Phi for All

As someone who prefers critical thinking over any kind of conservative/liberal generalization, I think it's more about protecting everything from misunderstanding. I don't mind hearing criticism, but it needs to be informed criticism. Should Islam be protected from ignorance?

Only a problem for you, because you've made up your mind that it is. In muslim countries, banks will buy the car you want and sell it to you with a profit markup, in installments (like a lease). Same thing as what we do here really, but you aren't technically paying to use money. The bank is making profit instead. Go ahead, think of some reason why this is a yuuuuge problem in muslim countries. In fact, I don't see what the difference would be if I bought a car this way using my bank. The idea that partnering makes you a serf is just ludicrous. You must be a terrible contract writer. Remember that the bank is your partner in the liabilities as well as the return. And unlike a regular partner, it's written in the contract that the business/goods/services are yours once the bank makes their profit. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/oct/29/islamic-finance-sharia-compliant-money-interest

This is obviously not true. Unless you have a very narrow, conservative, stifling view of what "modern economy" means. Aren't many Islamic countries doing business in the trillions of dollars? And I believe many activities are considered exempt, or fatwahs have been issued that allow for charging interest. I think this may be another one of those areas where you heard something extremely bad, and applied it to a whole big group. I thought usury was easily avoided by having a partner who fronts capital in exchange for labor, at a prescribed ration. Like instead of loaning you money at 10%, I buy in as your equal partner until you pay me off, fronting money to equal 40% while you provide labor to equal 60%.

I was watching an episode of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., and one of the characters was observing several people on multiple monitors. Someone asks if they're doing anything suspicious, and he replied with something along the lines of "If you watch anybody long enough, they ALL look suspicious." I thought it was a nice commentary on our present criminal justice system. I hope Hillary saw that episode. This is a system that's socially based, but is far too infected with capitalist exploitation. It's amazing our bail bonds system hasn't been ruled unconstitutional. Before your guilt is established, when you're supposed to be considered innocent, you can face thousands of dollars in fees or incarceration. You get the wonderful choice to plead guilty so you can pay a fine, or stay in jail until your court date (which means you lose your job, most likely). We need reform so we can choose what makes the most sense, instead of what makes the most money.

That's your conservative paint brush again. Why does "criminal justice reform" only suggest the cops are wrong? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics_of_incarcerated_African-American_males

http://public.psych.iastate.edu/caa/abstracts/2000-2004/01A.pdf

Is anyone really defending someone's right to walk into a group of women discussing an advanced, nuanced feminist concept and shout "Feminazis!" every time the words gender or sexuality are used? Who wants the right to do that? When a member here interrupts a discussion about a specific aspect of the Global Positioning System by posting "Relativity is WRONG!", I split that post off by itself to start its own thread. Nobody should have to take the time, in that context, to switch to a Relativity 101 discussion, just because some bozo claims his voice shouldn't be silenced.

You have a very firm idea of what you think a "Sharia government" would be like, but you have no way of knowing if the people polled feel the same way about it (I'd say you have a very extremist view of Sharia). If you polled the US that way, you'd have some people saying they want a Christian government, and you'd be equally clueless what they actually mean by it ("First, we abolish Halloween, then abortions and Mormons..."). As swansont's earlier link showed, Sharia to most of Islam is a personal path, an approach to a moral life with some components that can be applied to law. But if you bother to do a little reasonable, critical checking, you can find that even in Egypt, a classical Shariah system, they don't incorporate very much of what you think they do, i.e., cutting the hands off thieves.

Oh, please. You'd be just as helpless to stop them as mainstream muslims are with their own extremists. What's your church group going to do against a few truckloads of David Dukes with RPGs and fully automatic assault rifles, who make it clear they're fighting the Trump fight, and if you interfere with their patriotic duty, your whole family will be wiped out? The reason I don't criticize Islam for its extremists is the same reason I don't criticize Christianity for its extremists. Extremists use religion like a tool to gather power and followers. It's not right to criticize a tool for the way the wielder misuses it.

It's more like what would happen here if you started a thread in Religion entitled "I need advice from fellow Catholics about Lent". I would expect any posters to respect your subject. If someone posted "I think Catholicism is wrong", I'd hide or trash that post, or at least let the poster (and the whole thread) know that's not what this discussion is about. It wouldn't be abrogating free speech, or stifling anything. When I see some of the almost inhumanly sadistic responses to things people post on the web, I'm glad the idea of safe spaces to express yourself exist. Things are very different from when I was in school. I can't even imagine having someone attack my ethnicity, skin color, gender, religion, or any other affiliation, aspect, or trait that had nothing to do with the subject I was expressing myself about.

"Do you really want to 'light up' your home town?"

Well, if you were to take the KKK, the Westboro Baptist Church, Christian Identity, and some of the other cells of US religious extremists, arm them with lots of money, guns, and explosives, stir up their ideological commitments to their God so they can use that to gain power and followers, they'd push for a White Christian Only society. Whether that would become a theocracy is speculative. But you're right, I don't see many militant Catholics joining. Maybe because waterboarding doesn't hold a candle to what the nuns would do to you?

I think you're choosing to frame this in the most unflattering light possible to make it sound really bad. Nobody is "protecting their sensibilities" when they want a place free from being actively maligned. You're assuming they're just being "disagreed with".

Next time, cut the blue wire. Exactly! Watch out for these StringJunky, they could really be a depression trigger. I hadn't had that much trouble assuring myself "it was just a dream" since childhood. Enough? Hard to quantize.

Personally, I think this is an important point (meaning be careful, this may not work for you). When I gave up alcohol, I reached a point where the only times I ever thought about it was when I was purposely doing some program or ritual to avoid drinking again. I was fine around others drinking, I had no more cravings, I was completely at peace with never touching anything with alcohol in it for the rest of my (definitely longer) life. 24 years later, I've never been even mildly tempted to go back. Honestly, the hardest thing to get used to was dreaming that I had had a drink. It happened to me a few times over the first two years. I'd remember the dream sometime the next day and think, "Wait a minute, was that real?" It was never a very specific dream, but I knew I'd had a drink in it and it seemed very natural. Not like it was right, but more like it was just assumed that I was drinking again. It would take me a minute where I'd be panicked about falling off the wagon, and it always felt really good when I realized I hadn't. Have you had any dreams lately where you were smoking?

Someone with cartoon skills should draw up the two candidates on the Scales of Justice, where a yuge pile of facts on Trump's behavior equals all the airy, unsubstantiated claims on Clinton's side.

Are you kidding me? Much of it comes directly from the Bible. Chopping off hands for transgressions is from Deuteronomy 25. Honor killings? Deuteronomy 13. Men can beat an insubordinate wife all over the place in the Bible. Criticizing God is a big part of the 10 Commandments. Sure, there are more specific laws in Sharia that aren't in the Bible, but then Islam also doesn't practice all of the 613 Mosaic laws either. The whole point is that it's only extremists who are insisting on any kind of theocracy. It's not going to work in a western country unless someplace like the US lets themselves get tricked into letting evangelical Christian extremists into political office. The kind of people who put their god and what it wants ahead of the People they're sworn to protect and lead don't deserve those public offices, imo. There is a very good reason why churches shouldn't control states.

Biblical law, Sharia law, Mosaic law, it's all based on strict, extremist, literal interpretions of the Bible. I'm against any religion being used as the basis of government for a modern human society. I criticize extremism wherever it's practised, including in my own country. I've never worried about anyone trying to convert any western country to a theocracy, because it's frankly laughable. That any American is worried that we'll suddenly find ourselves governed by Sharia law makes me very sad. Those folks should be watching out for extreme Christians; the US is FAR MORE LIKELY to be co-opted by a militant wing of a Christian sect. If you dare, check out the FBI's documentation of the Christian Identity Movement. You'll be hearing a lot about these guys if your vote puts your candidate in office.

Knowledge is unlimited. Personal experience is not. One could technically learn a vast amount of knowledge, and have only the personal experience of learning knowledge. If you were only using personal experience to learn knowledge, then you'd be limited to only the knowledge available from those experiences. You could only learn what you had a need to learn. You wouldn't have any pre-existing knowledge about something you'd never experienced before. Experience alone would force you to always be re-active instead of pro-active. I'd say the best approach is the way we do it now. We fill young minds with knowledge, so they can be somewhat pro-active when they go out into the world to gain experience. If I can only choose one, I'd have to go with experience. That way, I get to experience my life instead of just learning about other's lives.

Why would you think that, based on what I said? Islam is an Abrahamic religion, same as Judaism, same as Christianity. There's little difference when you're talking about using it as the ultimate law of the land. It's only the extremists who want to be governed by it in any religion. Give the Westboro Baptists some RPGs, see how quickly they'll want everyone under Christian law.

Change that to Biblical law and I'd agree. All that stuff is crazy. I'm pretty sure it's why we have a separation of Church and State in the US. Mosaic law is a bitch too. 613 of them, fortunately 26 of them only apply when you visit Israel. Christian law is probably the worst, simply because it's so open to interpretation. From 9000+ sects.

Not in the US. This is a prime example of a social, medical concern that's been run through the capitalist filters so often that profiteering from our penal system has fueled its growth beyond anything else in the world. Law enforcement and the penal system are supposed to be supported by social economic systems, but the application of business models have grown the system to where we have 1 in 4 prisoners on the planet now. Our big mistake here is not letting our social systems work the way they're supposed to. We allow our capitalist economy take advantage of taxpayer funding, so bills that should help our social structure end up doing more for the business sector. Or a great investment in People who weren't born into opportunity gets cut in half because conservatives are so worried People might get help who don't deserve it. And actually, nobody is using the tools the way you describe. Not all junkies are nails; some are screws, and some are staples, and some are brads, and some are magnets. Medical professionals have a better toolbox than correctional officers for these types of fasteners.

Of course. There are some norms that have changed favorably, and it's become very rude and even illegal to annoy people with smoke while dining. Most modern smokers ask before lighting up in enclosed spaces, so it's rude when you don't. That behavior has changed dramatically, during our lifetimes. I remember when there weren't even sections for smokers/non-smokers in restaurants. Most smokers I encounter still aren't as concerned about second-hand effects as I feel they should be. I get annoyed at the folks who are in an acceptable situation for smoking (say, in a park), but don't care who else is affected. Smoke drifts if the wind isn't blowing, and ash drifts if it is blowing (I'll be generous and assume they're disposing of the butts properly). I realize there's no way a smoker can control the winds, but would that excuse be acceptable if we were talking about the smokestack from a coal plant?

No, I understand the addiction part. But addicts do have the capability to choose in the moment not to exercise their addiction, something I don't think Tourettes would allow. It's akin to a physical tic, right? An uncontrolled spasm? That doesn't describe a person addicted to cigarettes. Smokers light up against their will, but someone with Tourettes is working against their muscles, aren't they? The one person I saw with the disease (many years ago) also had some physical cues that seemed related (head jerked to the side, facial tics).

! Moderator Note This thread is taking an all-too-familiar turn. Mike, you keep forcing these threads into the same indefensible, spacetime-is-a-physical-medium argument. You haven't been able to support that, which should show you something, but remain convinced it's a viable pursuit. Passion is good as long as it doesn't slip down over our eyes. Thread closed.