Correction hijack (Sharia in the US)

[dimreepr]

5 hours ago, koti said:

Make sure you do everything you can to change that. It’s easy to become trapped in religion one's biases'.

FTFY

[koti]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

FTFY

No. I know what I wanted to say and that wasn’t it. What I said is exactly what I wanted to say and it does not need fixing.

[dimreepr]

Just now, koti said:

No. I know what I wanted to say and that wasn’t it. What I said is exactly what I wanted to say and it does not need fixing.

Then you're showing your bias, in much the same way as your allegation; surely that arrogance needs to be adjusted?

[koti]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Then you're showing your bias, in much the same way as your allegation; surely that arrogance needs to be adjusted?

Salik mentioned he has lots of homework which does not contain any science. I assumed that it’s religion that it contains but it might be some other bias too. What arrogance needs to be adjusted and what bias towards what am I showing? 
Preferably in analogy-free-which-no-one-understands plain English please. 

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, koti said:

Salik mentioned he has lots of homework which does not contain any science. I assumed that it’s religion that it contains

Why assume that?

6 minutes ago, koti said:

Preferably in analogy-free-which-no-one-understands plain English please. 

Then I fear, you may not understand.

[koti]

9 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

 

Then I fear, you may not understand.

Funny you mentioned arrogance, isn’t it. 

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, koti said:

Funny you mentioned arrogance, isn’t it. 

Not really...

[koti]

29 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Not really...

I agree. 

[John Cuthber]

49 minutes ago, koti said:

Preferably in analogy-free-which-no-one-understands plain English please. 

Do you mean plain English which is free from analogies which are not understood?

Or do you mean plain English which nobody understands because it lacks analogies?

Because what you have written means the second one, rather than the first

 

52 minutes ago, koti said:

Salik mentioned he has lots of homework which does not contain any science. I assumed that it’s religion that it contains

Isn't it more likely to be a school subject like history or even cookery?
 

 

52 minutes ago, koti said:

but it might be some other bias too.

Speaking of bias...

Your unjustified assumption that Salik's schoolwork  would be religion is a bias.

Your bias.

And I think that's the point which Dimrepr made.

[koti]

2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Do you mean plain English which is free from analogies which are not understood?

Or do you mean plain English which nobody understands because it lacks analogies?

Because what you have written means the second one, rather than the first

 

Dim got it and thats the important part. 

[John Cuthber]

I think Dim "got" the fact that you said you didn't understand plain English.
And I think he  teased you about it.
 

48 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Then I fear, you may not understand.

but I'm sure he will speak for himself.

[koti]

33 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

And I think that's the point which Dimrepr made.

Thanks for clearing that up, I would have never guessed that.

28 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I think Dim "got" the fact that you said you didn't understand plain English.
And I think he  teased you about it.

Again, thank you for the insightful summary. Now I got two not one complaining about sentence order.

Edited January 8, 2021 by koti

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, koti said:

Thanks for clearing that up, I would have never guessed that.

You are welcome to stop digging...

Imagine that.

[joigus]

3 hours ago, koti said:

Salik mentioned he has lots of homework which does not contain any science. I assumed that it’s religion that it contains but it might be some other bias too.

The way I understand the comment, it may be any other subject.

[dimreepr]

On 1/8/2021 at 5:29 PM, John Cuthber said:

And I think he  teased you about it.

On 1/8/2021 at 5:53 PM, koti said:

Thanks for clearing that up, I would have never guessed that.

Some times one has to tease out the thread's of understanding, in order to learn or teach...

[koti]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Some times one has to tease out the thread's of understanding, in order to learn or teach...

Youre right. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Some times one has to tease out the thread's of understanding, in order to learn or teach...

Imagine that...

[joigus]

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Some times one has to tease out the thread's of understanding, in order to learn or teach...

AKA "overcoming the curse of knowledge."

I like to think about it in terms of tying the knot, and untying the knot.

[MigL]

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Sorry to resurrect this thread,

Glad you did.
Unfortunately this thread has become about the proper use of language, and not Sharia law.
Everyone heaped scorn on Koti, but, I'm sure everyone knew what he meant, and he made a valid point ...

If Sharia law is based on Religion, then at least some aspects of that Religion have to be taught in schools.

Edited June 12, 2021 by MigL

[joigus]

37 minutes ago, MigL said:

Unfortunately this thread has become about the proper use of language, and not Sharia law.

Sorry. It may have been me who started the language issues. The sentence that, under Sharia, women can be free, left me worried. Then I agree that the thread was diverted into language too heavily. I don't particularly adhere to the fact that the forum is resurrected based on minor linguistic points, and only that.

But I do insist that either you are free, or you aren't. Sometimes I point out a language item because it worries me that it hides something or tries to make up for something. In this case, if I said to you: "Don't worry, you can be free any time you want", you would be right to suspect it might reveal an important constriction to your freedom.

The fact that "can" is used as diminishing the condition of free, to me, is not to be ignored. And the fact that a person who's presumably receiving instruction on Sharia feels compelled to say that women can be free under Sharia, to me, means something. Why doesn't the OP just say "women are free under Sharia"? See my point?

Unfortunately neither the OP, nor anybody else has clarified this point. And I didn't insist on it, as I noticed that it didn't gather much attention.

[dimreepr]

18 hours ago, joigus said:

I still don't know what @dimreepr's position on the matter of Sharia in countries which already have a body of law really is.

For example:

That may be true, but I fail to see any direct connection to the topic of Sharia in the US.

Just to be clear, I reported my post and requested it be split off.

But as to the connection, I think shariah compliant investment policy has a lot to teach America's bank's.

Quote

In addition, there are requirements surrounding the use of debt and interest-bearing assets. Islamic law prohibits the collection and payment of interest by lenders and investors. To earn money without charging interest, Islamic banks agree to participate in a certain amount of profit or loss the business generates. 

 

19 hours ago, MigL said:

So you will understand when I try to teach you adjustment is necessary to your brief, and usually vague, posts ?

That's a cheap shot, you know I struggle with eloquence.

However I do note, you offer no actual arguement to my point.

Beware of bias, isn't that a scientific mantra?