[karajorma]

Uh, what? A moderate nazi believes in all the nice-sounding tenets of the party but isn't for gassing gays and starting wars as such. Taking whatever they're comfortable with and ignoring the rest.

- An economy where community interests would be upheld: nazi.
- A national state for all those of german origin: nazi.
- Homosexuality is disgusting and unnatural: nazi.
- Sometimes it's more humane to euthanize: nazi.

- Starting a war? Of course war is always a tragedy, but sometimes it's simply necessary for a nation to do whatever it takes to defend itself.
- Persecuting jews? Well surely there can be an occasional good jew, but look, it's either the german people or them. You'd rather hand out the nation to a parasitic race, would you, huh, would you?
- Political executions? Oh come on. Suppressing treasonous assaults are legal as acts of self-defense by the State. You think you could hide a conspiracy involving hundreds of people killing your own citizens for something other than a really good reason a secret? Maybe you should watch less tv.

Etc etc. Considering that there were, what, 8.5 million genuine nazis, it's pretty odd to say that a moderate nazi is a ridiculous idea. Almost every party, movement or group with at least some good ideas will have some moderate members.

Great job missing the point completely.

Look at your list and tell me you think someone holding those views would be suitable for the supreme court.


Now draw up a list for a moderate Muslim and see if you can see anything on there which would prevent someone being suitable?

[Nuke]

im not gonna bother reading this beast. but i think prejudice is not the same as hate. hate (at least in this context) entails a violent application of prejudice, or whatever applicable isms you can come up with. i think that xenophobia is a natural element of human nature, its been there since we were monkeys, you can redirect it or renounce it but its always there. so if you have a prejudice but dont actively try to discriminate, then its not hate. however if you take that prejudice and go out stomping skulls because of it, thats what makes it hate.

in the case of this politician, i wouldn't call it hate. he has legitimate reasons for not wanting muslims in his cabinet. its probibly not politically correct (and probably political suicide) and is most certainly prejudice. for it to be hate he would have had to say something like "all muslims should be deported/arrested/murdered/put in concentration camps/whatever". cain merely does not want someone in his cabinet who serves some outside interest which conflict against american interests. at least thats what i draw from the article in the opening post.

[zookeeper]

Great job missing the point completely.

Look at your list and tell me you think someone holding those views would be suitable for the supreme court.

Oh, right. I thought you were dissolving his point by saying that there are no moderate nazis. Nevermind then, although I do suspect that a large part of people (maybe even the majority) would subscribe to the moderate nazi ideals just fine and wouldn't mind a supreme court member holding such views as long as you change the references to jews and Germany to, say, islamists and the US.

[karajorma]

I'm sure they would.

And it's exactly that which put the Nazis in a position of power in the first place and points to why that sort of prejudice needs to be pointed out and prevented from ever holding power.

[Luis Dias]

The only thing I say is that if one person identifies himself as a Muslim, I take that seriously, and I think that such a person will identify himself with all the tenets of islam. That is what I say is dangerous, and "extremism" be damned. Imagine if one person goes to you and states "I'm a nazi". Now all of a sudden, third parties will tell you "now hang on, don't go all nuclear on him, examine what he has to say, consider his merits, etc, don't discriminate him for being a nazi, he might not be an extreme nazi."

I  will now prove how your point is utter bollocks (on top of being a Godwin) by asking you what a moderate Nazi believes in.

On top of being a Godwin, thanks for missing the point entirely. Do you think there are no "moderate nazis" out there? Fine. So question yourself how on earth the nazi party got hold of the parliament in Germany. Or do you believe that at least 20% of the germans in the 30s were "full blown nazis"?

I *warned* against the *extremity* of the example, but I guess that didn't stop people to cry "Godwin's LAW I WIN PWNED ROFLMAO".

aaaaahahahaha someone comparing Islam to National Socialism as the root of an argument

i think we know how well this is going to go, gentlemen

Really missing the point, thanks for failing GB. Happy zookeper got it.

I totally agree that religion is generally stupid, but that does not mean that all Muslims are anything like Nazis. You clearly need more diverse friends

I mean what the hell. Do you even read what I wrote? I mean, wtf? I wasn't comparing islam with nazism, but drawing the distinction between ideology and followers, who may or may not indulge wholeheartedly in all of the ideology's tenets.

Mind you, even with all the Godwinnesssness of it all, even most nazis were terrified when they learned about the "final solution" and learned to be utterly ashamed of their "political choice". This means that perhaps "moderate nazis" isn't such a ridiculous term.

Look at your list and tell me you think someone holding those views would be suitable for the supreme court.

And yet why do I get the sense that perhaps some of them do?

Now draw up a list for a moderate Muslim and see if you can see anything on there which would prevent someone being suitable?

I don't know, you are so knowledgeable, so you tell me. What do "moderate muslims" think of women's rights, marriage, abortion, divortion, testimony, etc?

Because the view I have of moderate muslims on that front is anything but rosy.

[AtomicClucker]

Because the view I have of moderate muslims on that front is anything but rosy.

judge not lest ye be judged.

Personally, I prefer to judge people as individuals rather than going for the group.

[karajorma]

On top of being a Godwin, thanks for missing the point entirely. Do you think there are no "moderate nazis" out there? Fine. So question yourself how on earth the nazi party got hold of the parliament in Germany. Or do you believe that at least 20% of the germans in the 30s were "full blown nazis"?

I *warned* against the *extremity* of the example, but I guess that didn't stop people to cry "Godwin's LAW I WIN PWNED ROFLMAO".

As I pointed out already it doesn't matter cause no one would elect even the moderate Nazis to the supreme court.

Really missing the point, thanks for failing GB. Happy zookeper got it.

So am I. Notice he got the point I was making. You didn't.

I don't know, you are so knowledgeable, so you tell me. What do "moderate muslims" think of women's rights, marriage, abortion, divortion, testimony, etc?

Because the view I have of moderate muslims on that front is anything but rosy.

Which is why I've already pointed out that I think you are a bigot too. I've already proved why once on this thread for that matter.

But since you bring it up, the point of view of the moderate Muslim on those matters isn't actually any different from the point of view of the moderate Christian.

[Luis Dias]

Which is why I've already pointed out that I think you are a bigot too. I've already proved why once on this thread for that matter.

But since you bring it up, the point of view of the moderate Muslim on those matters isn't actually any different from the point of view of the moderate Christian.

I am open to the possibility that I am being bigoted.

[Nuclear1]

I'm not saying it's a Godwin, I'm saying it's a bad analogy.

National Socialism is essentially fascism wrapped around the belief in Aryan supremacy.  You can't be a follower of National Socialism and not believe in that racial ideology.  You take the supremacy aspect out of Naziism, and you just have run-of-the-mill fascism.  So even moderate Nazis would believe that the Aryan race is the master race. 

Muslims, Jews, and Christians on the other hand, don't revolve around hatred of homosexuality, or in Sharia law, or in dietary restrictions.  You view Sharia law as backwards and barbaric and still be a  Muslim, you can drink beer and still be a Jew, and you can be pro-gay marriage and still be a Christian.  Islam, at its core, is the belief in one God, that Mohammed was his prophet, fasting for one month out of the year, praying towards Mecca, almsgiving, and a pilgrimage to Mecca (if it's within the Muslim's means). 

In other words, Sharia law isn't the central aspect of Islam in the way that Aryan supremacy is for Naziism.  I think that's the point that karajorma and Battuta were trying to make.

I don't think you're a bigot, I just think you don't fully understand Islam or the beliefs of most moderate Muslims in Western societies.

[General Battuta]

There are all these polite fictions like 'I can compare Islam to Nazi Germany but it's just an intellectual exercise'.

When you get down to it, when you do the science, when you put people in front of computers with sensors in their brains and make them do millisecond-level reaction time tests to find out how they really feel, making an analogy like that is pretty generally a superficial manifestation of a subrational attitude that operates in parts of the brain invisible to introspection.

No rational examination of Islam. No consideration of the society or beliefs. Just a slurry of heuristics bubbling over the things you hear on the news and your panicked fears of the outgroup.

I no longer feel like I read people's arguments. I feel like I read the things they're actually saying. And it's a pretty simple world out there. Most people's opinions on Islam have nothing to do with Islam as a belief, or the people that believe it; they're a complex of fears and hates and statistical distortions coming out of the parts of the brain that actually govern our behavior, not the little self-obsessed conscious bit we wholeheartedly believe we are.

[NGTM-1R]

I no longer feel like I read people's arguments. I feel like I read the things they're actually saying.

This belief could end up cause you a great deal of trouble.

[Luis Dias]

There are all these polite fictions like 'I can compare Islam to Nazi Germany but it's just an intellectual exercise'.

When you get down to it, when you do the science, when you put people in front of computers with sensors in their brains and make them do millisecond-level reaction time tests to find out how they really feel, making an analogy like that is pretty generally a superficial manifestation of a subrational attitude that operates in parT of the brain invisible to introspection.

Thanks. All this discussion needed was a little of pseudo-psychoanalysis babble towards other members of the discussion.

Why don't you psychoanalyse your own brain while I try to make my own analogies, be they fortunate or not?

I no longer feel like I read people's arguments. I feel like I read the things they're actually saying. And it's a pretty simple world out there. Most people's opinions on Islam have nothing to do with Islam as a belief, or the people that believe it; they're a complex of fears and hates and statistical distortions coming out of the parts of the brain that actually govern our behavior, not the little self-obsessed conscious bit we wholeheartedly believe we are.

Wow. Talk about self-irony.

[Luis Dias]

I'm not saying it's a Godwin, I'm saying it's a bad analogy.

National Socialism is essentially fascism wrapped around the belief in Aryan supremacy.

And I think that Islam is an ancient form of totalitarianism, to which the very word "Islam", when translated, means "Submission". I don't like it. So sue me.

For instance, while I am not a christian, I like it a lot more. I could even give theological "rational" reasons for it.

Muslims, Jews, and Christians on the other hand, don't revolve around hatred of homosexuality, or in Sharia law, or in dietary restrictions.  You view Sharia law as backwards and barbaric and still be a  Muslim, you can drink beer and still be a Jew, and you can be pro-gay marriage and still be a Christian.  Islam, at its core, is the belief in one God, that Mohammed was his prophet, fasting for one month out of the year, praying towards Mecca, almsgiving, and a pilgrimage to Mecca (if it's within the Muslim's means). 

Sure, I know that that's how most people behave, they just follow "common sense" and try to live their own lives as best they can, without being some sort of zombies trying to ruin the world.

In other words, Sharia law isn't the central aspect of Islam in the way that Aryan supremacy is for Naziism.  I think that's the point that karajorma and Battuta were trying to make.

No, sharia law is islamic morals, it is not islamic theology. IOW, it is how they do about things, not how they think about things. And of course, it's prone to change and "reinterpretations".

I don't think you're a bigot, I just think you don't fully understand Islam or the beliefs of most moderate Muslims in Western societies.

Yeah that may well be the case too.

[General Battuta]

There are all these polite fictions like 'I can compare Islam to Nazi Germany but it's just an intellectual exercise'.

When you get down to it, when you do the science, when you put people in front of computers with sensors in their brains and make them do millisecond-level reaction time tests to find out how they really feel, making an analogy like that is pretty generally a superficial manifestation of a subrational attitude that operates in parT of the brain invisible to introspection.

Thanks. All this discussion needed was a little of pseudo-psychoanalysis babble towards other members of the discussion.

Have fun reading about science while those of us actually familiar with human cognition lounge about in smoking jackets and bet on horse races. This is the science of attitudes, if you want to play in the sandbox you'll need some data.

Why don't you psychoanalyse your own brain while I try to make my own analogies, be they fortunate or not?

Ahahaha I ****ing love it when people talk about 'psychoanalysis' as if it's something that has meant anything in 50 years. It's like asking physicists why they don't go measure waves in the luminiferous aether, it was never science and never made predictions and never meant **** to anyone.

When you make analogies like that you reveal information about yourself that you're not aware you're revealing. People are blind to themselves, it's called the introspection illusion and it applies to everyone except me.

Human cognition works backwards. First you're scared of Muslims. That attitude probably didn't even have actual conscious backing until you had reason to pull it up. Now you're recruiting reasoning for it. It's how everyone thinks.

[Scotty]

And I think that Islam is an ancient form of totalitarianism, to which the very word "Islam", when translated, means "Submission". I don't like it. So sue me.

Are you... joking?  Islam, when translated means "submission to GOD."  It's not totalitarianism.

Actually, pop quiz.  Describe, in as much detail as you can muster yourself, exactly what problem you have with Sharia Law, and we'll see how wrong you are?

[Mars]

Luis Dias; answer me this. How are your beliefs any less dangerous than those you believe "Musilim's" have?

Because they aren't. Nothing less than methodical, case by case judgment is safe. Nothing less than continuous self observation and realizing the possibility that you MIGHT BE WRONG.

YES I think that Islam, and Christianity, and Judaism, have the potential to be TERRIBLE. It's right there in the books; child sacrifice, genocide. Blind faith is a dangerous thing; yet when I look at your arguments, it's the same blind faith I see in many Christian preachers, and the same blind conviction I see in Osama Bin Laden's manifesto. You believe.

What if there's a Muslim, or a Scientoligist out there who's more rational than you?

EDIT:

This is not a personal criticism, but an appeal to you to examine your belief and apply evidence.

[Nuclear1]

And I think that Islam is an ancient form of totalitarianism, to which the very word "Islam", when translated, means "Submission". I don't like it. So sue me.

Submission to the will of God, not man.

It's just a name;  Islam, in practice, demands no more submission than Christianity and Judaism.

For instance, while I am not a christian, I like it a lot more. I could even give theological "rational" reasons for it.

I'll address why this seems so hypocritical later.

No, sharia law is islamic morals, it is not islamic theology. IOW, it is how they do about things, not how they think about things. And of course, it's prone to change and "reinterpretations".

Sharia is a set of guidelines and a moral code set down by the followers of Mohammad.  If you hate Sharia, then you have to hate Christianity and Judaism for the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible; Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy).

Sharia demands hands cut off for thievery.  Christianity and Judaism demand the death penalty for growing different crops in adjacent fields.  Sharia advocates the submission of women.  Paul says women need to remain 'quiet' and 'subservient' in the epistles.

On the other hand, the Ten Commandments say that murder is abhorrent, that Christians and Jews should honor their parents, and not to lie about your neighbor.  Not only does Islam recognize the Ten Commandments as the word of God (just spoken through an earlier prophet), but they have their own condemnations of murder, of false testimony, and respect for elders.

If Christianity and Judaism were widely practiced in societies that face the same levels of corruption, poverty, and authoritarianism as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Indonesia, then they would be just as savagely interpreted.  Western Muslims, by and large, don't advocate the submission of women to that extent, mostly because they live in developed societies where women hold high standing.  They don't advocate chopping off hands for thievery for the same reasons American Christians and Jews don't want people killed for growing corn and wheat next to each other; because the Western justice system is more fair and modern.

And you're right, people do live by common sense and just want to live their lives.  Sharia, just like the Pentateuch and the Epistles, is open to interpretation and adaption; it has many good principles to live by, but it has many 7th century principles that no longer apply.  If we get back to the original topic, you have to consider judicial appointees on a case-by-case basis.

[Luis Dias]

Have fun reading about science while those of us actually familiar with human cognition lounge about in smoking jackets and bet on horse races. This is the science of attitudes, if you want to play in the sandbox you'll need some data.

Your link doesn't work. And is snobbyism some form of meta-attitude?

Ahahaha I ****ing love it when people talk about 'psychoanalysis' as if it's something that has meant anything in 50 years. It's like asking physicists why they don't go measure waves in the luminiferous aether, it was never science and never made predictions and never meant **** to anyone.

Sarcasm lost to a writer. Now that's something. At least you are half-way to my point, uh.

When you make analogies like that you reveal information about yourself that you're not aware you're revealing. People are blind to themselves, it's called the introspection illusion and it applies to everyone except me.

At least you are aware of your attitude.

Human cognition works backwards. First you're scared of Muslims. That attitude probably didn't even have actual conscious backing until you had reason to pull it up. Now you're recruiting reasoning for it. It's how everyone thinks.

I'm not scared of muslims. I'm more scared of your attitude against me right now that I was ever of muslims. There are almost no muslims in my country, it is completely "uninteresting" to any imaginable "conspiracy attack" and all the discussions I see on this issue are completely academic to me.


Anyways, irony is not lost on me. When I first began to discuss religion in this forum, you rightfully put me in place for daring to utter the expression "Translation:" , as outright rude and condescending, as if the person on the otherside was saying something that he/she didn't mean, and as if I had the power to read minds, etc. You do give good advices. Why not take them time to time, instead of playing god? Or is that some kind of inferiority complex?

[Luis Dias]

And I think that Islam is an ancient form of totalitarianism, to which the very word "Islam", when translated, means "Submission". I don't like it. So sue me.

Are you... joking?  Islam, when translated means "submission to GOD."  It's not totalitarianism.

That's exactly what totalitarianism is. You're seeing things differently, I would say outright wrong. Totalitarianism is a form of politics where everything about the world you inhabitted is defined and judged by a higher power, submission is total, you are a slave to the machine. Human totalitarianism, i.e., Stalinism, Nazism, etc., are attempts of humans to this kind of godly government. But make no mistake, the original form is the theological one. God knows what you think and will judge you for that. In 1984 there were thought polices doing such a job.

Perhaps you do think that submitting yourself to a higher power is something to be. Something to aspire to. That such a thing is not "totalitarian". I don't.

Actually, pop quiz.  Describe, in as much detail as you can muster yourself, exactly what problem you have with Sharia Law, and we'll see how wrong you are?

I'm not your monkey.

It's just a name;  Islam, in practice, demands no more submission than Christianity and Judaism.

Did you quantify this? I am not sure about christianity and islam, but judaism? One of the mildest forms of religiosity, founders of secularism and outright religious cynicism? Yes, they do suffer from the same central mistake, but they are not equal to each other.

Sharia is a set of guidelines and a moral code set down by the followers of Mohammad.  If you hate Sharia, then you have to hate Christianity and Judaism for the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible; Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy).

And I do. There is a reason why some christian morons go around pissing people of at their own funerals about how god hates their own nature. I did not say that I endorse christianity. But christianity at least suffers an interesting schizofrenia, between the old testament and the new, and most christians do not abide to the old and feel ashamed by it. Personally, I like the idea of God hung on the cross, dying for us and leaving our lives for ourselves to figure it out. It's as if god said one time "I'm done with this ****, now you take hold of it and try to make the best of it". The remaining "holy spirit" is just the spirit of companionship and friendship between mortals. I like this "crucial" bit about it, it doesn't mean that I endorse it.

  If we get back to the original topic, you have to consider judicial appointees on a case-by-case basis.

But I already did, almost back at the beggining. You're still punishing me for something that I conceded long ago.

[NGTM-1R]

Did you quantify this? I am not sure about christianity and islam, but judaism? One of the mildest forms of religiosity, founders of secularism and outright religious cynicism? Yes, they do suffer from the same central mistake, but they are not equal to each other.

Israel. Go live in it for a few years before you sing the praises of the Judaic traditions. Most of the country's problems can be attributed to its continued insistence upon being a Jewish state. If they'd given that bit up and tried to integrate the Palestinians we'd have been over with this a long time ago. But even the supposedly minor dividing line is an unbridgeable gulf in practice.

Secularism as you know it was born of the Enlightenment, not the destruction of the Temple. And Judaic secularism and the form of moderate Jewish practice that exists in most of the Western world can be traced directly to the fact that the Jewish religion's organizing machinery and visible symbols were put to the sword by Titus Flavius; the original strain is nothing like what you'd depict the religion as. Should we then, as well, destroy the holy sites and holy objects of other religions? It will not help, unless you also scatter their adherents to the winds as well.

Atrocity does not breed better people. It simply makes them quieter and more careful.