Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 212
  1. #41
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,383
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "When you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims"

    Quote Originally Posted by Caconym View Post
    From the article From page 142.
    So in Worldwide that's 11%. I'm failing to see how you got to 26%



    Could you please quote from your sources with page references, rather than expecting me to look through all of them at length.
    After reviewing the discussion, it looks like it initiated with evensaul's statement in response to the finding that "Worldwide, most Muslims also reject this type of violence*, with a median of 72% saying such attacks are never justified" in which he said: Twenty-eight percent of Muslims worldwide are unwilling to say that suicide bombings against civilians are never justified. (pg 142 of the above report) That is nearly one-third of 2.2 billion people, or 616 million Muslims who think it might be okay to murder innocent civilians in response to some perceived offense against Islam. (in post #15).



    *referring to "suicide bombings and other forms of violence against civilian targets"



    So his argument is "Since there exists nearly 1/3 of all Muslims who will not say that such violence is never wrong, it means that 1/3 of all Muslims say that either it is acceptable or are on the fence at this time about the matter. This makes Islam as a religion, worthy of being cautious of."
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; May 21st, 2013 at 12:02 PM.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  2. #42
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    90
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "When you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims"

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    After reviewing the discussion, it looks like it initiated with evensaul's statement in response to the finding that "Worldwide, most Muslims also reject this type of violence*, with a median of 72% saying such attacks are never justified" in which he said: Twenty-eight percent of Muslims worldwide are unwilling to say that suicide bombings against civilians are never justified. (pg 142 of the above report) That is nearly one-third of 2.2 billion people, or 616 million Muslims who think it might be okay to murder innocent civilians in response to some perceived offense against Islam. (in post #15).
    I see the confusion. He (and others here as well) are stating the amount that are totally against, then doing 100-X to find the amount that are for. Uh uh. Worldwide, 72% are never, 10% rarely, 8% sometimes, 3% often. The remaining 7% assumedly didn't answer. If group sometimes and often into the potentially worrying group, then that's 11% worldwide, which is nowhere near the 1/3 that was alluded to.

    To see more criticisms of the study, please see my post #40. In any case, Islam is clearly a somewhat dangerous religion, but all issues of risk come on gradients, and although we might go as far to say Islam is potentially (and this word is important because we are not dealing with actualities, rather with vague mindsets which may result in violence) the most violent religion (although I suspect there are small Satan worshipping cults and whatnot; so I will say potentially most violent mainstream religion). I think the interesting debate which we should be having is what to do with this. Firstly, there is no point discriminating against Muslims, which would create more anger and hatred. Secondly, we might look at the possible political causes of this strife. Islam comes from mainly developing countries, who are naturally jealous, envious, hateful and angry with the West, yet also to some extent dependent (though this dependency can simply add to a feeling of loss of dignity). These feelings are natural, seeing as not only do we live nice lifestyles whilst they don't, the West has historically and continues to use, exert power over, manipulate and control these countries for what certainly might seem like its own benefit much of the time. We should not be too surprised, then, that this anger has found its way into the centre of culture: religion. As a result, I think the best course of action would be to address these imbalances, and to act in ways which promote empathy, understanding and compassion, not imperialism, righteousness and power.



    *referring to "suicide bombings and other forms of violence against civilian targets"



    So his argument is "Since there exists nearly 1/3 of all Muslims who will not say that such violence is never wrong, it means that 1/3 of all Muslims say that either it is acceptable or are on the fence at this time about the matter. This makes Islam as a religion, worthy of being cautious of."[/QUOTE]

  3. #43
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "When you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims"

    Quote Originally Posted by Caconym View Post
    Ah, so you include "Often justified", "Sometimes justified" and "Rarely justified" all in one big lump of
    I include all three in the category of "believes that intentional civilian casualties can be justified" yes. Does it provide you some comfort if a suicide bomber believed that his act was only rarely justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Caconym
    I'm sorry, but "rarely justified" could in context with the question mean justified if against an invading regime, against murderers or rapists, against extreme political figure etc.
    Oh come on, do you really believe millions on millions of Muslims are thinking about capital punishment in this context when 3 questions earlier they are asked about the permissibility of capital punishment? Especially given the introductory section for the question (which I pointed you to) which says: "Some people think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies. Other people believe that, no matter what the reason, this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?"

    Do you really believe that the answers who say "rarely" are thinking about "dictators" (who aren't civilians) here?

    Quote Originally Posted by Caconym
    Moreover, the sample size in this section is 100 per country. That is tiny.
    I'm assuming you aren't familiar with Central Limit Theorem here or standard statistical practices. I tried to figure out where you saw this in the report, then it dawned on me, are you talking about the second link? In that case you realize that those are percentages, not total numbers right? The sample sizes are on page 150 (and are usually around 1000), and are weighted by population size to normalize the sample.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coconym
    You are deliberately skewing the data. The data is clear: of under 18-29 (young) age respondents to the survey (again a quota), only 15% are in the often/sometimes category. Please read the data.
    I did, as I pointed out "rarely" is still a category of people who justify intentional targeting of civilians. Including that number into the other two gives you just shy of 26%. If you want to argue that "rarely" doesn't count, go ahead, but don't reject the numbers because you are arguing a different category set than we are.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coconym
    Also from page 53:
    And?

    Quote Originally Posted by Coconym
    Then I did my own addition:

    Totals for Q89 on pg 216: Often 93, Sometimes 177, Rarely 234, Never 1385, DK 115. Now this is supposed to add up to 2000, but clearly there is a typo somewhere as it actually adds up to 2004. Anyway, going with 2004;
    Assuming you didn't know that these are percentages, not numbers, you realize they are rounding differences right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Coconym
    Oft/Som percentage is 13.5%, Rar/Nev is 80.8%, DK is 5.7%. So your quarters are out.
    You realize you can't just add up percentages like that right? That since these are different population sizes and sample sizes that they are not like criteria to add.

    To put in an example.

    Sample 1 (100 people): A=10, B=30, C=60
    Sample 2 (100000 people): A=20, B=20, C=60

    I can't say, "the total is A=15, B=25 and C=60"

    We have to convert them to actual numbers, add then divide by the total.

    Sample 1 (in numbers), A=10, B=30, C=60
    Sample 2 (in numbers), A=20,000, B=20,000, C=60,000

    So in percentage terms it is" A=19.9%, B=20%, C=60%

    Does that clarify your concern?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  4. #44
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,019
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "When you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims"

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Can you expand on what you mean by the bolded part there?
    First, I am not talking about the pillars of Islam (belief, worship, charitable giving, fasting and pilgrimage). So no need to discuss those.

    However, as you know, there are disagreements within Islam on what the Koran and hadith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith) actually teach Muslims. For us in the western world to debate the points is, in my mind, counterproductive, especially if we are just convincing ourselves that Islam is supposed to be a peaceful religion. What is important to us is that when a significant number of Muslims read or hear the Koran and hadith, they come away with an interpretation that encourages or at least condones violence. The support for and condoning of violence, and the violent acts themselves, are what I mean by how some Muslims "practice" their religion in a way that we, and Muslims worldwide, should condemn. If you have a better word or phrase to substitute for "practice", feel free to offer it.

    Many Muslims do condemn the violence. I know that. The rest of us should thank and encourage them for standing up to the evil in their religion. But so far, it has not been enough. And that is why I say that Muslims as a group, and Islam itself, should be held accountable for the violence committed in the name of Islam.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  5. #45
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,383
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "When you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims"

    You said:

    And that is why I say that Muslims as a group, and Islam itself, should be held accountable for the violence committed in the name of Islam.
    How should they be held accountable? What does that mean exactly and how is it possible to hold all Muslims accountable as a group, when like Christianity, there really is no such thing as a collective group of adherents that encompasses the entire religion itself?
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  6. Likes Sigfried liked this post
  7. #46
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,019
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "When you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims"

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    You said:


    How should they be held accountable? What does that mean exactly and how is it possible to hold all Muslims accountable as a group, when like Christianity, there really is no such thing as a collective group of adherents that encompasses the entire religion itself?
    Good question. I'm putting some thoughts together in my mind, but I think the answer should be a new thread. This one was to get some feedback and test the basic idea of collective accountability for Muslims as preparation for that thread.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  8. #47
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    90
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "When you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims"

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Does it provide you some comfort if a suicide bomber believed that his act was only rarely justified?
    Of course! It means they're far less likely to do it!

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Do you really believe that the answers who say "rarely" are thinking about "dictators" (who aren't civilians) here?
    Do you really believe the worst? I have no idea what they're thinking, but I'm not the one jumping to conclusions!

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I'm assuming you aren't familiar with Central Limit Theorem here or standard statistical practices
    Actually I am, I just didn't know they were weighted percentages. Especially seeing as all the numbers were discrete, not rounded to (e.g.) 2.d.p. In that case, tally ho!

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And?
    I think it is significant to state in this Islamaphobic thread that the majority of Muslims are actually worried about extremism in their own ranks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You realize you can't just add up percentages like that right?
    Yes, again sorry I did not realise they had been normalised (you did state, but I didn't react). Still miffed as to why they rounded to no decimal places.

    Another potential weakness of this survey is that the survey should really be stratified, sampling a proportion from one country dependent on the proportion of that country's population as a fraction of total world population. But as (I think) not all countries were surveyed, and (I think) larger samples were taken from countries in which it was easier to take samples, the sample wasn't truly stratified.

  9. #48
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,019
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "When you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims"

    Quote Originally Posted by Caconym View Post
    I think it is significant to state in this Islamaphobic thread that the majority of Muslims are actually worried about extremism in their own ranks.
    Sure it is. But it is even more significant that there are a huge number of Muslims to be worried about.

    Consider what happened in London today:
    'We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you'
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2U3v22zFY

    If the dead man's family blames Islam, would you tell them they are just being Islamaphobic, and that they should consider how most Muslims are worried about terrorism? Should they feel consoled by that?
    Last edited by evensaul; May 22nd, 2013 at 03:18 PM.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  10. Likes Squatch347, Apokalupsis liked this post
  11. #49
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,383
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "When you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims"

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Sure it is. But it is even more significant that there are a huge number of Muslims to be worried about.

    Consider what happened in London today:
    'We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you'
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2U3v22zFY

    If the dead man's family blames Islam, would you tell them they are just being Islamaphobic, and that they should consider how most Muslims are worried about terrorism? Should they feel consoled by that?
    Good point. I've never understood the left's charge of Islamaphobia in response to those who object to militant, Islamic murder. It's like some surreal, blind eye to evil...OR it is a gross misunderstanding of what is being objected to (the practice of Islam for example, is not what is being objected...the attacks on innocent people in the name of Islam is what is being objected to). It is like someone charging others for being Naziphobic just because they speak out against gassing Jews: "What?! You object to forcibly putting families in gas chambers then killing them because these families are 'different' than Nazi's??!!! You Naziphobe!" It's...just...so weird.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  12. #50
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "When you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims"

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    However, as you know, there are disagreements within Islam on what the Koran and hadith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith) actually teach Muslims.
    Just to be accurate, these disagreements are relatively limited in scope and number. Those who differ significantly are a tiny, tiny minority and usually not available for consumption by the general Islamic public.

    Quote Originally Posted by Caconym View Post
    Of course! It means they're far less likely to do it!
    Two things about this statement. 1) I'm sure the friends, family of the British soldier who was murdered yesterday would feel better knowing that this was only one of those "rare" times it was ok.

    2) It is still a matter of category, if I were to ask someone "Is this ball red or blue?" And they answered, "Its a little blue" that doesn't mean they think its red. If someone says something is sometimes (even if only rarely) acceptable, they are not saying that it is unacceptable. The only people saying "Action X is unacceptable" are the people saying that it is unacceptable.

    Quote Originally Posted by caco
    Do you really believe the worst? I have no idea what they're thinking, but I'm not the one jumping to conclusions!
    Given that the reference to the question was referring to bystanding civilians, not to part of the government, then yes I think it is a fair assumption that they are not thinking about dictators.

    The framing here is very important. It didn't ask "Is it ever ok to target non-military personnel?" It asked "Some people think it is ok to conduct suicide bombings on civilians, do you think they are right?" The people who answered rarely were saying that some small portion of those suicide bombers were acting justly.

    Quote Originally Posted by caco
    Actually I am, I just didn't know they were weighted percentages. Especially seeing as all the numbers were discrete, not rounded to (e.g.) 2.d.p. In that case, tally ho!
    Given the sample breakdowns and confidence interval in the methodology those extra decimal places are statistically relevant and shouldn't be stated.

    Quote Originally Posted by caco
    I think it is significant to state in this Islamaphobic thread that the majority of Muslims are actually worried about extremism in their own ranks.
    First, this isn't an "Islamaphobic" thread, please don't try to shut down the debate by throwing around one of the seven deadly politically correct sins.

    Second, the question didn't say extremism in their own ranks. While it is certainly likely some respondents meant that, given that the surrounding questions were about Christians, I think its a reasonable assumption to point out that they might have been worried about other groups as well.

    All of that said, who cares? Even if all of them were concerned about violence within their own ranks, that does little to mitigate the significant minority that support violence.

    Quote Originally Posted by caco
    Another potential weakness of this survey is that the survey should really be stratified, sampling a proportion from one country dependent on the proportion of that country's population as a fraction of total world population. But as (I think) not all countries were surveyed, and (I think) larger samples were taken from countries in which it was easier to take samples, the sample wasn't truly stratified.
    Hence the weighting. They broke down the samples based on a variety of factors, including age, "religiosity," age of immigration, income, etc. They then weighted those sample sub-sets based on the size of the population within country for country comparisons, and internationally for international comparisons.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  13. #51
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "When you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims"

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Good point. I've never understood the left's charge of Islamaphobia in response to those who object to militant, Islamic murder. It's like some surreal, blind eye to evil...OR it is a gross misunderstanding of what is being objected to (the practice of Islam for example, is not what is being objected...the attacks on innocent people in the name of Islam is what is being objected to). It is like someone charging others for being Naziphobic just because they speak out against gassing Jews: "What?! You object to forcibly putting families in gas chambers then killing them because these families are 'different' than Nazi's??!!! You Naziphobe!" It's...just...so weird.
    Who is doing that though? I don't know a single liberal minded person who thinks we shouldn't castigate suicide bombers, terrorists and murderers. What they object to is people who, in response to events like that, say we should carpet bomb the middle east and turn it into a plane of glass etc... And even then, we understand the anger, but insist on some rationality.

    I agree that anyone who is an apologist for a murderer is morally bankrupt, but it's just not a common position that people hold. And its not that you are saying it is common, but one wonders when it get's brought up, who is it an argument against exactly?
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  14. #52
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,383
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "When you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims"

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Who is doing that though?
    100% of all liberals who charge "Islamaphobia" for simply talking about the threats that militant Islamic groups pose. I see this rather often with our more radical liberals. It just occurred in this thread by Caconym.

    I don't know a single liberal minded person who thinks we shouldn't castigate suicide bombers, terrorists and murderers. What they object to is people who, in response to events like that, say we should carpet bomb the middle east and turn it into a plane of glass etc... And even then, we understand the anger, but insist on some rationality.
    Did anyone in this thread suggest we carpet bomb the middle east? No, of course not. Therefore, you now know a libera (Cac)l who thinks that mere discussions about the issues are Islamaphobic. It is this sort of liberal I'm referring to.

    This thread is merely a discussion about how we ought to govern foreign policy. It asks quite simply whether or not we ought to consider responses to militant Islam as a response to all of Islam. That's the premise of the op Sig. So when someone calls this sort of discussion, inquiry, exploration "Islamaphobic" and believes it is on par with suggesting that we carpet bomb the ME...there's a serious disconnect between reality and the thought process that comes to that conclusion. And disconnect, IMO, is harmful. Not only is it incorrect and without any merit, but it is harmful to civil, rational discourse about important issues. It's essentially trying to shut down any discussion, even though it is a query in nature, on the issue by labeling those who do it as "Islamaphobic." He even stated early on that this thread shouldn't exist!

    Quote Originally Posted by Caconym View Post
    From what I've read, no more needs to be said. Though may I complain as to why a thread like this even exists.
    So again, I ask you Sig...Did anyone in this thread suggest we carpet bomb the middle east? No, of course not. What you saw was rational, civil discussion about how we ought to view Islam and this inquiry is a legitimate one because it is what was claimed by a Militant Islam. His claim deserves a thoughtful evaluation. Through this evaluative process, we can determine to what degree his statement was correspondent to reality. It would appear, that it simply wasn't. However, the mere fact that we had this process...the mere fact that we are just discussing this issue...trying to determine of this terrorist was stating a truth or not...is somehow labeled "Islamaphobic" by some of the left. And to that...I, as you and any other rational, free thinker...ought to object.
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; May 24th, 2013 at 10:44 AM.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  15. #53
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    90
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "When you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims"

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    If the dead man's family blames Islam, would you tell them they are just being Islamaphobic, and that they should consider how most Muslims are worried about terrorism? Should they feel consoled by that?
    I would urge them not to hate Islam, rather to hate extremism.

  16. #54
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,480
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "When you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims"

    Quote Originally Posted by Caconym View Post
    I would urge them not to hate Islam, rather to hate extremism.
    Many would argue that the two terms are synonymous with one another.
    I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

  17. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  18. #55
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    90
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "When you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims"

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    1) I'm sure the friends, family of the British soldier who was murdered yesterday would feel better knowing that this was only one of those "rare" times it was ok.
    Might I suggest the awful person who murdered that man would not have been in the "rarely" category.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    2) It is still a matter of category, if I were to ask someone "Is this ball red or blue?" And they answered, "Its a little blue" that doesn't mean they think its red. If someone says something is sometimes (even if only rarely) acceptable, they are not saying that it is unacceptable. The only people saying "Action X is unacceptable" are the people saying that it is unacceptable.
    Can you imagine no circumstances in which suicide bombing is justified? How about if you had the chance to walk into the dictator of Syria's office and blow him and yourself off the planet? How about if you had the same chance with Hitler? How about if your family has been kidnapped by Somalians and you have a chance to blow the kidnappers up and free your family from lives of torture? Etc. If you can think of one circumstance when you imagine suicide bombing is justified, then you are in the "rarely" category yourself; your hypothetical ball is a little blue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Given that the reference to the question...
    The framing here is very important...
    The actual question: Q89 (page 216 of http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFile...ull-report.pdf) "Some people think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies...Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is: Often Justified, Sometimes Justified, Rarely Justified, Never Justified, DK"

    This is a rather mild question which is analogous to this question: "Some people think that violence against civilian targets are justified in order to defend America from its enemies...Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is: Often Justified, Sometimes Justified, Rarely Justified, Never Justified, DK". If one was in the rarely category, they are almost a pure pacifist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    First, this isn't an "Islamaphobic" thread, please don't try to shut down the debate by throwing around one of the seven deadly politically correct sins.
    Haha, it's just a debating tactic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Second, the question didn't say extremism in their own ranks. While it is certainly likely some respondents meant that, given that the surrounding questions were about Christians, I think its a reasonable assumption to point out that they might have been worried about other groups as well.
    http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFile...ull-report.pdf See page 68 for a proper breakdown of which extremist religious groups Muslims are worried about. Basically, most Muslims. Remember you will need to add the "worried only about Islamic extremists" and "worried about both Christian and Muslim extremists" to find the percentages who are worried about Islamic extremism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    All of that said, who cares? Even if all of them were concerned about violence within their own ranks, that does little to mitigate the significant minority that support violence.
    I care. If Islamic extremism is going to decrease, the easiest way will be (mainly) through the efforts of Muslims working against extremist sects, and I suspect they've already done a lot of good work. I only hope that percentage of worriers goes up, and that we help give them the motivation to work against Islamic extremism. By god, it makes me happy knowing that the so many Muslim children born around the world are going to be brought up by parents who are worried about religious extremism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Hence the weighting. They broke down the samples based on a variety of factors, including age, "religiosity," age of immigration, income, etc. They then weighted those sample sub-sets based on the size of the population within country for country comparisons, and internationally for international comparisons.
    Yes yes yes, but because it is not a stratified sample, the world population of Muslims can't be modelled (accurately) by one random variable for a particular question, so one cannot really on the data make comments on the real "distribution" of the world population of Muslim's views, because (for a start) all the variances would go askew. But yes I understand the confidence intervals for each individual country are probably sound.

    ---------- Post added at 11:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:38 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    Many would argue that the two terms are synonymous with one another.
    That's just blatantly wrong.

    ---------- Post added at 11:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:40 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    So again, I ask you Sig...
    You have quoted me but are not speaking to me...ok. As for some of your post, I've used the word Islamaphobic to describe various parts of this thread partly for a debating tactic, partly because I detected an underlying bias against Islam (which is understandable) in some posts - (for instance Someguy's statement that "many would argue that Islam and extremism are synonymous), partly because I didn't feel like people were being aware enough of the easy possibility for a debate utilising very rough evidence to quickly slip into entrenching one's own bias.

  19. #56
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "When you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims"

    Quote Originally Posted by Caconym View Post
    Might I suggest the awful person who murdered that man would not have been in the "rarely" category.
    I think I would agree, though it depends on how we define "rarely." The level of support for this kind of act is surprisingly high in the Islamic community, it becomes even higher if you stipulate that the civilians are jews.

    Quote Originally Posted by caconym
    Can you imagine no circumstances in which suicide bombing is justified?
    Its important to remember that the question asked was in relation to attacks against civilian targets. The introduction paragraph read to the interviewee specifically references acts of terrorism against civilians, not against military targets.

    I cannot imagine a circumstance where a suicide bombing against a civilian target is morally justified, no.

    Quote Originally Posted by caconym
    This is a rather mild question which is analogous to this question: "Some people think that violence against civilian targets are justified in order to defend America from its enemies...Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is: Often Justified, Sometimes Justified, Rarely Justified, Never Justified, DK". If one was in the rarely category, they are almost a pure pacifist.
    And while I think that there are significant problems with that analogy (Islam is understood as a world wide religion, America is not an international phenomenon, "defense" in Koranic terms can mean avenging slights, stopping apostasy, killing those of other religions that are proselytizing, etc) even if we grant it, who cares? Intentional violence against civilian targets is still something that distinguishes the Islamic world from the Western world, and all the other major religions.

    Saying that you would sometimes or rarely be ok with targeted, intentional violence against civilians doesn't exactly come off as "mild."

    Quote Originally Posted by caconym
    Haha, it's just a debating tactic.
    Fallacies like Ad Hominems are not debating tactics, they are attempts to cover up a weak position with the appearance of legitimacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by caconym
    http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFile...ull-report.pdf See page 68 for a proper breakdown of which extremist religious groups Muslims are worried about. Basically, most Muslims. Remember you will need to add the "worried only about Islamic extremists" and "worried about both Christian and Muslim extremists" to find the percentages who are worried about Islamic extremism.
    Its interesting, looking at that data to point out that primarily in countries where a large proportion of the people were not Muslim were people worried about Islamic extremism. But in countries where the population was more homogenous (with the obvious exception of Iraq) other groups became prevalent concerns.

    To be more accurate, please look at Q86 on the link, page 215 where they are asked "And are you mostly concerned about Muslim extremist groups or Christian extremist groups?"

    You will find that a majority in virtually all countries are either worried about "others" or at least partly Christian groups (more or both). Given that a only a bare majority are concerned about extremism of any form and of that bare majority a minority or at most slight majority of those are worried about Islamic extremism we have a hard time accepting your earlier statement : "the majority of Muslims are actually worried about extremism in their own ranks."

    Quote Originally Posted by caconym
    I care. If Islamic extremism is going to decrease, the easiest way will be (mainly) through the efforts of Muslims working against extremist sects, and I suspect they've already done a lot of good work.
    Given the world wide attack rate from Islamic extremists has been steady and slightly positive I would doubt their good work is that effective.

    More importantly, even if they are concerned about that extremism, that doesn't mean they think it is a) wrong or b) contradictory to their own religious texts. They can be worried about it all they want, but if they continue to teach the Koran, there isn't much that can be done, the text itself is pretty darn clear.

    Quote Originally Posted by caconym
    Yes yes yes, but because it is not a stratified sample, the world population of Muslims can't be modelled (accurately) by one random variable for a particular question, so one cannot really on the data make comments on the real "distribution" of the world population of Muslim's views, because (for a start) all the variances would go askew. But yes I understand the confidence intervals for each individual country are probably sound.
    I don't think you understand my comment. They weren't "modelled (accurately) by one random variable for a particular question..." They were modeled based on a series of variables, well over ten initially, that covered a large descriptive base of the Islamic population. These independent variables were then correlated to the question answers for significance. Those that were not significant were dropped from the study to give us the variables we found today.

    We aren't cherry picking descriptive statistics, only those independent variables that were correlated to how people answered were used to model the population.

    Quote Originally Posted by caconym
    That's just blatantly wrong.
    And this is just blatantly spam. "Nu-uh" posts are insufficient responses. Please elaborate.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  20. #57
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,019
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "When you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims"

    Quote Originally Posted by Caconym View Post
    I would urge them not to hate Islam, rather to hate extremism.
    Most communities in the US have "leash laws" meant to protect residents. Although not all dogs running loose will attack people or dig up gardens, etc, a significant enough number will, so we consider all loose dogs to be a problem. Should we blame canine extremism and not dogs generally? Would you suggest that leash laws should only apply to "bad" dogs?

    A significant number of Muslims are ready to kill innocent civilians, and an even greater number think that might be okay. Why shouldn't we consider Islam and all Muslims to be a potential problem? How should a citizen identify a good Muslim or extreme Muslim?
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  21. Likes Someguy, Squatch347 liked this post
  22. #58
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "When you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims"

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Most communities in the US have "leash laws" meant to protect residents. Although not all dogs running loose will attack people or dig up gardens, etc, a significant enough number will, so we consider all loose dogs to be a problem. Should we blame canine extremism and not dogs generally? Would you suggest that leash laws should only apply to "bad" dogs?
    Dogs are an entire species so for the analogy to work, we have to be talking about "leash laws" for people in general.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    A significant number of Muslims are ready to kill innocent civilians, and an even greater number think that might be okay.
    Extremely vague. What's "significant"? What is the percentage that qualifies for significant? Whatever that percentage is, why is that percentage chosen as opposed to a higher or lower number? Also, what does "significant" actually mean in terms of how we should react to it?

    Until such questions are answered, the statement has no concrete relevance to any issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Why shouldn't we consider Islam and all Muslims to be a potential problem?
    Again, vague wording. As I understand the definition of "potential", ALL human beings are potential problems (unless they are physically incapable of causing trouble).

  23. Likes Caconym liked this post
  24. #59
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,019
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "When you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims"

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Dogs are an entire species so for the analogy to work, we have to be talking about "leash laws" for people in general.
    You forgot to mention that comparing leashless dogs to muslims is being very unfair to Man's Best Friend.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Extremely vague.
    I don't think your argument works unless you can quantify "extremely". Maybe you need to revisit previous posts, which provide the numbers. I'm not going to rehash them for you.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Again, vague wording. As I understand the definition of "potential", ALL human beings are potential problems (unless they are physically incapable of causing trouble).
    I wasn't vague at all. I specifically pointed at Islam and Muslims.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  25. #60
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "When you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims"

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    You forgot to mention that comparing leashless dogs to muslims is being very unfair to Man's Best Friend.
    I wouldn't say that because it's just an insult and therefore does not forward the debate.

    And I used to live in a neighborhood with a large Muslim population (there was a mosque about a block from my house) and I was never afraid of them. I didn't much care for their patriarchal attitude but they were respectful of others and alright neighbors. I consider my actual experiences with Muslims a better indicator of how I should feel about them than what your insults (which indicates a bias against them) says about them.


    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    I don't think your argument works unless you can quantify "extremely".
    Consult a dictionary if you don't know what the word means.


    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Maybe you need to revisit previous posts, which provide the numbers. I'm not going to rehash them for you.
    I have absolutely no obligation to hunt over past posts looking for support for you arguments. If you want to provide support to me, then provide it. If you don't care to support your position to me, then it remains unsupported.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    I wasn't vague at all. I specifically pointed at Islam and Muslims.
    But you were vague on when one qualifies as a "potential" problem. As I said, by my best understanding of the word "potential", EVERYONE is a potential problem. I'm not a troublemaker but I have the potential to cause harm and I assume the same goes for you. So yes, Muslims are potential problems, just like every other human being on this planet.

 

 
Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. "Former NASA Director Says Muslim Outreach Push 'Deeply Flawed'"
    By GeneralZap in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 7th, 2010, 01:31 PM
  2. Obama: "my Muslim faith"
    By evensaul in forum Politics
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: September 15th, 2008, 02:38 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •