Nah, you meant Jew, and you used the word Zionist as a derogatory term. Don't worry, we know already, your numerous posts make it clear your disdain for a good portion of everyone.
Unfortunately, much of the left likes to use the term Zionist as a smear, unfortunately on this site you see many posters making the same mistake.
Nice to see Itse thank your post.
So:
"You meant what I said you meant, here's a generalisation of the left, here's a generalisation of posters on this site."
Anti-semitism is a real thing, and not only is it a bad thing, the levels of hate are a pretty good indicator of how well a country is doing (ie government, education, etc) and how well they are going to do.
My exact words were "much of the left". A generalization would have been if someone said 'all of the left'.
Your reading comprehension is poor, or as usual, someone is trying to throw out a falsehood against another poster.
Someone doesn't know what generalisation means, or, as usual you don't know what most words mean (see what I did?)
When you take the comments of a few posters on this board, and say "many" you are either making a generalisation, or lying. What you said COULD be true, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a generalisation.
You should make sure you can comprehend simple statements before you accuse others of the same. It's basic.
Though, based on Cecil's comment, I have a feeling I'm engaging with a troll, so I'll leave you to it.
Someone doesn't know what generalisation means, or, as usual you don't know what most words mean (see what I did?)
When you take the comments of a few posters on this board, and say "many" you are either making a generalisation, or lying. What you said COULD be true, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a generalisation.
You should make sure you can comprehend simple statements before you accuse others of the same. It's basic.
Though, based on Cecil's comment, I have a feeling I'm engaging with a troll, so I'll leave you to it.
I mean, you say this, but you also thanked the troll post filled with sweeping generalizations that started the downfall of the discussion here. It was just on the other side.
The failure of Liberalism (Regressive left) to deal with Islam
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik-
I mean, you say this, but you also thanked the troll post filled with sweeping generalizations that started the downfall of the discussion here. It was just on the other side.
At least be consistent.
lol because that was gold Jerry, gold.
Plus, my thanks aren't based on "Yes I completely agree with that."
I thank posts I completely disagree with, or take issue with, or I find funny or ridiculous.
It's funny how this few second soundbite is the one that always gets played by certain people. Considering that Nawaz has so much stuff on the tubes.
Yes, I am aware that Nawaz has spoken against certain kinds of liberals. However, people are dishonestly using it as proof that he somehow thinks that there is a problem with Islam as a religion, when anyone who has genuinely listen to him talk for more than a minute would know this is clearly not the case.
So when Nawaz does not think "Islam" needs to be "dealt with", you can not use him as proof that it liberals should somehow do this "dealing with" (what ever that is supposed to mean).
It's a much more nuanced complaint, as far as I've been able to piece together. Obviously some people just love to play up these fights as somehow proof that all the things they have been saying about liberals are right... and then very typically they start jumping into conclusions that are completely their own insertions.
Here is how Nawaz sees Islam.
Nawaz gives his opening remarks starting at about 11 min. It lasts about 6 minutes.
The whole thing is worth listening to. There are three panelists who were all brought up as Muslims, and all with different views on Islam. Nawaz is sort of the middle guy, who is neither for nor against the notion that Islam is a religion of violence.
Here's what Nawaz says in his opening remarks. He's also the person I'm most in agreement with, as I see him as the most practical.
Quote:
The conclusion I came to through my studies in prison was that Islam is not a religion of violence. But it's also not a religion of peace.
(...)
Islam is a religion. Like all other religions since time immemorial, it's been interpreted. It's been interpreted like Christianity in the past to cause much devastation on this Earth. And it's also been interpreted towards peaceful ends.
Quote:
It doesn't help in this struggle (...) to essentialize Islam by saying it's a religion of violence.
Quote:
Rather the way forward is to say yes Islam is a religion that can be interpreted.
Isn't it better to for us to promote the fact that there are Muslims out there risking their lives to re-interpret this faith? And to demonstrate and promote and to encourage those interpretations that do take a genuine look at scripture, that do recognize that there are two twin challenges that are dominating Muslim majority countries today.
First, the ideology of Islamism, which overly politisizes the faith.
(...)
The other challenge, manifests in the social level, and that's the challenge of fundamentalism.
Okay, so, fundamentalism and Islamism are problems. So, does that not mean that liberals who are tolerant towards those are a problem? Yes, one can certainly take this view.
However, this requires you to take the same view against all fundamentalist religiousness. Nawaz does not at any point claim that there is something special about Islamic fundamentalism, as is already clear from above.
To Nawaz, all fundamentalism is bad. I would not call this a very liberal view, even though I sympathize with this view.
Btw, nik- you being interested in the specifics of Islams teachings, you might want to consider this point that Nawaz makes, which he uses to back his claim that there is nothing especially western about liberalism.
Quote:
The idea that Muslims are bound to tolerate differences of opinion is ingrained in the fact that Islam does not have a clergy, and therefore there isn't one official version of Islam, and there is nothing inherently unislamic about tolerating differences of opinion.
This hardtalk piece is also excellent, if you want to know what Nawaz thinks.
Actually, this is a VERY typical thread development here.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
This hardtalk piece is also excellent, if you want to know what Nawaz thinks.
Nawaz' views have changed pretty significantly in the last few years. That video is too old to be relevant to the present unfortunately. I remember seeing him early on and he was still a lot closer to the Reza Azlan school of defense.
Additionally, I don't think I claimed anywhere that liberalism was western. I stated that western society has embraced secularism more widely and implied that the acceptance of separation of church and state which was built into Christianity's holy book played a significant factor.
Nawaz' views have changed pretty significantly in the last few years. That video is too old to be relevant to the present unfortunately. I remember seeing him early on and he was still a lot closer to the Reza Azlan school of defense.
Okay, show me. The second video is from 2012 and the first video is from 2014. I guess the change has been very, very recent.
Quote:
Additionally, I don't think I claimed anywhere that liberalism was western. I stated that western society has embraced secularism more widely and implied that the acceptance of separation of church and state which was built into Christianity's holy book played a significant factor.
I didn't say you made that claim.
You were however interested in digging into the teachings of Islam to see if there was something that made that religion particularly problematic. You can not in good faith do that and ignore the comparisons that are beneficial to Islam.
You were however interested in digging into the teachings of Islam to see if there was something that made that religion particularly problematic. You can not in good faith do that and ignore the comparisons that are beneficial to Islam.
I'm in no way doing that. My entire stance in this is that the religion has bad ideas in it and they should be completely open to criticism. Not that the entire religion is bad ideas.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji
Johnny eats garbage and isn’t 100% committed.
The Following User Says Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
