Amazon Defends Pedophile Book

[AGB]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

AGB accused him of issuing religious vomit, and now you accuse him of being a religious bigot. Why all this enmity?

Actually, when one spews religious morals and try to apply his restrictive morals on the society at large, I consider that religious vomit.

Just because nguirado isn't calling a spade a spade, but prefer to say "Are you a tool used for digging?", doesn't mean that it is any less judgemental. It can, apparently, make it fly under the radar of a few people.

[boxcorner]

Originally Posted by AGB

Quite a difference. Apparently the habit is traditionally worn by both monks and nuns, and it is not dictating what regular believers should wear, and certainly not what non-believers should wear. So, yes, there's a vast difference ...

My question was, "Do you object to these groups: the Catholic and Anglican churches, and their habits?"

Originally Posted by AGB

... Yes, there's a vast difference as I mentioned above. It's not about "choosing", it's about whether or not the patriarchs in a Patriarchy dictates what is "correct" and what is not, usually using interpretations of scripture ...

My question was, "Do you think there is any significant difference, between a nun who chooses to wear a habit, and a Muslim woman who chooses to wear a hijab, apart from their different religions?"

You seem to believe that all Muslim women who cover their heads with cloth are forced to do so.

BBC: Young British convert: 'I'm proud to be Muslim'

Originally Posted by AGB

... I'm not sure what you mean. It seems you are defending the likes of nguirado's rights to dictate what other people can wear, read, behave, show, based on his religious morals ...

It's a simple enough question, concerning something that you wrote. So, why would you assume that I am defending nguirado's rights to dictate something that you wrote. Surely, that would be illogical.

What I asked was:

Has anyone in this thread, concerning Amazon defending a book about Paedophilia, supported any "society dictating what other groups should wear, how to look, and how to behave, based on their own religious beliefs"?

Those words in italics were written by you, not me or nguirado.

You appear to be making assumptions about someone else's religious beliefs, based on the actions of some fundamentalist groups of the Muslim religion, and then applying them to the religion as a whole. That seems illogical to me. It's like attributing American Christian fundamentalist values to all Christians, or Zionist settlers fundamentalist values to all those who practice Judaism.

When you say, "... the likes of ...", it sounds like you are making a derogatory comment. It implies that you think nguirado's rights differ from anyone else's.

Originally Posted by AGB

... I will form an opinion on the actual judgement ...

My view is, Phillip Greaves is innocent unless he has been convicted of committing a crime.

[AGB]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

My question was, "Do you object to these groups: the Catholic and Anglican churches, and their habits?"

Yes, I know what you asked, and I answered.

My question was, "Do you think there is any significant difference, between a nun who chooses to wear a habit, and a Muslim woman who chooses to wear a hijab, apart from their different religions?"

Yes, and I answered quite fulfilling.

You seem to believe that all Muslim women who cover their heads with cloth are forced to do so.

No, I believe that it is a "choice" dictated by a culture that is in essense a theocratic patriarchy.

BBC: Young British convert: 'I'm proud to be Muslim'

Oh, great. Converts. Next you'll bring up Born-Again Christians that are just fine with some restrictive moralizing practices.

It's a simple question, concerning something that you wrote. So, why would you assume that I am defending nguirado's rights to dictate something that you wrote. Surely, that would be illogical.

Yes, if it were like that, it would be illogical. But as usual strawman arguments just doesn't cut it.

You're arguing against letting people do what they want, and for nguirado's and like minded's rights to try and dictate what can or cannot be worn, behaviour etc.
It's only a matter of reading your recent responses.

You appear to be making assumptions about someone else's religious beliefs, based on the actions of some fundamentalist groups of the Muslim religion, and then applying them to the religion as a whole.

No, I'm making the point that religiously funded morals, such as Nguirado (who, btw, argues that there is "objective morality") are restrictive and dictatorial at the very core. No matter how many "converts" or "Born Again's" you can find that have no problems with it.

That seems illogical to me. It's like attributing American Christian fundamentalist values to all Christians, or Zionist settlers fundamentalist values to all those who practice Judaism.

No, it's attributing fundamentalist morals dictated by scripture or interpretation of scripture to other fundamentalist morals dictated by scripture or interpretations of scripture.

When you say, "... the likes of ...", it sounds like you are making a derogatory comment. It implies that you think nguirado's rights differ from anyone else's.

No, hopefully it implies that I think that nguirado's fundamentalist religious claims of objective morals (i.e. God-given), his claims of religion having a right to dictate what others can or cannot do, is independant of specific religious leaning. That fundamentalist beliefs at the very core have the same (lack of) substance as that of other fundamentalist beliefs.

My view is, Phillip Greaves is innocent unless he has been convicted of a crime.

Of course he is. That's more a statement of fact, whereas most of this discussion has been a meta discussion (in a good way) about morals, ethics, censorship and whatnot.

[boxcorner]

Originally Posted by AGB

Yes, I know what you asked, and I answered.
...

I don't believe that you believe that, but I think you got the message nevertheless.

Originally Posted by AGB

... Yes, and I answered quite fulfilling ...

Yes, you answered, but not my question, rather one of your own making.

Originally Posted by AGB

... No, I believe that it is a "choice" dictated by a culture that is in essense a theocratic patriarchy ...

Dictating choice sounds illogical to me. Presumably you mean the choice that someone makes is dictated to them by a theocracy. You imply that is always the case. I don't agree, however I can imagine why you might believe that, given the present climate of Islamophobia. I think there are women who choose freely to become Muslims, and choose freely to wear a piece of cloth on their heads, just as there are women who choose freely to become nuns. Perhaps you believe that all women who choose to become nuns are coerced by the Catholic Church.

Originally Posted by AGB

... Oh, great. Converts ...

Welcome to the real world.

Originally Posted by AGB

... Next you'll bring up Born-Again Christians that are just fine with some restrictive moralizing practices ...

Not my cup of tea.

Originally Posted by AGB

... Yes, if it were like that, it would be illogical. But as usual strawman arguments just doesn't cut it.

You're arguing against letting people do what they want, and for nguirado's and like minded's rights to try and dictate what can or cannot be worn, behaviour etc.
It's only a matter of reading your recent responses ...

Do you make this stuff up as you go along, or are you using one of those early so-called artificial intelligence programs that used to generate gobbledegook like this?

Originally Posted by AGB

... No, I'm making the point that religiously funded morals, such as Nguirado (who, btw, argues that there is "objective morality") are restrictive and dictatorial at the very core. No matter how many "converts" or "Born Again's" you can find that have no problems with it.
...

I can't speak for nguirado, but once again, it's not my cup of tea.

Originally Posted by AGB

... No, it's attributing fundamentalist morals dictated by scripture or interpretation of scripture to other fundamentalist morals dictated by scripture or interpretations of scripture ...

Okay, so you're an atheist and from what I understand, you object to someone else talking about their values, which you assume to be a moral code that is based on religious scripture. Have I got that right? I say assume, because I don't recall nguirado having declared any particular faith. For all I know, he might be baiting you.

My view is that it is not about showing respect for someone's religion, or their religious beliefs, it is about respecting their right to express their views, without being insulted. I do not see why, if you don't agree with someone's views, that you should feel it necessary to insult them.

Sometimes people who are incapable of expressing themselves in words, resort to using violence instead. Similarly, when debating a topic, sometimes when people feel incapable of expressing themselves adequately, or if they feel they are losing an argument, they resort to hurling abuse at their opponent.

Your arguments are debased when you resort to insulting people and causing offence. You might gain more respect if you were more courteous and tolerant. There is nothing to be gained by alienating people. If you believe sincerely in what you are arguing, then you should be aiming to persuade and convince others that you are right.

I would be rather surprised if some of the people who responded to a thread like this, concerning paedophilia, and who expressed their views, didn't base them on a set of religious values. Equally, I would expect there to be comments from those who don't feel that religion is necessary, in order to hold a moral code. In my view, neither has the right to insult the other, during any discussion.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

.

As regards nguirado allegedly being a "religious bigot", I really don't understand why you, .... think that is the case.....

I'll just say that it's my experience with him thus far in numerous threads that rather than discuss the topic at hand he moves the discussion to religion in general and begins debating things removed from the topic at hand. Now that may not be your definition of a religious bigot but he certainly seems obcessed in that direction to me. I've not seen any posts by him as to what ebooks he is reading or in areas outside of religion.

[AGB]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

I don't believe that you believe that, but I think you got the message nevertheless.

Sigh! No, I actually answered.

Yes, you answered, but not my question, rather one of your own making.

Yes, I did. Just not the answer you were trying to get to conclude on the inherent strawman.

Dictating choice sounds illogical to me.

Does it? Ever heard of peer pressure? Or what about choices made after being "lead" by some (perceived)authority?

Presumably you mean the choice that someone makes is dictated to them by a theocracy. You imply that is always the case.

No I don't. I imply that perceived demands derived from thecratic patriarchic thinking can lead people into making "choices", even if it's really a question of being led by expectations of others.

I don't agree, however I can imagine why you might believe that.

Can you, now?

I think there are women who choose freely to become Muslims and choose freely to wear a piece of cloth on their heads,

Yes, and your examplification of that, the example you used was that of convert to Islam that could just as well has been someone becoming a born-again Christian. In other words, someone subscribing the inhererent fundamentalism.

just as there are women who choose freely to become nuns. Perhaps you believe that all women who choose to become nuns are coerced by the Catholic Church.

No, I don't. That is yet another strawman, and one I have already explained. You know the parts where you claim I didn't actually answer.

Go read those parts again.

Welcome to the real world.

I am well aware of converts. My point is that you're using converts as an argument for free will.

Not my cup of tea.

No, but apparently someone buying into fundamentalism of another faith is okay to use an example.

Do you make this stuff up as you go along, or are you using one of those early so-called artificial intelligence programs that used to generate gobbledegook like this?

Very funny. If you can't see how you are in essense arguing to give religious people like nguirado the option to dictate behaviour of others, and how your argumentation would give him that right, then I really can't see why I bother even responding to you.

I can't speak for nguirado, but once again, it's not my cup of tea.

It's "not your cup of tea"? Seriously? That response makes no sense at all in this context.

Let me repeat

Originally Posted by AGB

.. No, I'm making the point that religiously funded morals, such as Nguirado (who, btw, argues that there is "objective morality") are restrictive and dictatorial at the very core. No matter how many "converts" or "Born Again's" you can find that have no problems with it.

Okay, so you're an atheist and from what I understand, you object to someone else talking about their values, which you assume to be a moral code that based on religious scripture. Have I got that right?

No, you haven't got that right at all. Frankly it's amazing you haven't figured it out yet:
I don't object to anyone talking about their values, I object to values that at the very core is an attempt to restrict other people. I object to the purported "objective morals" that religious people claim they possess and I object at the attempt to make the society at large succumb to thier favourite interpretation of their favourite scripture.

I say assume, because I don't recall nguirado having declared any particular faith. For all I know, he might be baiting you.

Yes, and you might too.
But with him, I don't actually think he's baiting for the most part.
To me it doesn't really matter if he's a Jew, a Mormon, a Born Again Christian, or "mainstream" Christian or whatever. It's the fundamentalist approach I disagree with. Hell, he can believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care, it really doesn't matter.

My view is that it is not about showing respect for someone's religion, or their religious beliefs, it is about respecting their right to express their views, without being insulted. I do not see why, if you don't agree with someone's views, that you should feel it necessary to insult them.

Sometimes people who are incapable of expressing themselves in words resort to using violence instead. Similarly, when debating a topic, sometimes when people feel incapable of expressing themselves adequately, or if they feel they are losing an argument, they resort to hurling abuse at their opponent.

Er, yes, sometimes that is true, but as I believe I've mentioned before: Just because you're loud doesn't mean you're wrong. To believe is so is a narrowminded simplistic world view.

This is what I think about the demand for respect (yes, you've seen it before if you clicked the link I gave you):

Your arguments are debased when you resort to insulting people and causing offence.

No, as I've said: Thinking like that is very narrowminded and shows a simplistic world view. An argument is valid or invalid all in itself, no matter how it's delivered, no matter how much you dislike a tone, no matter how much you dislke the form, and no matter who delivers it.

You might gain more respect if you were more courteous and tolerant.

I don't care about respect derived by being "respectful" towards superstition. I don't need respect based on something false, and I certainly have no craving for respect from religious people attempting to stuff their "God given" morals down the throats of others.

There is nothing to be gained by alienating people. If you believe sincerely in what you are arguing, then you should be aiming to persuade and convince others that you are right.

Actually, there is. I see no good coming from accepting superstitious beliefs as valid as science, and neither do I see any good coming from letting religious people trying to project* their beliefs and morals to the society at large.


*Yes, it's a vomit-reference again. I know you like them

[boxcorner]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I'll just say that it's my experience with him thus far in numerous threads that rather than discuss the topic at hand he moves the discussion to religion in general and begins debating things removed from the topic at hand. Now that may not be your definition of a religious bigot but he certainly seems obcessed in that direction to me. I've not seen any posts by him as to what ebooks he is reading or in areas outside of religion.

I hear what you're saying, however bigotry cuts both ways. I don't make a point of preaching secularism, or atheism and try to avoid causing offence. I believe that Islamophobia is actually contributing to the increasing spread of Islam. I don't think there's anything to be gained, by accusing someone of being bigoted, whether or not it's true. It's language that's unnecessarily inflammatory. I prefer to coexist peacefully. I enjoy debate, so long as it's civilised. I expect there are people here who hold other faiths, such as Christianity and read the Christian Bible, or followers of Judaism who read the Hebrew Bible, and so on. So, it really doesn't bother me that Muslims read the Qur'an. My view is that it is their right to believe in whatever they want to. Equally, I don't believe that I, or any others, have the right to insult anyone, of any faith.

[Worldwalker]

This thread has degenerated into madness.

Since nobody else seems to want to point this out: monks', nuns', and priests' distinctive clothing is, in effect, the uniform of a job: a job one chooses, applies for, trains for, and can leave. It's much like the uniform worn by a soldier. The wearing of archaic tribal garb enforced by some sects of Islam is something one is born into, where one has no choice and cannot leave. It is a restriction on free choice enforced by an external group (which can range from male relatives to the Promotion of Virtue and Suppression of Vice folks) and there is no similar restriction which they enforce on themselves. So this is an attempt at comparing apples and durian fruit.

In a world where a woman can be killed by her own relatives if she does not dress as they demand, there is no realistic free choice.

[AGB]

Much better said than I was able to.

[boxcorner]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

This thread has degenerated into madness ...

Feel free to discuss the Amazon paedophile e-book.

[elcreative]

??? OK kennyc, you've gone too far now, all the rest is OK but disrespecting the Flying Spaghetti Monster is going too far...

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by elcreative

??? OK kennyc, you've gone too far now, all the rest is OK but disrespecting the Flying Spaghetti Monster is going too far...

Check with boxcorner before you say that.

Slinks away....

[doreenjoy]

I see we're back onto religion. This isn't the religious discussion forum...

[Pushka]

Originally Posted by penartur

PS: Your nick keeps bothering me, i don't know such an English word, but there are two Russian words with such transliteration, one meaning "a cannon" and another meaning "fluffy/furry"

Apologies upfront but this post is so so don't read further unless you are interested in lexicon.

pushka is the name of my cat, given to her by my hubby as a messy version of the words 'pussycat'. So I guess the fluffy furry Russian word is very correct. It has always interested me the origins of words and similar structures regardless of the language, especially nouns and names. And this is a classic example. Eg the name John in English, Jean in French and so on.

OK, back to pedophiles I guess.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by doreenjoy

I see we're back onto religion. This isn't the religious discussion forum...