"Muslims killed us on 9/11"

[IBCoupe]

Ah, so Jews who refuse to stone their family members who don't turn their lights off come Friday night... they're turning away from their religion, right?

[AppleBonker]

Heh, I see your point. I suppose he could have planned what he was doing, but he seemed sincere enough to correct his wording afterwards as if he didn't it. Remember that The View is unscripted and a complete cluster-f***, for lack of better words, and people (i.e. O'Reilly) make mistakes all the time on those types of shows.

Which works perfectly for him. Like I said, I think he's generally a really smart guy. And that whole comment fiasco increased the view's following (at least briefly) as well as his own. I would have a hard time believing that he didn't intentionally stir the pot to increase viewership. Again, he's smart enough to see that.

You expect someone to automatically reject providing help to others

Quite the opposite, actually. I thought my post was clear, but maybe not. I believe that most people are selfish and will take every opportunity to promote themselves, even at the cost of others. HOWEVER, that does not stop me from initially assuming that a person is a good human when I first meet them. This is completely counter to the view that is being presented by some: 7% of Muslims are evil, so I am going to act as though all Muslims are evil (or that 7% of Muslims are a problem, so this is a Muslim problem). Whereas I'm more focused on the thought that while 70% (just making up a number) of humans may be evil, I am going to act as though they are all decent. I follow the same path while driving too, if you want to dumb it down. I think 95% of the people on the road are terrible drivers. But I don't treat them as such until they have PROVEN (beyond a doubt) to fall into that group.

No. In your viewpoint murder is morally wrong. In my viewpoint murder may be morally wrong.

Yeah, I would consider killing morally wrong, at all times (notice, I made it broader as "killing"). Now, that doesn't mean it isn't justified in some cases. In cases of self-defense, I could see myself killing someone. This doesn't change the fact that I would be conflicted inside about it later. While I might be able to justify it in my mind that it was the right thing to do, I will still feel bad about it. THAT is the moral side of things. And anyone who has killed someone for ANY reason and then says they are not conflicted about it in anyway after is not someone I would trust for moral advice. Once again, justifiable/accepted and moral do not need to coincide.

And I'm not asking you to "lean on them" for their moral beliefs, but rather not demand that they follow your beliefs.

And once again, if I was unclear I apologize. I never require anyone to follow my beliefs. I have made plenty of comments on these boards showing that. No one needs to agree with me. I honestly don't care at all. But if someone can get one of the simple questions so wrong, I am unable to trust their response to a difficult one.

Slavery is a way of live in certain areas of the world and is most likely considered to be morally acceptable

I'll go back to murder. If that were considered by a population to be morally acceptable, would you be ok with it? Just because a group of people believes it to be right does not make it so. There are a few times where I believe every person's moral compass should point in the same direction. Murder, rape and slavery are probably the key areas. I'm not trying to force my opinion on anyone. If you want to think that any one of those three is perfectly acceptable, have at it. But, what I will say is that I will NEVER trust an individual who feels that way with more trivial moral dilemmas.

So now you don't want to force your opinion on anyone? Just a few posts back you stated, "Anyone who believes this is morally bankrupt (and that statement is coming from a guy who claims to have fairly loose morals)". Does this not imply that someone would need to follow your beliefs and opinions to be accepted in your mind? Maybe you aren't forceful in your methodology, but your more than clear with it.

I'm not forcing my opinion on anyone. If you believe killing someone is morally sound, I believe you are lacking morals. If you believe racism is acceptable, you're beliefs and opinions will not be accepted by me. I'm not telling you not to have them, by all means go ahead. But I personally do not consider them valid.

You're very confusing. You change your beliefs with every other post.
So you aren't requiring that others follow your moral beliefs? Or you are?

I never have required others follow my beliefs. However, I will not consider yours valid if you get the given ones wrong. You don't have to agree with me on all moral fronts, there is always room for debate. But if you can't get a simple question about whether murder (or slavery) is right or wrong, the more challenging questions are not even worth discussing. Again, feel free to have an opposing view, but I wont debate you on the more complex topics (for example abortion or gay marriage) if you can't get murder correct (again, that is my assessment of "correct", you may feel free to think I'm wrong).

And this isn't an issue of learned/innate ideas. That was just me demonstrating that if simple questions cannot be answered correctly, the difficult ones are pointless.

Sorry to sidetrack the discussion. The reason I brought this up was because a comment was made that "dedicated Muslims are violent" based on what may (or may not) be in the Qu'ran. If that is a valid statement, so is mine that a "devoted Catholic should keep slaves". For the record, I don't believe either to be true, I was just using comparative statements to demonstrate the lunacy of that belief. Same as IBC is ^

[srellim234]

I disagree with Apple's assessment of the human population but I will defend his statement from your weak attempt at proving him wrong. Apple's quote even said "most people." For you to pull a site that has a few anecdotes and say that refutes him is ridiculous. Until there are a few billion stories posted at helpothers.org it does nothing to refute his statement.

Very much the same as saying the actions of the terrorists reflect the Muslim religion and Muslim population in general. Its goin to tke a lot more than Bill O'Reilly saying it to get me to believe it.

Let me respond to your lackluster attempt at making me look a fool by pulling the erroneous ways of your thinking out of your post.

First, let's correct your mindset so you don't keep running amuck in the children's playroom ->
You state: "Until there are a few billion stories posted at helpothers.org it does nothing to refute his statement."
Hey, bud: Until there are a few billion stories of those not willing to help, then it does nothing to refute my statement.

Right now I'm 2,787 stores to 0 stories. Bada Bing, Bada Boom!

"Very much the same as saying the actions of the terrorists reflect the Muslim religion and Muslim population in general. Its goin to tke a lot more than Bill O'Reilly saying it to get me to believe it."

SWEET man! Too bad that if I recall correctly (AND I do), O'Reilly corrected himself thereafter by stating that "radical" Muslims partook in the terroristic actions on 9/11. So, I couldn't give two s*** if you think that "Its goin to tke a lot more than Bill O'Reilly saying it to get me to believe it." Guess what! Technically, he didn't say it once he corrected himself. He doesn't believe it either. So bringing that up is like putting starch in Chinese food...useless babble!

You get attracted to shiny things, don't you?

Do you even read before you respond?

Apple stated an opinion. I prefaced my statement by saying I don't agree with him. Personally I think that the majority of people are good and have a sense of morality. What I pointed out was that your display of evidence in no way was convincing. Nowhere did I say I was refuting your evidence; only that is was not enough to be convincing of anything. Your 2,787 "Bada Bing" crap pales in comparison to the followers of Hitler, Stalin, Bin Laden, the Crusades, drug cartels, the KKK, gangs, etc., etc, etc.

O'Reilly only corrected himself because he was called out about it publicly in front of a large audience that wasn't his normal group of people who blindly believe every word he says. It was either justify the statement or correct. On his own show he doesn't have to justify the junk he spews. I guess I need to research a little more because I heard from my dad that on his show later he wasn't apologetic at all and was back to his generalized Muslim statements. I guess I should try to find a transcript.

By the way, did O'Reilly make any statements like that regarding the injection of Christianity into Bush's "Holy War" and Blackwater's Christian motives there?

[AppleBonker]

AppleBonker, from reading you're posts I tend to believe that we are on the standpoint, just with different opinions at whether certain morals should be applied in certain situations

Yes and no. I believe killing is always morally wrong. However, there are situations where another person may be in the act of committing an even greater moral crime where one would have to determine if it is worth doing something immoral them self. I don't think that killing someone who is murdering people is moral. But I do think it's far more moral than murdering an innocent bystander (and maybe more moral than allowing them to continue unabated), if that makes any sense. But, if you were to disagree that killing is immoral, those nuances could not be discussed as we would not agree on the core component of the issue.

you've clarified that misconception

Yeah, I'm an engineer. My powers of communication are sometimes lacking. I'm working on it though...

Are we good?

Hell yeah, so long as you stop accusing me of being deaf, failing high school history and being potentially illiterate.

[AppleBonker]

In order to stay on track before I go wandering off again...

And back to O'Reilly, the ENTIRE audience applauded him after he stated that the Mosque shouldn't be built

See this shows the major problem. There is no reason why the average citizen should have a problem with the Mosque. The only explanation that I can come up with is that the average US citizen has a problem with Muslims in general or that the 9/11 attacks were a result of Islam as a whole, and not a small group of followers. It's very disappointing to live in a country where the average person feels that way. And, by O'Reilly not being careful in his choice of words, he's only furthering that sentiment.

Actually, now that I think about it - scratch my offer for life in maximum security prison. I'm not about to offer a murderer a free ride on taxpayer's money. Last I checked it cost $20,108/year to hold an inmate (and that's in low security). Nah, no free ride for him, I'll give him a taste of his own medicine.

I have a hard time agreeing with this, too. There are plenty of people that probably deserve to die, and you really want to be the one to do it? I'm more concerned about the many people who deserve to live, but can't (be it illness, crime, poverty, etc). Until I can give those who deserve life that chance, I don't know that I should be snatching it away from others so easily. Additionally, I think our legal system is enough of a joke that there are times (while it may not be the norm) that people are convicted of crimes they didn't commit. Having said that, I hate the financial burden tax payers face to keep a convicted felon in jail for life. But I'd feel much worse knowing that we killed off a couple of innocent people every year to keep an extra couple of bucks in our own wallets. Just my thoughts...

Hehe, that's just the way I post. I'll keep it out of our posts. BUT NO GUARANTEES TO OTHERS!

It's all good. Throw personal jabs at me all you want, I promise you'll never offend me. Just know that it doesn't help advance your side of the argument.

[srellim234]

Again you fail to read plain English. I did not attempt to disprove your evidence. It was not convincing. Your attempt to sway opinion requires a hell of a lot more evidence than what you presented.

BTW, I learned many years ago that the best way to learn about another's viewpoint is to attempt to understand things from their viewpoint. If you are unable or unwilling to take the other side of a discussion you have failed to properly understand it. You obviously don't understand since you can't even understand the difference between failure to provide convincing evidence vs. disproving that evidence.

Likewise, stooping to insults and foolish rhetoric such as yours only shows what a petty little closed-minded person you are. End of discussion.

[BLAXIMA_78]

Yeah, nothing really notable in there. WAs hoping for something to talk about, but nothing really seemed worth it.

you aint never lied...

[heliochrome85]

i will do no such thing. i have avoided your drivel and will continue to do so. i've got better things to do than try to change your opinion. to attempt is an exercise in futility.

[heliochrome85]

i will do no such thing. i have avoided your drivel and will continue to do so. i've got better things to do than try to change your opinion. to attempt is an exercise in futility.

My mistake requesting the help of someone who called me a tea bagger. How could of I been so incoherent as to ask help from the deaf/dumb/blind? I promise it won't occur again!

please continue to attack me. it really makes your argument look better.

[heliochrome85]

This is a question for you Helio:

In Islam are there different variations of the Islamic religion? In America many of us call ourselves Christians but we belong to dozens of different churches (Catholics, Baptists, Southern Baptists, Methodists, Mormons, ect.). The only thing that we really have in common is our faith in The Christ. Is it similar with Islam or are all Muslims of the same church?

thats a very good question.

yes there are sects in islam. There are three main ones. Sunni islam, which is practiced throughout the middle east. There is then Shi'ite islam, which is practiced largely in iran, iraq, southern lebanon. Lastly, there is sufi islam, which is practiced in syria, lebanon, and iraq. The differences are fairly substantial. I am sunni. We believe that when the prophet died, he appointed his uncle to lead the muslims to safety and in doing so, passed over his own cousin Ali. We believe he did this to avoid promoting a religious dynasty where people of the prophets bloodline were deemed rulers. The shiites believe that Ali was the rightful second guy, and that he was assassinated in a plot to avoid him taking power, by the sunnis. They pray to ali, and flog them selves as a reminder of his suffering. its all drastically different form the sunnis who do no such thing.

Basics:
Sunni Islam:
Majority of Muslims world wide
no depictions of the prophet, or anyone actually in order to avoid the development of idolotry.
muhammad was the last prophet, but he was a mere prophet and nothing more.

Shi'ite islam:
Iran/Iraq/Hezbollah
Believe that ali was cheated out of his rightful place in the muslim world.
Pray to ali in prayers, and depict his image
Self flaggilation to remind themselves of his suffering
are waiting for an imam to re'appear to signal the end of days.
alot of other little differences

Sufi islam:
small sect
believe in mysticism.
the kaballah of islam.

i can go into more detail if you want to PM me or email me.

[heliochrome85]

oh, and al-qaeda stems from wahhabbi islam which is a form of islam practiced and promoted EXCLUSIVELY by the Saudi Royal Family.

[AZhitman]

RE: Tariq's Cliff's Notes.

Interesting.

That explanation opens up a whole new set of questions for me.... I'll wait my turn.

[heliochrome85]

if greg believes i was out of line, then i shall duly apologize. that being said, i stand by every one of those statements given the context in which they were said. would you care to post your posts as well?

[AppleBonker]

And, realistically, when do those stories about a prisoner being put behind bars unjustly and finally be proven innocent really come out? Not very frequently, as far as I know (would love to see/search for statistics, but I'm 'bout to leave!)

While I don't have the statistics, I still have a problem with this statement. If one person is put to death for a crime they don't commit I feel that is one person too many. I understand the legal system in place is supposed to prevent this. But it is certainly flawed at least a little where this is possible. With the irreversible nature of the death penalty, I am very hesitant to support it until it can be proved that our legal system never makes mistakes.

[AppleBonker]

It's all about the situation though, to me. Is the person a contributing part of society? Are they doing more damage and destruction than improvements?

So given your claim that you don't want to push you opinions on people, how would we go about implementing a policy where we only execute criminals who are not contributing to society? Who determines what the cut-off level of contribution is? And would you allow yourself to be governed by their beliefs?

[dusred]

thats a very good question.

yes there are sects in islam. There are three main ones. Sunni islam, which is practiced throughout the middle east. There is then Shi'ite islam, which is practiced largely in iran, iraq, southern lebanon. Lastly, there is sufi islam, which is practiced in syria, lebanon, and iraq. The differences are fairly substantial. I am sunni. We believe that when the prophet died, he appointed his uncle to lead the muslims to safety and in doing so, passed over his own cousin Ali. We believe he did this to avoid promoting a religious dynasty where people of the prophets bloodline were deemed rulers. The shiites believe that Ali was the rightful second guy, and that he was assassinated in a plot to avoid him taking power, by the sunnis. They pray to ali, and flog them selves as a reminder of his suffering. its all drastically different form the sunnis who do no such thing.

Basics:
Sunni Islam:
Majority of Muslims world wide
no depictions of the prophet, or anyone actually in order to avoid the development of idolotry.
muhammad was the last prophet, but he was a mere prophet and nothing more.

Shi'ite islam:
Iran/Iraq/Hezbollah
Believe that ali was cheated out of his rightful place in the muslim world.
Pray to ali in prayers, and depict his image
Self flaggilation to remind themselves of his suffering
are waiting for an imam to re'appear to signal the end of days.
alot of other little differences

Sufi islam:
small sect
believe in mysticism.
the kaballah of islam.

i can go into more detail if you want to PM me or email me.

Thanks! That really helps me understand better. I have always thought of Islam as one religion without any variations and I'd wager the rest of America thinks the same.

So, if you don't mind, can you briefly tell me what the common beliefs of the different sects are? I assume all believe in the Prophet Mohammad. Is there religious disunion between the different sects like there is among Christians? I know that in the early 1800's there were bible riots where different churches were literally at war - burning down the each others churches and killing each other. The friction still exists on a much smaller scale.

Is what I'm trying to understand is if the general term of "Muslims" like O'Riley used is a fair way to describe those who believe in Islam. I know that the general term "Christians" can't be used to describe all who believe in Christ because there are so many different interpretations of his teachings.

Just to make it clear I'm not trying to get into a discussion about religion but to understand the layout of the different religious sects. The more I can learn the better I can understand.

[heliochrome85]

why dont you just email/pm me, since anything i post to answer this would be considered a significant thread jack not to mention the religion rules.

[heliochrome85]

and it wont let me cause you have disabled PMs. you can go ahead and email me.

[IBCoupe]

Wait wait wait wait wait wait... wait. Wait.

Moral opinions and laws are two very different things. I would go to my representatives in order to develop a legal system that supports my moral opinions. Laws are meant to be pushed onto people, as they are required.

That's like saying, "I wouldn't ever want to kill anybody to advance my interests, but to advance my interests, I'd use a gun. Guns are meant to kill people, as that's the purpose of their design."

How do you separate not wanting to push your morality upon others from encoding your morality into the legal system, which you admit is pushed upon others?

[AppleBonker]

So if 75% of the population is morally bankrupt and agrees on something, those are the morals we should force on the entire population? Got it. Given how inept the average person is, I don't see any way this could possibly go wrong...

[wingFeather]

if 75% of the population is morally bankrupt

What do you mean "if"?

[AppleBonker]

So if 75% of the population is morally bankrupt and agrees on something, those are the morals we should force on the entire population? Got it. Given how inept the average person is, I don't see any way this could possibly go wrong...

Look familiar?

So when I ask for proof that 75% of the population is morally bankrupt, it seems pretty reasonable. You telling me I can't read doesn't change anything. What does the above mean then? I feel my interpretation of your text was the best possible one. I get that you're the smartest guy in this thread, so now please enlighten the rest of us lowly folks.

Edit: Followed by a post by you claiming how inept the average person is and that's your opinion. Wow. If not being able to follow that string of garbage means I can't read, then I can't read. And I think I'm better off that way. Scratch my previous request. I don't want to be "enlightened".

Looks quite familiar. Unfortunately for you, the application isn't the same. I'm not sure why the guy who plays with numbers all day is trying to explain English, but I'll give it a go. The part where it says "So if 75% of the population..." is what we would call making a hypothetical assertion. What this means is I would like you to pretend it is true, if only for a moment. Now, assuming this is true, attempt to answer the question. My question still is valid. IF (again, hypothetical situation) 75% of the population has a different set of moral standards than I do, it's ok for them to be pushed on me? Because that is what it sounds like you're saying. And you said this shortly after claiming you don't like to push your morals on people. Hence my confusion.

The main difference between your post and mine is that you attempted to pass your opinion off as fact (or at least that most people share your opinion), and I posed a made-up situation to help clarify your comments. You made two seemingly contradicting statements and I am asking which one is correct. And while I'm flattered that you feel one of my previous statements is excellent enough that you want to use it, I'd rather hear the answer to the question at hand. It seems that would add more to this discussion.

[IBCoupe]

I second Bonker's hypothetical.

Regardless of whether it's a majority of voters who gets their morals pushed upon society or a benevolent dictator, it's still morality being forced upon people. You can't get away from that. There's no "test" if you participate in the system. Your vote is your attempt to have your morals pushed upon others. You may acknowledge that's it a pretty futile attempt, given all the other people vying to get their morals pushed, it's still an attempt.

Here's another hypothetical: If 75% of Americans agree with your morality, and they all vote the same way, does it matter to the 25% who don't? And is it any less your morality because most people around you agree with you?

[AppleBonker]

Ok fine, we'll avoid hypothetical situations and try something else. Similar concept, different situation (and closer to the original topic).

You've said you don't have a problem with the "ground zero Mosque" (in this thread I might add). While you also said (again in this thread) "And back to O'Reilly, the ENTIRE audience applauded him after he stated that the Mosque shouldn't be built". So, it would be a fair assumption to make that with a majority rule in the US, the Mosque would be blocked. So here is a majority pushing a belief that you disagree with on you. Do you have a problem with this?

[AppleBonker]

Well, since you don't want to deal with hypothetical situations, I guess I shouldn't bother trying to understand your point anymore. Had I known it was going to be an exercise in futility, I probably wouldn't have bothered. I guess I'll be more careful next time.

I don't have a problem with them building the Ground Zero Mosque, and I don't have an issue if they don't build it. Either or, I don't really care too much.

So if you're not directly affected you don't really care? Not even on principle?

[IBCoupe]

[Even if we ignore the fact that you've used hypothetical situations to elaborate your points in this thread, I must ask:] why won't you deal with hypotheticals here, IL? It isn't because they so obviously illustrate the flaws in your arguments, is it?

[IBCoupe]

So it shouldn't be terribly difficult to explain what's wrong about them. Go ahead.

[IBCoupe]

Instead I'll just continue to call you on cop-outs. Hope that works for you; if not, tough cookies.

[IBCoupe]

If you're not feeling like a complete wuss, feel free to address the parts of my argument that weren't hypothetical:

Regardless of whether it's a majority of voters who gets their morals pushed upon society or a benevolent dictator, it's still morality being forced upon people. You can't get away from that. There's no "test" if you participate in the system. Your vote is your attempt to have your morals pushed upon others. You may acknowledge that's it a pretty futile attempt, given all the other people vying to get their morals pushed, it's still an attempt.

[IBCoupe]

Oooh, I'm a cretin! Do you feel better? Care to actually deal in substance yet?