the violence, actually looking into the issues, and doing what you do. And what you do is just lay blame to Muslims, seeing them as some homogenous group, which you would never do with Christians. You don't care about the honour killings themselves or you would have known it's not exclusive or even primarily a Muslim problem. You don't care about violence against gays or you would speak out about it when it happens in your own backyard. You don't care about violence against women or you wouldn't be one of those people who blames the victim when they're abused here. You're just using those issues to cloak your bigotry towards Muslims and you're not even doing it in a remotely sophisticated way. It's brazen and ignorant and does a huge disservice to the very real issues of violence against women and gays, and all the other nonsense you blame Islam for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...