You should try it on mute, to see if they react to the sound or the incoming electronic waves.
A superstition is a superstition and waving guns about it won’t make it a non-superstition. it just makes it even more laughable and pathetic.
Please, someone demonstrate this is a 'shoop!
The alternative it a bit too uncomfortable.
Please consider leaving all religions “alone.” Either that, or engage with them in a way that is not rabidly reactionary.
Are you seriously asking what meaning there is in Islam? To get an answer to that, you’ll have to read and understand the book, or sit down with some patient person who has.
In order to congratulate yourself that you know something about religion, you’re going to have to start distinguishing religion from politics.
The biggest problem with religion as a political phenomenon is that it’s a powerful means of social control. Pervert it far enough, and you can get masses of subscribers to do whatever evil thing you want. It works whether you are a religious leader, or a military leader. I don’t think you need any evidence from me about that.
As I say, that is a perversion of religion. The enemies you want so much to stand up against are leaders who manipulate people.
Make sure you know who or what you’re against. Then, it’s a good idea to refrain from pissing them off for no reason. That’s where good manners and good tactics align. If you cannot respect what region is about, at least you can respect all human beings as such. You’ll get whatever “good people” do, that way.
Why should everyone have to live life seriously or thoughtfully?
As a serious, thoughtful (in the sense of thinking a lot, not in the sense of being really nice to people) person I can appreciate the value of irreverence. Quite a few religious folks can laugh at themselves, which I think is a good thing too. Certainly better than taking it so seriously you’d murder someone for making a joke.
You don’t have to. It’s a choice, but you do define yourself by the choices you make.
Silly argument on weighty topic is silly.
Why do you pick the craziest example to support your position? That is a rhetorical tactic called the Straw Man. You can learn all about its uses from Faux News, but that’s not who you want to imitate.
I don’t believe my argument constitutes a straw man. I used an example of a real-life event allegedly inspired by the perpetrator’s depth of devotion to the religion of Islam to illustrate that:
a) religious devotion isn’t always a good thing
b) maximal respect for religion and religious devotion isn’t always a good thing
If you want other people to take your arguments seriously, perhaps you should try reciprocating. Dismissing my completely salient point as a “strawman” and a “silly argument” does not incline me towards taking your opinion any more seriously.
I’m not advocating disrespect for religion in general. I’m advocating for a balance between seriousness and lightheartedness. I submit that murder in the name of religion is too serious. Some attitudes towards religion I might regard as too lighthearted, which I didn’t make a fuss about because it’s not what we’re discussing.
Frankly, I’m coming to the conclusion that you’re a particularly humorless individual whose opinion on this matter can be safely ignored without consequence.
Here’s what I advocate: not cherry-picking an atypical, extreme example and using it as a basis for concluding something about a whole class. That’s a form of straw man. If that worked, I could send the whole human race to the gallows because of one flagrant criminal. You really ought to get to know more kinds of people, they are not at all like the stock characters you have in mind.
About humor: flippancy over things that other people hold dear is never appreciated. It makes others crazy, because it insults them. If you really enjoy that sort of thing, I have some jokes about your mother you’re just going to love.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.