Islam vs. non-Islam in a tiny nutshell

Stories

Diaries

Polls

Users

Web Adequacy.org

Home

About

Topics

Rejects

Abortions

This is an unofficial archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page or the footnote if you have questions.

Poll

Votes: 4

Islam vs. non-Islam in a tiny nutshell

Author:

Inden

Topic:

Diaries

Posted:

Nov 24, 2001

Comments:

I was too indirect in my attempt at politeness in my oblique earlier post which included a reference to smiles. How about putting it this way:

More diaries by Inden

	The End Can't Justify the Means Because There Isn't One
	Osama Bin Falwell
	Do They Hate Americans or Just Our Government?
	Justice for the Victims of 9/11 ! :: (a minority viewpoint)
	Here's Some More Meat for You SFB Vultures! Enjoy!
	American Values & Pax Americana
	I Am Not A Pacifist - Taliban Must Go - We Must Rebuild Afghanistan Afterward
	This is N O T a Test!
	It's not their Economy Stupid!
	This will be Skippy's Last Diary Entry Here
	Confidence Game E-Mail Example
	Number Won !
	Struggle With Violence Is Eternal
	First Commandment: Revisit As Often As Necessary
	Delicate Question for Muslims
	The Reason I'm Posting on Adequacy Despite Being Unwelcome
	Nobel Prize for Irrelevance: How Wrong I Was !
	Nurturing Healthy Palestinian and Israeli Senses of National Identity
	West Virgina Allegory
	The ZogCore? Answer Man Is Here !
	Christian Sponsorship of Rationlist Islamic Charity as Foreign Policy
	Meine Ehre Heisst Speaking Truth to Power
	Brief Public Service Reminder
	Galactic Hitchiker Travel Advisory
	Writer vs. Editor Relationship in a Nutshell

Don't tell me my religion is obsoleted by your religion or I will spit at you and call you the son of the dog that beat me over the fence.

That is as rudely as I can put the question. Do you understand now?

Or this way: we are doing just fine without Allah. Is it truly an essential part of your religion to pick fights with other religions? Islamic history is full of wise and tolerant treatment of other religions under the rulership of Islamic governments. But it is understood that the proviso is that the other religions are subject of the superior Islamic faith. This worked out very well for a long time in Palestine - much better relations between Arabs and Jews there than between Jews and Christians at the same time in Europe.

However, don't get pushy Mahmoud. You stay over there on your side of the prayer rug and we'll try not to land any pork crumbs or spill any alcohol over here on our side that might slip over the line. Live and let live alright? The alternative is world destruction. I'm not kidding. Boom - no more Allah, no more Jesus, no more Mecca, no more Jerusalem, no more anything except maybe a few Hindus and some surviving Chinese.

	I understand perfectly (none / 0) (#1)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Nov 24th, 2001 at 03:58:28 AM PST

	Don't tell me my religion is obsoleted by your religion or I will spit at you and call you the son of the dog that beat me over the fence... Do you understand now? I understand that that's when we are forced to resort to the incinerate-the-infidel-with-a-hijacked-airplane-tactic (If you can't get respect, you settle for fear). Don't blame me if my religion happened to supersede yours. It is the will of Allah. The sooner you learn to accept this, the better off you will be. You are not doing just fine without Allah. Your technological advances aren't even woth laughing at when compared with the plenitude of God's might. Human medicine can heal the sick; God can raise the dead. Man raises skyscrapers; ever see Mount Everest? Allah raised the Himalaya range with a glance and a wink. What do humans do in the face of a hurricane? We cower and run. Know now that the full force of a hurricane is to the power of Allah as the flailing of the flagella of plankton are to the churning flukes of the great whales of the deep. Thus your atomic holocaust is but the blurry illumination of a lava lamp compared to the cosmic laser light show of the coming Last Judgement, the consummation of the whole of the universe. I am sorry if I have to get "in your face", but the alternative is neverending damnation. Please at least try to live your life in accordance with the teachings of Mohammed. Hell is a lousy place to spend eternity. Finally: watch who you're calling Mahmoud, shitbiscuit.

	Hellfire and Darnation (none / 0) (#2)
	by Inden on Sat Nov 24th, 2001 at 04:21:28 AM PST

	How did you guess my dearest friends call me shitbiscuit? It must have been an angel whispered in your ear. I'll tell you what - I'll make you a deal. I'll convert to Islam if I can get the same deal from Islam as I have from Judaism - I get to choose which rituals I practice and how I practice them. For instance: I'm not going to pray five times a day and I'm not going to fast during Ramadan or avoid pork and alcohol. I like the Hadj rule though. I'm pretty sure you are going to tell me Allah doesn't make deals anymore the way he used to with the Christians and the Jews. That was Allah's mistake right? Letting us off too easily by giving us too much free will in our theology. That's what's so wrong with us right - too much independence from Allah's commandments? I'd rather die than betray my culture and my people's history of thousands of years of persecution. I don't want to kill or be killed. If you cannot accept the coexistence in the world of multiple paths to spirituality then you can be the one to start the wars. We will eventually find out whether Allah wills us all to kill each other or not. I say no. What do you say? Is violence the way of spreading Allah's word?

	I'm glad you asked. (none / 0) (#3)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Nov 24th, 2001 at 04:34:16 AM PST

	What do you say? Is violence the way of spreading Allah's word? Sometimes. And sometimes powdered anthrax is the way of spreading Allah's word. ISLAM. LIVE IT. LOVE IT. BE IT.

	Are you trolling me or serious? (none / 0) (#4)
	by Inden on Sat Nov 24th, 2001 at 05:25:11 AM PST

	Are you honestly professing this belief in violence? Or is it a cynical provocation? Or is it a fatalistic acceptance that you will passively wait for other Muslims and non-Muslims to cause violence because everything is the will of Allah?

	Trolling is not allowed on this site... (none / 0) (#10)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Nov 24th, 2001 at 10:57:34 AM PST

	...if I was trolling, my posts would have been removed. I am not passively waiting for anything. What I do to further the cause of Islam is none of your business. Violence is just a means to an end. The end I am referring to is the question of where literally billions of people will spend eternity. This is all that matters. Your television does not matter. Your CD collection does not matter. The campy hipster tchotchkes you decorate your apartment with do not matter. If those who do the will of Allah have to kill a thousand to save a million, it is worth the sacrifice. The fact that you find this distasteful does not matter.

	What doesn't matter (none / 0) (#16)
	by Inden on Sun Nov 25th, 2001 at 03:15:21 AM PST

	Your concept of the afterlife also doesn't matter. Your crusade to save my soul doesn't matter - except that it leads us into conflict on this earth. There is no afterlife. There are no 72 black eyed virgins awaiting the Shaheed. Or there are. It doesn't matter in this world if that myth is true or not except to the extent which that myth leads to strife and disharmony in this world. Therefore, to my argument, it doesn't matter. The length of one's articles in adequacy isn't important, RobotSlave. I thought slavery had been abolished anyway? Is RobotSlave truly a robot and therefore a slave?

	I rejoice! (none / 0) (#32)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Nov 25th, 2001 at 11:46:33 AM PST

	I have finally hit upon the source of our disagreement! You think that Islam is a myth! Oh, no , Islam is not myth, but truth. Truth pure and clear like a snow-fed stream glittering down the slopes of some lofty mountain peak. Our shaheed batal, the so-called "suicide bombers", are proof of this. Would so many young men become human bombs if they were not certain of the eternal bliss awaiting them? No. The shaheed batal know, they know the truth of Allah's word as certain as the air in their lungs. They go to their "deaths" unafraid. They go to their "deaths" and they smile. Because they know they are doing the will of God. Because they know they are working toward a bright future for all humanity. Because they know, they know, brother, that paradise is on the other side of the detonator. Paradise.

	I despair at your rejoical ! (none / 0) (#35)
	by Inden on Sun Nov 25th, 2001 at 02:16:58 PM PST

	Because it doesn't matter and we will never know if Islam is universal truth or only partial truth. I would say that Islam is one of the many paths up the mountain to G-d and that everyone finds their own path in their own time and way. The kamikaze pilots who exploded themselves for the emperor-god Hirohito believes just as much in the truth of their emperor's divinity. Doesn't make it universal truth - that is what I'm calling localized truth, personal or cultural truth. I agree that all this comes down to in the end is you believe and I don't believe in what you believe. The problem is only if you seek to impose your truth in my world where my truth matters to me and the others who believe as I do. This is the source of human strife. Why does Allah permit so much non-belief in the Truth?

	Nope (none / 0) (#36)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Nov 25th, 2001 at 02:34:58 PM PST

	I would say that Islam is one of the many paths up the mountain to G-d and that everyone finds their own path in their own time and way. You don't understand, my dear infidel Inden. There is only one path to God, one path to Allah. All other roads are temptations, Golden paths leading down to hell. Shaitan lays them to tempt the unwary, the distracted, the weak, away from the righteous path. Allah's path is a dirt track, it leads to heaven for those who have the stomach to follow it. There are no shortcuts, no easier routes, only illusions leading away from Allah. This is what the noble terrorists knew. They flew their planes, carrying hundreds of Americans, into the WTC, knowing that Allah would reward them. The west may portray the passengers as somehow 'innocent', but they were most certainly not. They were ordinary American citizens, the same citizns who have been exporting their culture of selfishness across the world, the same ordinary citizens who have supported the rape of Palestine, the same ordinary citizens who perform global economic genocide and enslavement with every McDonalds buger they buy, every Gap clothing they purchase. The explosion of these collective butchers, into the side of the monument of American hegemony the WTC, was a wonderful moment, a moment of grace and courage and justice. The huddled masses, armed with Allah's will, are at last rising up and making themselves heard. Every dead American makes Allah a little bit happier, and it is the duty of every good muslim to burn, kill and destroy every American, every piece of American property, he can come across. Blessed be we are drawing the Great Shaitan into a final conflict it will forever regret, soon the weapons of the Holy will rain down, with great vengeance, upon America's arrogant peoples and Islam will be free. All Americans out of the land of the three Holy Cities! American support of butchering Israel regime must stop! These are the conditions which we will win, either that or total annihilation of America. I would love to die in a Jihad against the Great Shaitan, as a good Wahhabi Muslim. Do American Christians have the same commitment to their God? I don't think so. I will ascend to heaven happy if I send one single American to his gory hell in the process. ISLAM: Live it, Love it, Be it.

	Does Islam Have a Concept of Free Will + More Q's (none / 0) (#39)
	by Inden on Sun Nov 25th, 2001 at 04:52:23 PM PST

	Do you believe that the human has a choice to follow the true path or not follow the true path? Do people have the option of choosing damnation? Is it the duty of believers to actively hasten the deaths of those who, in the believer's judgement, have chosen damnation? What of the teachings of the Koran of tolerance of the other people of the book in the lands that are ruled by Islam? (I realize we do not all live in lands that are ruled by Islam, of course.) Does not the Koran teach also tolerance of other worshippers of the book in your lands?

	Of course people have Free Will (none / 0) (#40)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Nov 25th, 2001 at 05:31:07 PM PST

	If we did not have Free Will, there would be no such thing as Right and Wrong. Allah grants us Free Will so that we might test ourselves and live freely. We all live in a maze of difficult decisions, Free Will allows a muslim to be not just a Human Being, but something far higher and more noble: A Human Becoming. As for non-believers, it os the duty of every Muslim to bring them back to the path of righteousness. If, as so often, this is not possible because they are too far upon the path of Sin, then of course death, as prescribed in the Quoran, is the only solution. I think you are being to rational over this though, Inden. The path to Allah is not a one dimensional thing, where the slightest deviation puts you in jeapordy. It is multiply dimensioned, leaving you with plenty of room for freedom of movement and hence free will. Mohammed himself took a different path to Allah's Heaven than the Ayatolahs, Saracens, and Mamelukes. Every man must seek his own personal path to Allah, and each path is unique, and yet the destination is the same. This can be proven by merely noting that each man has a different starting position. I have not said anywhere that the Quoran is not tolerant. I agree with you that it is very tolerant. Where people (such as American infidels) try to wrest from us our freedoms, they must be destroyed. Every drop of American blood shows how jealously we Muslims guard our tolerance. ض ل ئ ف ي

	What annoys me ... (none / 0) (#45)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Nov 26th, 2001 at 12:07:27 AM PST

	... is being told by Muslims that they're trying to wrest me "back to the path of righteousness". Christians already KNOW that Jesus was the Saviour (translation: they're already ON the path of righteousness). If you don't get that, fine, just don't tell Christians that they're wrong.

	Precisely what I meant (none / 0) (#50)
	by Inden on Tue Nov 27th, 2001 at 08:48:56 AM PST

	Exactly what I meant when I said: "Don't tell me my religion is obsoleted by your religion or I will spit at you and call you the son of the dog that beat me over the fence."

	How Do Americans Wrest Freedom from Moslems (none / 0) (#46)
	by Inden on Mon Nov 26th, 2001 at 04:21:07 AM PST

	Please elucidate on how Americans "wrest freedom from Moslems". We do not understand how come you believe we are invading your freedoms. We are just living and letting live over here, as far as we are aware. Please tell us what you would like us to know about how we are violating your rights to freedom.

	Think about it. (none / 0) (#47)
	by SpaceGhoti on Mon Nov 26th, 2001 at 05:29:46 AM PST

	The US is attacking the most reactionary, hardcore fanatics of all Moslem nations: Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden recorded a very angry and damning statement declaring the attack to be an attack not on Afghanistan, but on all Moslems everywhere. Whether or not the rest of the world agrees with him, Moslems are listening to this message and reacting to it. I find it amusing that Saddam Hussein made a public statement that the US has every right to retaliate the way they have. Hussein tried to unite the Arab nations the way bin Laden is trying to unite the Moslems, also using the US (with some missile strikes against Israel) as his focus. Irony is everywhere in today's world. The US was attacked. Why? I really don't have an answer to that. I'm not sure anyone does, other than some emotional ranting about the US being the "Great Satan." Having been attacked the US is lashing back, and no one is surprised by the weight of the hammer that's crashing down. The crisis has (as they're wont to do) polarized the world community, and many moderate Moslems are torn between what they see and what they're told they're supposed to do. It's a propaganda war, and all it's achieving is to confirm what people thought in the first place. Is the US trying to wrest freedoms from the Moslems? Probably no more than the Moslems are trying to destroy America (here's a hint: I bet you it's less a religious movement than a national one). But people believe what they want to believe, and when things get rough the jingoism gets even worse. Maybe one day we'll rise above things like this. Maybe. A troll's true colors.

	It does matter and we do know (none / 0) (#37)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Nov 25th, 2001 at 03:34:56 PM PST

	One of the characteristics of empirical truth is that people use it as a basis for making decisions. The more obvious the fact, the more important the decision that it will be used to make. One obvious truth is that objects within a few miles of the earth fall downward toward it. Everyone knows this simple fact, and it is used as the basis for life and death decisions every day: people do not walk off of cliffs, becuse they know that will fall and injure themselves. Therefore, that so many shaheed batal choose to willingly and gratefully "die" for the cause of Islam, and their numbers are so great that right-thinking muhllahs are forced to turn away crowds of them, is evidence of the truth of the cause behind the jihad. Evidence of the reality of the life to come. I would also like to call your attention to my fellow Islamic brethren on this site as further proof of the widespread acceptance of God's loving message. Why does Allah permit so much non-belief in the Truth? Do not be facetious. Only babies toddle about asking "why, why, why?". God's mind is infinite, man's finite. Thus the details of Allah's great plan for humanity cannot be comprehended by mortals. We must humbly accept God's world as it is, and know that when all is revealed at the gates of paradise, we will laugh the laughter of the enlightened. All our sufferings in this vale of tears will sail away like dandelion seeds. Allah Akbar.

	waiting, waiting... (none / 0) (#24)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Nov 25th, 2001 at 06:25:47 AM PST

	I await the next crusade in which Islam will be crushed by the healing of the Schism, with glorious war ensuing. --thankyou.

	Don't hold your breath (none / 0) (#33)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Nov 25th, 2001 at 11:52:05 AM PST

	I'd hate for you to expire of asphyxiation before you've had a chance to dedicate your life to following the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed. ISLAM. LIVE IT. LOVE IT. BE IT.

	I, alongside many others... (none / 0) (#44)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Nov 25th, 2001 at 11:52:59 PM PST

	... don't want your religion. Please stay away from Christianity. I know the Middle East is a hotbed of anti-christian violence, but don't take it as your inspiration. It is not your responsibility to bring Islam to the world, as I (with many others) don't want it. I already know who the Saviour is, thankyou; that'll do me just fine.

	well, as long as it's as arbitrary as a "deal (none / 0) (#5)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Nov 24th, 2001 at 06:16:03 AM PST

	I'll make you a deal. I'll convert to Islam if I can get the same deal from Islam as I have from Judaism You're just going to have to realize that choice is largely an illusion. There are many choices you can conceivably make but will not and will not feel impoverished for their lack of consideration because they present themselves -- to you, that object distinguished from a sac of organic chemicals by the peculiar circumstances of your socialization -- as alien absurdities. You've won a different birth lottery, as it were. Similiarly, there are many demands you might make of Islam that Muslims will never seriously consider for themselves. If you take your position to its logical conclusion, you have to institute a religion without rules; but then it wont be a religion, it will be at best a series of uncritical moral sentiments, at worst nihilism. Now this may be perfectly acceptable to you, but I cannot imagine a civilization arising from a people without a faith organ. In fact, I suggest the concept of faithlessness is completely alien to our species, and if that is truly so, what universal objective value system do you appeal to when you prescribe against Islam?

	Live and Let Live? (none / 0) (#6)
	by Inden on Sat Nov 24th, 2001 at 06:46:44 AM PST

	Your fancy footwork with the postulating and the equating and the reducing down to nihilism apparently satisfies you as raising a sophisticated tough critique. But I'm not sure if you are saying anything yourself or just making a hard to grasp abstract rhetorical proof of the futility of discussing the issues you seem to be discussing. Are you trying to argue the non-existence of morality because different people can concieve it differently? I'm not going to play your game of extending your logic to its conclusion as you have done with mine. It isn't a religion without rules I have. No fair of you to tell me it is by exaggerating it "to its logical (absurd) conclusion)". It is a personally defined spirituality that sees all beings as part of a whole larger being. No killing others is a rule as is no telling others that what they believe has to match what I believe.

	ok (none / 0) (#7)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Nov 24th, 2001 at 07:21:28 AM PST

	Are you trying to argue the non-existence of morality because different people can concieve it differently? Morality is gibberish. Religion is gibberish too, when reduced to words and therefore rational argument. Look, I believe any community that you can imagine is a community that can exist in the realm of possibility, that the universe will be indifferent to its existence, and that this existence is its own reward. What I am trying to impress upon you is that relgion as one aspect of community glue is quite a different kettle of fish from an individual on a spiritual quest for ontological "meaning." Now I believe in the existence of such a meaning. I believe that this meaning can only be understood as an epiphany of the irrational, that it cannot be reduced to or understood by reading a list of words on a page, and that the choice in a specific ideology of the irrational -- which "religion" -- is fundamentally irrelevant. It doesnt make a shred of difference to me what religion has what effect on civil society because civil society is the object to be transcended in the first place. It is a personally defined spirituality that sees all beings as part of a whole larger being. No killing others is a rule as is no telling others that what they believe has to match what I believe. Yes but individual Muslims on a strictly spiritual quest live a benevolent variation on this theme as well. If you confuse a selective history of religious politics with spiritualism, you wont have much of an argument for Christianity, will you?

	correction (none / 0) (#9)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Nov 24th, 2001 at 10:13:27 AM PST

	Morality is gibberish. That is not to say it is useless or that it does not exist, only that it cannot be made internally coherent, regardless of the number of hard working rationalists you might employ to that end. Morality is a branch of aesthetics.

	Aesthetics (none / 0) (#27)
	by Inden on Sun Nov 25th, 2001 at 06:51:16 AM PST

	Aside from being a bear to spell, aesthetics are what makes life beautiful and fun. How dull it would be to do away with any use of aesthetics in argument and dialog. You'd practically have to give up literature I suppose. Unless you consider Ayn Rand literature [snore].

	Transcend Civil Society? (none / 0) (#26)
	by Inden on Sun Nov 25th, 2001 at 06:44:15 AM PST

	It doesnt make a shred of difference to me what religion has what effect on civil society because civil society is the object to be transcended in the first place. The objective is to transcend civil society? What kind of society are going to be living in if we transcend civil society? Just individual telecommuting suburban consumers insulated and isolated by their flag covered SUV's on their way to the mall to buy groceries once a month? Pure communism where the state has whithered away because we have all transformed into altruists? A collection of tribal warlord flocks once more? Where are you going with this?

	mandatory topics are a pita. (none / 0) (#23)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Nov 25th, 2001 at 06:23:31 AM PST

	>choice is ... an illusion If you read the Bible, you'll find out it isn't.

	erm. (none / 0) (#22)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Nov 25th, 2001 at 06:22:06 AM PST

	>my religion ... superseded yours. Erm, so that's why christians believe that jesus was the anointed ones and muslims don't?

	Etiquitte (none / 0) (#8)
	by First Incision on Sat Nov 24th, 2001 at 07:30:58 AM PST

	Just a suggestion. Most people try to keep diary entries down to one per day, so you don't clog up the front page. _ _ Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

	Still not making the cut. (none / 0) (#11)
	by RobotSlave on Sat Nov 24th, 2001 at 11:35:20 AM PST

	Even if we add all three of today's diary entries from Inden, we only get a lousy 350+. Not enough to make any real impression in the submission queue at polemic-pottos.org. And breaking things up into separate entries ruins the sleep-inducing effect. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	you know ... (none / 0) (#12)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Nov 24th, 2001 at 12:04:23 PM PST

	if we add your inane running commentary and wordcount (thanks for that, by the way, not enough things are counted), we can probably give tiresome-manchildren.org a run for their money.

	It's already happening. (none / 0) (#13)
	by RobotSlave on Sat Nov 24th, 2001 at 12:56:03 PM PST

	As soon as enough people find the address, Mr. Adequacy Editor, the adequacy is going to get just as crappy as any other inter-webly diary-journal. You can swell your ranks to hold back the flood (as there seem to be many regulars with the proper mindset), but the longer you keep the place amusing, the worse it will be when the dam finally breaks. I just hope you have the decency to pull the plug when the time comes. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	Elitism is a bad thing (none / 0) (#21)
	by Inden on Sun Nov 25th, 2001 at 06:09:20 AM PST

	Elitist RobotSlave would have us throw the babies out together with the bathwater. Surely "right thinking" adequatists like yourself cannot be threatened by dirty Jew refugees and their alien "Socialist" ideologies can you?

	Pascal's Famous Comment About Length (none / 0) (#18)
	by Inden on Sun Nov 25th, 2001 at 03:24:59 AM PST

	Pascal is known for his insight in apologizing to his friend that the letter he had written him was so long because he hadn't the time to write a shorter one.

	what foolishness is all this? (none / 0) (#14)
	by naveen on Sun Nov 25th, 2001 at 12:31:06 AM PST

	Both of you are fighting on so rubish topic. Today is the age of scientificness and practicallism.Defining the religon as 'a way of life ' was apporpriate long time ago. Nowadays one must say it is a stupid classification of homo sapeins on the basis of there ethinic faiths. Although I m not against spirtuality but why not to make it our very own personal thing instead of clashing with each other.This way the world can leave with the peace or we have face blood shed for this rubbishnes'religion'.

	I'm sorry... (none / 0) (#15)
	by tkatchev on Sun Nov 25th, 2001 at 01:28:26 AM PST

	I think you're about 500 years too late. Have you been living in a cave this past half-millenia? -- Peace and much love...

	Tkatchev (none / 0) (#17)
	by Inden on Sun Nov 25th, 2001 at 03:22:18 AM PST

	My old interlocutor Tkatchev the Russian mafia patriot! How unpleasant to hear your blanket denunciation of liberalism with no argument to back yourself up - as usual. I have had the experience of visiting the english language discussion boards of pravda.ru since last we snarled at one another. There is a woman (or transexual man depending on which theory you believe) who persists there named 'Atossa' with whom I imagine you could share your loathing of the Jew/NWO conspiracy to defraud the long-suffering Russian people as well as share your plans to liberate the planet from the yoke of Zionist capitalist slavery. Long live Tsar Vladimir! Life to the Tsar!

	Liberalist dictionary fetish. (none / 0) (#19)
	by tkatchev on Sun Nov 25th, 2001 at 05:08:46 AM PST

	I've said this far too many times already, but when you see a liberalist argue that "you need an argument to back up that definition" -- you may officially consider that you won the argument. The liberalists's favorite tactic is to get you bogged down in definition games -- for example, "prove that water is wet", "prove that the sky is blue", "prove that people have five fingers", etc. The trick is that no matter what you say, the liberalist will always reply with "but, but, that's not the correct definition of 'wet'! See, my Resenkrantz & Sons dictionary says something different!" Please, don't play definition games with liberalists. You don't have to prove anything to these people; if they don't understand the very basics of human existence[1], far better to just leave them alone. [1] For example, "don't kill people", "don't commit adultery", "pedophilia and sodomy is bad", etc. Invariably, if you claim something as simple as these basic rules of existence, the liberalist will reply with "define the word 'kill'", or "prove that the word 'bad' really means what you mean it means", etc. -- Peace and much love...

	Classic Fascist Propaganda Tactic (none / 0) (#20)
	by Inden on Sun Nov 25th, 2001 at 06:01:09 AM PST

	Since it seems you do not wish to address me directly but rather the unseen reader, I too will frame my remarks to you through to the third person who is silent in our midst. <tangent>Is this a metaphor for G-d? </tangent> The particular fascist propaganda tactic you see employed here by Gospodin Tkatchev is to seek to discredit anything I may say by demonizing it and labelling it and misrepresenting it in his own terms. He is well aware of his vulnerability in any discussion to my superior facts and arguments and thus asks you the listener to simply disregard what I have to offer as a trick. You disrespect the intellegence and independence of our readers my dear pochtionnij vityaz' Tkachev. I doubt you are even extremely remotely in any way related to any Russian aristocracy, even by illegitimacy.

	Bow Wow... (none / 0) (#29)
	by tkatchev on Sun Nov 25th, 2001 at 09:24:49 AM PST

	OK, you made your point, whatever it was. You can keep calling water dry, and the sky green. Whatever keeps that shrivelled black hole in your chest warm. -- Peace and much love...

	Don't ask rhetorical questions... (5.00 / 2) (#28)
	by em on Sun Nov 25th, 2001 at 09:23:43 AM PST

	...unless you are ready to answer them. The liberalists's favorite tactic is to get you bogged down in definition games -- for example, "prove that water is wet" This is not a trivial statement. It is clear that when a surface is in such a state that it has some water-based liquid on some part of it, or when a porous material has accumulated some water-based liquid, that said surface or material is "wet". It is not however in any way obvious that "wetness" is a property of water in addition to being a property of the objects so affected by it; water is not a surface nor a porous material. "prove that the sky is blue" It is a well known discovery of cognitive anthropology that color classification systems, while biologically constrained, are variable among cultures. The statement "the sky is blue" has no meaning unless your culture provides such a category. Which results in the inevitable conclusion that any such "proof" is ultimately an arbitrary classification. It is no more "true" than equally motivated, yet incomparable statements about the color of the sky, produced in, say, a typical hunter-gatherer society. "prove that people have five fingers" It is impossible to see what precisely you want a proof for here. A person of extreme positivistic leanings, and having only a knowledge of classical logic, would be inclined to take you as intending the universal statement All human beings have five fingers, and if they were of the sadistic kind, they would chop off one of your fingers to show that, regardless of whatever truth value it may have had when you uttered it, it was no more than a contingent statement. Luckily, I'm neither a positivist, nor a believer in classical logic, nor a sadist. Thus, I take you to mean some sort of default statement; human beings, by default (or "in the prototypical case"), have five fingers. In which case I must demand that you produce some working system of default reasoning-- a task that nobody has performed satisfactorily, if I may mention. BTW, I have 10 or 20 fingers, depending on whether you define "fingers" to include pedal digits or to exclude them. OED records no variety of English to have made the first choice. But given that many languages do make that choice, ultimately how many "fingers" people have depends on arbitrary cultural classification. --em Associate Editor, Adequacy.org

	Thank you, thank you! (none / 0) (#30)
	by tkatchev on Sun Nov 25th, 2001 at 09:28:37 AM PST

	Thank you very, very much for proving my point beautifully for me. I'm afraid I couldn't do better myself. If I could, I'd frame your post and put it on my wall. -- Peace and much love...

	No, you're in trouble now. (none / 0) (#31)
	by em on Sun Nov 25th, 2001 at 09:44:32 AM PST

	Essentially, I showed that the facts you rhetorically took to be elementary, objective and unquestionable are in fact clearly socially constructed. The "facts" that the "sky" is "blue", or that "people" have five "fingers", are such merely because your culture happens to set up things so that they are so; your claims are quite simply circular. Which is the ultimate rebuttal to your absolutism. --em Associate Editor, Adequacy.org

	I know. (none / 0) (#34)
	by tkatchev on Sun Nov 25th, 2001 at 12:41:47 PM PST

	You're exactly the kind of liberalist individual (?) that I despise. Sir, I have nothing to say to you. Please step away and refrain from trying to contact me. Don't touch me with your grubby fingers, either. Go talk with other socially-constructed liberalists. -- Peace and much love...

	I see! (none / 0) (#38)
	by SpaceGhoti on Sun Nov 25th, 2001 at 04:30:36 PM PST

	In other words, you live by that age-old maxim: "don't confuse the issue with facts." You don't care what's really going on or what's really meant by a statement. You choose to impart your own interpretation on events and statements, and hang the truth. Truth is, ironically enough, what you choose to say it is. And you accuse liberals of confusing the issue. I am, unsurprisingly, amused. You're a funny little boy. A troll's true colors.

	fyg (none / 0) (#51)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Dec 9th, 2001 at 03:43:34 AM PST

	sapceghoti, you fucking rock. ah, i love it when people kick the shit out of others with intellect. oh and, cruiwehancnnnnyrseuoy(however the fuck you spell your name) you, sir, are a dweeb, a complete ankle biter. you would rather comfort yourself with your own supposed intellectual authority than actually understand something. you choose to ignore reality beyond your perception, and for that, i wish that it should choose to ignore you.

	It WAS the age of practalism and science (none / 0) (#25)
	by Inden on Sun Nov 25th, 2001 at 06:29:46 AM PST

	The 20th century was the age of practicalism and science. The 21st is a new ballgame I'm afraid. The issues are now increasingly non-material, spiritual and emotional - no longer strictly technical and scientific. I wish we were still living in the age of reason and pragmatism but (gawd how I hate to resort to this overwrought cliche but it is my first time ever here to do so , so here goes, I'm gritting my teeth as I type) "September 11th changed the world". I hate writing that 911 changed the world because it was first adopted as the rallying cry of those who advocate a purely military response to the al Qaida challenge. These right-wingers (and worse) have become so emboldened by this new Crusade under the Starred and Striped Banner that I have watched them literally emerge from under their justly deserved rocks and out from their ascetic candle-filled caves on remote mountainsides in the desert to pour their hypnotic romantic messianism into the cyber ether unashamedly. These Crusaders for moral decency and against the vile stains of "weakness" & "sin" represented by feminism, compassion and charity, tolerance and overall liberal "bankruptcy" are the Western world's analogs to Islam's terrorist zealots. Alas, US Attorney General Ashcroft is among the flock of the "crush diversity" faithful. Hello fascists of all shapes, sizes and colors - the Jews have been forced back to your adequacy club! Long live Spinoza!

	We Jews Have Survived 5762 Years So Far (5.00 / 1) (#41)
	by Inden on Sun Nov 25th, 2001 at 05:33:49 PM PST

	My identity as a Jew is to preserve the identity of my people and our special culture into the next generation so that there will always be Jewish people. Jewish people have been on this earth before the Christians and the Muslims and we want to do what we can so there will be Jews on the earth after we are gone. That is basically the prime directive of Jewish identity: to survive. We do not seek to proselytize. We live and let live and hope and pray that others let us live. Often the others we have always lived under the rule of do not just let us live. It is only within the very recent two hundred years of Christian civilization that the Jesus worshippers have lightened up and stopped periodically massacring Jews, or forcibly converting us. It was the age of reason and enlightenment that saw the rise of the concepts of the inherent rights of all humans which provided liberation for the Jews of Europe from the Ghetto and the other varied controls and prohibitions and special taxes and burdens. The Nazi slaughter was a very notable aberration in an otherwise improving history of Christian-Jewish relations. The Moslems historically treated the Jews in their midst with much more tolerance. Until the birth of Zionism and the displacement of the Palestinians over the past 100 years, Jews in Moslem countries lived side by side, mostly separately but not persecuted. Progressively minded Jews are working now to persuade and force our cousins in Israel to do the right thing by creating a Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza with Jerusalem as its capital and reach a settlement of the refugee issue. It's taking too long and the Palestinians aren't making it any easier by mostly believing they will only be liberated from Israeli rule by force of arms. Not that the Sharon government is serious about peace right now - but neither is Arafat. They are all crazy over there. It's something in the air and the water that makes people more aggressive and self-righteous. That's why it is home to the three main monotheist religions based on a jealous G-d. But I digress a bit. The point I want to leave you with is that as a Jew with a sense of my people's history as my identity, I am not going to accept Islam or Christianity if it means giving up my Jewish identity, which it would. That would be a betrayal of 5762 years of struggling to survive for the sake of our love of G-d and our self-respect. I humbly again ask you if you will not just help us to make peace and find a settlement in Palestine for the refugees and then let us live side by side together.

	*rolls eyes over* (none / 0) (#42)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Nov 25th, 2001 at 06:34:34 PM PST

	It's taking too long and the Palestinians aren't making it any easier by mostly believing they will only be liberated from Israeli rule by force of arms. Oh, yeah, whatever, they're not making any easier right. They should just shut up and wait for others like you and your PZA to peacefully and reasonedly convince your psycho ethnic-cleansing Zionist brethren to stop systematically destroying their communities.

	No - they should have more discipline though (none / 0) (#43)
	by Inden on Sun Nov 25th, 2001 at 06:44:50 PM PST

	They should fight on with much more discipline and less lying about what really happens. I understand they wouldn't have gotten this far without terrorism. Terrorism works more often than it doesn't. If I was a Palestinian myself, I'd favor war too - but only until there is a Palestine. They should also offer public counter-proposals to the Israelis for what would constitute a peaceful settlement of the conflict. My point in mentioning the PZA is that there are pro-Israeli Jews who are NOT ethnic cleansing religious zealot fanatics.

	blaming the victim (none / 0) (#48)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Nov 26th, 2001 at 02:27:46 PM PST

	Your "recommendations" just smack of a blame-the-victim mentality, and discredit you completely. They should fight on with much more discipline and less lying about what really happens. And therefore leave the Israeli propaganda game completely unchecked? Yeah, sure. If I was a Palestinian myself, I'd favor war too - but only until there is a Palestine. "If I was a Palestinian myself, I'd favor war too - but somehow still in such a way that it wouldn't inflict upon the interest I really have, in real life." Sure. Very believable. They should also offer public counter-proposals to the Israelis for what would constitute a peaceful settlement of the conflict. Oh, yeah, right. They never do that, those bastards. They just order their children to die in front of cameras, right? Mother says to her 12-year old boy: "Sonny, there's a reporter in town. Go get yourself shot." I'm sorry, but you only negotiate with somebody if they indeed want to negotiate. If the enemy is just intent on destroying you, and stages "negotiations" to give the appearance of having good will while keeping on with their ethnic cleansisng, you don't negotiate. My point in mentioning the PZA is that there are pro-Israeli Jews who are NOT ethnic cleansing religious zealot fanatics. Which does not excuse you from being a racist idiot.

	Your point aside from rudeness and hostility being (none / 0) (#49)
	by Inden on Mon Nov 26th, 2001 at 05:33:53 PM PST

	The hostility and rudeness to signal ratio of your comment is pretty darn high. Like your crap doesn't stink huh? Never ever call me an idiot - shithead yes, Mr. shithead would be technically most correct. I categorically deny the accusation that I am a racist. I am actively working to counteract racism and assist those in Israeli society who also work against racism. Racism exists everywhere in every society. It is a kind of objectification of the individual that must always be guarded against. Now I get to trot out the arguments that Israeli rightwingers use against me and toss them at you for being such an unconstructive and hateful critic: The Arab citizens of Israel enjoy greater freedoms and democracy than the Arab citizens of any Arab governed country! Israel has a right to defend itself against military (notice I didn't write terrorist) attacks. It speaks volumes that the IDF was forthright and prompt in admitting their guilt in placing the booby trap in Khan Yunis that killed five Arab children on their way to school just now. How many other countries can stand that amount of honesty in admitting when something they have done goes wrong. Arafat is just as duplicitous as Sharon. They are both playing vile games with the lives of children for the sake of their personal political survival. Of course, Sharon will not survive for very long now - this is a positive development. But there is no shortage of guilt to be passed around for all sides in spades - war is shite and this is definately war. Instead of tearing into me for trying to make the hard compromising pragmatic choices why don't you get your own racist house in order?

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.