| Author |
Message |
Necromis
Lifeless on my Boat
Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 810
Location: USA
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 7:31 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Actually if you look at the original teachings of Islam and the Quran it was a violent religion. But the modern day version of Islam is more moderate in nature. Just as Christianity is different than its roots in Judisam. Both were founded in more violent times. As man has, to some extent, become less violent so has his religious beliefs. Regardless, this particular topic is in dealing with the current issue of Islamic Extremists, not moderates, and how one might possibly stop them. After all suicide bombers are a major tactical asset. When one death can result in the death of many more of your enemy. The numbers can turn towards your favor. This is one reason why I brought this idea into the public forum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
linuxdoctor
Infallible Persona
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Posts: 1281
Location: Ottawa, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pink psuedo-Liberal Communist wrote: |
So which is supposed to be sarcastic? The one about "Actually it started with a Dude named Mohammed in the 7th century"? Because compared with your many other posts where you say things like "homosexuals are a superior race" and "everybody who isn't Catholic is on the highway to Hell," saying that "Islam is an extremely radical and violent religion" fits right in, even if it is asinine. |
Try reading rather than reacting. You wrong wing types are really reactionary aren't you?
| Pinko psuedo-Liberal Communist wrote: |
| linuxdoctor wrote: | | The word 'radical' does not mean reform nor does it connote reform; it means root, fundamental, essential. Certainly 'radical' is often used with the word 'reform' to indicate a basic or fundamental reform at the root of something, but reform is not denoted by the use of the word radical on it's own. |
So? |
You said that the word radical implies reform. I showed that it doesn't.
| Pinko psuedo-Liberal Communist wrote: |
That doesn't mean that a religion can be fundamentally "radical." A religion cannot be extremely (sic) itself; it either is or it isn't. Saying that "Islam is an extremely radical religion" connotes the same meaning as "Islam is extremely Islamic," which, in case this conversation is being monitored by aliens with no sense of logic, is redundant. |
Which goes to show that you still don't know what 'radical' means. In any case ....
Religions change over time. Sometimes these religions loose touch with their roots. Any movement that attempts to get at the root of something is, by definition, radical. Early Protestantism was (ostensibly) an attempt to rediscover an early form of Christianity free of the accretions added to it over the centuries. In that sense it was a radical movement. At least that is what the Protestant revolutionaries said it was. The fact that they failed to reform Christianity and founded an entirely new religion is also radical in that it was fundamentally new. Later Fundamentalist movements of the 19th and 20th centuries were radical also in their attempt to rediscover 'pure' Protestantism. If you look carefully another word for someone who is 'radical' is 'fundamentalist.'
| Pinko psuedo-Liberal Communist wrote: |
| Quote: | | Islam was not a reform movement but a fundamentally new religion, therefore radical. |
Right now, I am interpreting this to mean that establishing a new religion is an extreme and therefore "radical" act. Which is again redundant, because that means that every religion is "radical," because religions do not come along on their own; they are founded. |
The founding of a new religion is a radical act, as per the meaning of the word 'radical.' Look up the word radical in the OED and find out for itself what it really means before you dig yourself into a a hole deeper than you are already in.
| Pinko psuedo-Liberal Communist wrote: |
| Quote: | | Protestantism was just as radical although it disguised itself as a reform movement. Protestantism used many of the same words and forms as does true Christianity (that is to say Catholicism), but it redefined all of these words and forms, including the content, meaning and purpose of the Bible within Christianity, to establish a radically different and fundamentally new religion at its heart. It was not a reform of Christianity but a redefinition. That makes it radical. |
Again, we can say all the same things for when Christianity split off from Judaism; on the other hand, that's all immaterial, because you still haven't figured out a way to defend your claim that Islam is built on violence. |
And now like every wrong winger I've ever met you want to change the subject. Sigh. Even a casual reading of the Qur'an will prove that as well as a good history on early Islam. Why don't you do that first? incidentally, Fundamentalist Islam, that is to say Radical Islam, is an attempt to get back to the roots of Islam, therefore the incredible violence they perpetrate on the world.
_________________
Misanthrope: someone who realizes that humans really are as stupid as they appear.
If you think I'm 'politically' incorrect you have the wrong politics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Duck
Pinko Liberal Communist
Joined: 21 Dec 2004
Posts: 1558
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Necromis wrote: | | Actually if you look at the original teachings of Islam and the Quran it was a violent religion. |
People seem to think that this statement is self-evident. Until you show me evidence that Islam is a violent religion, which by the way is a far cry from saying that people undertake violent actions and use Islam as their excuse, you are not making valuable claims; you are just making racist claims.
| Necromis wrote: | | Regardless, this particular topic is in dealing with the current issue of Islamic Extremists, not moderates, and how one might possibly stop them. After all suicide bombers are a major tactical asset. When one death can result in the death of many more of your enemy. The numbers can turn towards your favor. This is one reason why I brought this idea into the public forum. |
And I am saying that this is a bad idea because it is based upon the assumption that take immoral actions does not make you immoral, which is clearly ridiculous. These are people that have decided to start letting off suicide bombs and crash planes into buildings based upon the idea that the West is indirectly attacking their religion, and your solution is to directly attack their religion. How does that seem like a good idea?
| linuxdoctor wrote: | | Pink psuedo-Liberal Communist, wrong wing haw haw |
Brilliant
| linuxdoctor wrote: | | Try reading rather than reacting. You wrong wing types are really reactionary aren't you? |
Obviously you're not being clear enough. If you're being sarcastic in here, you're going to need to tell me where, because based on what you've said up until now you've convinced me that you can say just about anything ridiculous and mean it.
| linuxdoctor wrote: | | You said that the word radical implies reform. I showed that it doesn't. |
"Radical" does connote reform. Something cannot be extremely itself, as you pointed out with your cleverly placed (sic); something can only be extreme by comparison.
| linuxdoctor wrote: | | Religions change over time. Sometimes these religions loose touch with their roots. Any movement that attempts to get at the root of something is, by definition, radical. Early Protestantism was (ostensibly) an attempt to rediscover an early form of Christianity free of the accretions added to it over the centuries. In that sense it was a radical movement. At least that is what the Protestant revolutionaries said it was. The fact that they failed to reform Christianity and founded an entirely new religion is also radical in that it was fundamentally new. Later Fundamentalist movements of the 19th and 20th centuries were radical also in their attempt to rediscover 'pure' Protestantism. If you look carefully another word for someone who is 'radical' is 'fundamentalist.' |
Okay, clearly we're speaking two different languages here. Ignoring the fact that Protestantism lost its "radicalness" as soon as it became normative, tell me how Islam is "radical," and how it has somehow stayed "radical" for the past several hundred years.
I'm not disputing that suicide bombers and their ilk are "radical;" I am disputing that Islam is "radical," because it's impossible; Islam is a religion, religions are normative, and the concepts of "normative" and "radical" are mutually exclusive.
| linuxdoctor wrote: | | The founding of a new religion is a radical act, as per the meaning of the word 'radical.' Look up the word radical in the OED and find out for itself what it really means before you dig yourself into a a hole deeper than you are already in. |
How am I digging myself a hole if all you're doing is restating what I'm saying? Yes, founding a religion is a radical act. No, this does not mean that the religion is radical. How many times do I have to use the word "normative"?
| linuxdoctor wrote: | | And now like every wrong winger I've ever met you want to change the subject. Sigh. Even a casual reading of the Qur'an will prove that as well as a good history on early Islam. Why don't you do that first? incidentally, Fundamentalist Islam, that is to say Radical Islam, is an attempt to get back to the roots of Islam, therefore the incredible violence they perpetrate on the world. |
I started out by asking you two simple questions: how is Islam "radical," and how is Islam "violent"? You have answered neither of these questions, and are now telling me that I am the one trying to change the subject. I'm not the one making broad generalizations about a massive group of people here; the burden of proof is on you, and instead of defending yourself, you're calling me names. If your answer is actually that "fundamentalists are trying to get to the roots of Islam, and are also killing people, therefore the root of Islam is killing people," then you need to learn something about being critical. Fundamentalists are killing people because they believe that they are not Muslim, and that this means that they can justifiably be killed; if you can find a passage in any Islamic text where it says that you will be rewarded for killing the unbelievers, then I will yield this argument to you.
_________________
[img:d156d322f3]http://seriousbusiness.l2p.net/img/seriousbanner.gif[/img:d156d322f3]
I've kicked the clouds, and punched lightning! |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
RohitMalhotra
The Crazy One
Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 856
Location: __________ ~~/[[[zzz::: Some Where In The Northern Sector :::zzz]]]\~~________
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 3:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
though ther may be some truth as some people may percieve what Necromis.. but i guess there are bad and good people in all faith
are they not a reflection of society ..
More than anything i guess it is extreamism is economic in nature and the extreamist are mere tools ...
Who benifits out of terrorism ? now that is a question we must ponder upon ..
Politicians
For terrorism brings with it agendas to attack govermemnts if theywere in the opposition and if they were part of the government money that could be syiphoned while gighting the war against terrorsim
Drug Lords
Wars require money and drugs is a quick fix way of earning and getting money ..so it isnt the poor nations from where terror seems to originate but the requiremnets of the biiger nation states which may have to be targetted .
Weapon manufacturers
Where do the terroist get their weapons .. the markets have to be created and what better way to create a market than to create a situation for terroism to florish .. hece you make a requirement for weapons and a market for some more to be sold..
Why blame a community that is being misguided by a nasty few and their sentiments being fueled by more attrociaties..
Hence the solution lies in and effective upliftment of the poorer nation to see better oppurtunities ohther than destruction
_________________
[img:42afab0ae0]http://www.malhotra-online.com/rohitbnr.jpg[/img:42afab0ae0]
Life is a battle field.
http://www.malhotra-online.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
linuxdoctor
Infallible Persona
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Posts: 1281
Location: Ottawa, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pinko pseudo-Liberal Communist wrote: | | "Radical" does connote reform. Something cannot be extremely itself, as you pointed out with your cleverly placed (sic); something can only be extreme by comparison. |
Clearly you have not yet looked up the meaning of the word radical. I'll repeat it for you. The word radical means, "root", "fundamental", "in its essence", "basic". 'Radical' is also an adjective which means that it modifies (an)other word(s), usually a noun, and takes its meaning from the word(s) it modifies. The word by itself does not mean or connote reform.
| PpLC wrote: | | Okay, clearly we're speaking two different languages here. Ignoring the fact that Protestantism lost its "radicalness" as soon as it became normative, tell me how Islam is "radical," and how it has somehow stayed "radical" for the past several hundred years. |
Clearly you do not know the history of Protestantism either. The problem with your statement about 'normative' Protestantism is that Protestantism is constantly changing and developing new forms. There are over forty-thousand different Protestant sects each believing different things. There is no such thing as 'normative' Protestantism. If there is any movement that typifies a state of constant revolution, as the Marxists would say, it is Protestantism. Therefore, Protestantism is a radical movement and remains so because it in a constant state of redefining itself.
That is not to say that within any given sect of Protestantism they retain their radical nature. Clearly at some point they will add things to their beliefs and therefore lose their radicalness. A radical movement remains radical only as long as they do not change. Once they begin to change, they are no longer radical.
| PpLC wrote: | | I am disputing that Islam is "radical," because it's impossible; Islam is a religion, religions are normative, and the concepts of "normative" and "radical" are mutually exclusive. |
Considering that you do not even know what 'radical' means your statement is meaningless. I suspect, also, that you do not know what 'normative' means either. All 'normative' means is that something, or somebody, follows a preset group of definitions or specifications. Therefore, 'normative' means "according to specifications." Something or somebody, is radical when they adhere to, and do not deviate from, those specifications. This means, therefore, that to be radical is to be normative according to some set of definitions or specifications. In many cases, such as the so-called fundamentalist movements, radical has come to mean "normative according to the original set of specifications." In other words, a radical movement is, by definition, a fundamentalist movement.
This means that radicals, being fundamentalists, are not reformers in the true sense of the word but are either reactionaries, if they adhere to an existing movement, or revolutionaries, if they create a new movement from an old one.
The history of Protestantism reflects both these forms of being radical. The original Protestants created a whole new religion from within Christianity during the Protestant revolt of the 15th and 16th centuries. During the late 19th and most of the 20th century the Fundamentalist Protestant movement attempted to return to (their definition of a) pure Protestantism and therefore was a reactionary radicalism.
To be truly radical one can be either revolutionary or reactionary but never reformist. In other words, the words "radical reform" is a contradiction in terms where one should more properly use the word 'reactionary' or 'revolutionary' instead. Something that is "radically reformed" is either something in its original state with all the reforms removed or something completely different from the original. In neither case does it represent reform.
| PpLC wrote: | | I started out by asking you two simple questions: how is Islam "radical," and how is Islam "violent"? |
No, you started out by attributing the origins of Islamic extremism on one Sayyid Qutb. I corrected your statement by stating that the true origins of Islamic extremism was Mohammed. It was not until several posts later, prefaced with the words, "And while you're at it," that you asked how any religion can be radical. In other words, you changed the subject.
It is clear that you do not know what you are talking about. You do not understand the meaning of the words you are using and you don't know the history of those movements to which you refer. You, therefore, cannot have anything relevant or meaningful to say on this topic.
It's time for you to display your vast ignorance on some other topic.
_________________
Misanthrope: someone who realizes that humans really are as stupid as they appear.
If you think I'm 'politically' incorrect you have the wrong politics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
LP-SolidRaven
Dictator of the Dump
Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 7297
Location: The cheese is made out of moon
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| linuxdoctor wrote: | | Pinko pseudo-Liberal Communist wrote: | | "Radical" does connote reform. Something cannot be extremely itself, as you pointed out with your cleverly placed (sic); something can only be extreme by comparison. |
Clearly you have not yet looked up the meaning of the word radical. I'll repeat it for you. The word radical means, "root", "fundamental", "in its essence", "basic". 'Radical' is also an adjective which means that it modifies (an)other word(s), usually a noun, and takes its meaning from the word(s) it modifies. The word by itself does not mean or connote reform.
| PpLC wrote: | | Okay, clearly we're speaking two different languages here. Ignoring the fact that Protestantism lost its "radicalness" as soon as it became normative, tell me how Islam is "radical," and how it has somehow stayed "radical" for the past several hundred years. |
Clearly you do not know the history of Protestantism either. The problem with your statement about 'normative' Protestantism is that Protestantism is constantly changing and developing new forms. There are over forty-thousand different Protestant sects each believing different things. There is no such thing as 'normative' Protestantism. If there is any movement that typifies a state of constant revolution, as the Marxists would say, it is Protestantism. Therefore, Protestantism is a radical movement and remains so because it in a constant state of redefining itself.
That is not to say that within any given sect of Protestantism they retain their radical nature. Clearly at some point they will add things to their beliefs and therefore lose their radicalness. A radical movement remains radical only as long as they do not change. Once they begin to change, they are no longer radical.
| PpLC wrote: | | I am disputing that Islam is "radical," because it's impossible; Islam is a religion, religions are normative, and the concepts of "normative" and "radical" are mutually exclusive. |
Considering that you do not even know what 'radical' means your statement is meaningless. I suspect, also, that you do not know what 'normative' means either. All 'normative' means is that something, or somebody, follows a preset group of definitions or specifications. Therefore, 'normative' means "according to specifications." Something or somebody, is radical when they adhere to, and do not deviate from, those specifications. This means, therefore, that to be radical is to be normative according to some set of definitions or specifications. In many cases, such as the so-called fundamentalist movements, radical has come to mean "normative according to the original set of specifications." In other words, a radical movement is, by definition, a fundamentalist movement.
This means that radicals, being fundamentalists, are not reformers in the true sense of the word but are either reactionaries, if they adhere to an existing movement, or revolutionaries, if they create a new movement from an old one.
The history of Protestantism reflects both these forms of being radical. The original Protestants created a whole new religion from within Christianity during the Protestant revolt of the 15th and 16th centuries. During the late 19th and most of the 20th century the Fundamentalist Protestant movement attempted to return to (their definition of a) pure Protestantism and therefore was a reactionary radicalism.
To be truly radical one can be either revolutionary or reactionary but never reformist. In other words, the words "radical reform" is a contradiction in terms where one should more properly use the word 'reactionary' or 'revolutionary' instead. Something that is "radically reformed" is either something in its original state with all the reforms removed or something completely different from the original. In neither case does it represent reform.
|
You're avoiding any of the points he makes and constantly picking on "you don't know what radical is. Now you could have just copy and pasted that page from a dictionary. But since you didn't you're clearly avoiding any good point he makes, what clearly shows how you totally fail at constructive debates.
| Quote: |
rad·i·cal /ˈrædɪkəl/ –adjective
1. of or going to the root or origin; fundamental: a radical difference.
2. thoroughgoing or extreme, esp. as regards change from accepted or traditional forms: a radical change in the policy of a company.
3. favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms: radical ideas; radical and anarchistic ideologues.
4. forming a basis or foundation.
5. existing inherently in a thing or person: radical defects of character.
6. Mathematics.
a. pertaining to or forming a root.
b. denoting or pertaining to the radical sign.
c. irrational (def. 5b).
7. Grammar. of or pertaining to a root.
8. Botany. of or arising from the root or the base of the stem.
–noun
9. a person who holds or follows strong convictions or extreme principles; extremist.
10. a person who advocates fundamental political, economic, and social reforms by direct and often uncompromising methods.
11. Mathematics.
a. a quantity expressed as a root of another quantity.
b. the set of elements of a ring, some power of which is contained in a given ideal.
c. radical sign.
12. Chemistry.
a. group (def. 3).
b. free radical.
13. Grammar. root (def. 11).
14. (in Chinese writing) one of 214 ideographic elements used in combination with phonetics to form thousands of different characters.
[Origin: 1350–1400; ME < LL rādīcālis having roots, equiv. to L rādīc- (s. of rādīx) root1 + -ālis -al1]
|
Now with that being done and your total "you don't know what radical means" statement gone lets see what you'll try next.
| Quote: |
| PpLC wrote: | | I started out by asking you two simple questions: how is Islam "radical," and how is Islam "violent"? |
No, you started out by attributing the origins of Islamic extremism on one Sayyid Qutb. I corrected your statement by stating that the true origins of Islamic extremism was Mohammed. It was not until several posts later, prefaced with the words, "And while you're at it," that you asked how any religion can be radical. In other words, you changed the subject.
It is clear that you do not know what you are talking about. You do not understand the meaning of the words you are using and you don't know the history of those movements to which you refer. You, therefore, cannot have anything relevant or meaningful to say on this topic.
It's time for you to display your vast ignorance on some other topic. |
In my opinion you have nothing relevant to say to anything on this forum linuxdoctor except your stupid contradictions that are clearly only made to get pbpp; in fact I'm amazed you haven't gotten yourself banned yet.
With that being said, one that interprets religion on a serious way is a dangerous person under any conditions.
In the end the best way to get rid of brainwashed extremists is to get rid of religion. Without religion they'll need a new reason to duct tape bombs to their back and blow themselves up on planes, and I have serious doubts about their intelligence.
_________________
| Quote: |
<bart416> I just realized something
<bart416> we celebrate the fact that this piece of rock made one rotation around a glowing ball of plasma that is kept together due to its own gravity well
<njsg> HAPPY NEW YEAR
<Easter> ^^
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
linuxdoctor
Infallible Persona
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Posts: 1281
Location: Ottawa, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SolidRaven wrote: | | You're avoiding any of the points he makes and constantly picking on "you don't know what radical is. Now you could have just copy and pasted that page from a dictionary. |
I suggested he look it up in the OED, that should be sufficient than wasting bandwidth. Notice how I refrained from quoting your post in its entirety. Unlike you, I consider bandwidth a precious resource and quote only when necessary.
In any case, even though I did not quote from the OED, I thoroughly explained my position which is even better than some mechanical quotation from some dusty old book.
| Quote: |
But since you didn't you're clearly avoiding any good point he makes, what clearly shows how you totally fail at constructive debates. |
Since when did being constructive become a requirement? What point did he make at all that could be classified as 'good?' Are you basing your comment on what he posted or are you merely reacting to mine?
No matter. Ensuring the proper use of the words is always constructive, don't you think? One cannot have any sort of meaningful dialogue unless one also has a proper understanding of the words used and in their proper context. Since he was using the word 'radical' incorrectly I took it upon myself to correct him.
| SolidRaven wrote: | (after wasting bandwidth by quoting some unknown document without attribution)
Now with that being done and your total "you don't know what radical means" statement gone lets see what you'll try next. |
Since you did not give a reference for the stuff that purports to be a definition, there is not much I can say. It is clearly not from the Oxford English Dictionary. If I were to make an observation it would be to note that point 3. in your 'definition' is clearly wrong. In fact, if you bothered to read what you quoted you can see how out of place it is relative to the other definitions. This point in your 'definition' suddenly switches from describing an adjective to defining a noun. Clearly your source, whatever it is, is seriously flawed. Check the OED, it has it right and so do I.
To repeat, 'radical' does not connote reform no matter what anybody tries to pass it off as. To use it in that context is clearly an abuse of the word. One may use the word in combination, as in "radical reform" but on it's own it does not mean reform at all. In that context it means reform of basic, fundamental and essential nature but the word 'radical' on it's own means nothing of the kind. One must remember that it is an adjective. It modifies a noun, takes its meaning from that noun and is dependent on it.
| SolidRaven wrote: | | In my opinion you have nothing relevant to say to anything on this forum linuxdoctor except your stupid contradictions that are clearly only made to get pbpp; |
... which you admit is relevant, which from my perspective is really the only thing that has relevance for me here.
| SolidRaven wrote: |
in fact I'm amazed you haven't gotten yourself banned yet. |
It amazes me too sometimes. 
| SolidRaven wrote: |
With that being said, one that (sic) interprets religion on a serious way is a dangerous person under any conditions. |
One who labels other people as dangerous is dangerous himself.
As far as who you consider to be dangerous, I would not limit dangerous people to fanatical adherents of religion only; I would include fanatical adherents of any ideology whatever also. Similarly I would refine and expand Marx's conjecture to read, "ideology is the opiate of the people."
_________________
Misanthrope: someone who realizes that humans really are as stupid as they appear.
If you think I'm 'politically' incorrect you have the wrong politics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Rashy
Lifeless Person
Joined: 25 Sep 2006
Posts: 701
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/radical
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/radical
You will find that both of those dictionaries contain a phrase that more or less says "a considerable change from the usual or the tradition" which is near synonymous with the definitions for reform, which more or less states "to change to a better state." Of course, what defines a "better state" depends on your perspective.
In order to save a whole 1.5 kb per pageview (which linuxdoctor claims is so valuable I won't post the actual definition and instead let you look it up yourself (instead, I will use that 1.5 kb to write this little paragraph  ) [and that image might have just put me over 1.5 kb...]
And since linuxdoctor insists on the Oxford English Dictionary, check out definition 3b (even though I can hardly define any single book or organization as the definitive authority on the English language, it is simply too complex).
I think that through any of the above sources, we can easily come to the conclusion that radical means both a "return to the roots" and a "movement towards the new" or more generally, "a considerable change from the current situation."
| Quote: | | In my opinion you have nothing relevant to say to anything on this forum linuxdoctor except your stupid contradictions that are clearly only made to get pbpp; |
Oh really? I think that he has come straight out a few times and said "I am only here for the PBPP, so either way by writing these long winded responses I win"
| Quote: | | One who labels other people as dangerous is dangerous himself. |
In which case you have just become a labeler yourself, and now so have I 
_________________
Rashy! |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
LP-SolidRaven
Dictator of the Dump
Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 7297
Location: The cheese is made out of moon
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 2:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| linuxdoctor wrote: |
I suggested he look it up in the OED, that should be sufficient than wasting bandwidth. Notice how I refrained from quoting your post in its entirety. Unlike you, I consider bandwidth a precious resource and quote only when necessary.
In any case, even though I did not quote from the OED, I thoroughly explained my position which is even better than some mechanical quotation from some dusty old book.
|
If you want to do it that way, I'll make it simple for you:
linuxdoctor = wrong
solidraven = always correct
Each and every single response of you is longer than 12 288 bits (1.5kb), what means you waste 12 288 bits every time you post.
| Quote: |
Since when did being constructive become a requirement? What point did he make at all that could be classified as 'good?' Are you basing your comment on what he posted or are you merely reacting to mine?
|
Since you came to this board, it should be made a rule so you actually have to start thinking before posting.
| Quote: | | No matter. Ensuring the proper use of the words is always constructive, don't you think? One cannot have any sort of meaningful dialogue unless one also has a proper understanding of the words used and in their proper context. Since he was using the word 'radical' incorrectly I took it upon myself to correct him. |
You could have just linked him or copy and pasted that page from the dictionary but you use your excuse several times to dodge his comments.
| Quote: |
Since you did not give a reference for the stuff that purports to be a definition, there is not much I can say. It is clearly not from the Oxford English Dictionary. If I were to make an observation it would be to note that point 3. in your 'definition' is clearly wrong. In fact, if you bothered to read what you quoted you can see how out of place it is relative to the other definitions. This point in your 'definition' suddenly switches from describing an adjective to defining a noun. Clearly your source, whatever it is, is seriously flawed. Check the OED, it has it right and so do I.
|
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Radical
Also, you might want to realize you can also use the word radical as an adjective in that case.
| Quote: |
To repeat, 'radical' does not connote reform no matter what anybody tries to pass it off as. To use it in that context is clearly an abuse of the word. One may use the word in combination, as in "radical reform" but on it's own it does not mean reform at all. In that context it means reform of basic, fundamental and essential nature but the word 'radical' on it's own means nothing of the kind. One must remember that it is an adjective. It modifies a noun, takes its meaning from that noun and is dependent on it.
|
Sorry for you but even your oh so precious Oxford dictionary agrees with what I posted: http://www.askoxford.com/conci.....al?view=uk
| Quote: |
... which you admit is relevant, which from my perspective is really the only thing that has relevance for me here. |
You should really start putting your entire posts in quotes.
| Quote: |
It amazes me too sometimes.
|
I'm glad we can agree on that point.
| Quote: | One who labels other people as dangerous is dangerous himself.
As far as who you consider to be dangerous, I would not limit dangerous people to fanatical adherents of religion only; I would include fanatical adherents of any ideology whatever also. Similarly I would refine and expand Marx's conjecture to read, "ideology is the opiate of the people." |
Dangerous is my middle name.
It depends on how hard you follow your religion mainly. If you blindly believe what is being said you're dangerous.
_________________
| Quote: |
<bart416> I just realized something
<bart416> we celebrate the fact that this piece of rock made one rotation around a glowing ball of plasma that is kept together due to its own gravity well
<njsg> HAPPY NEW YEAR
<Easter> ^^
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
linuxdoctor
Infallible Persona
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Posts: 1281
Location: Ottawa, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SolidRaven wrote: | If you want to do it that way, I'll make it simple for you:
linuxdoctor = wrong
solidraven = always correct |
At least you seem to have a sense of humour, especially considering that you know I'm infallible.
| SolidRaven wrote: | | Since you came to this board, it should be made a rule so you actually have to start thinking before posting. |
I can't quite make out what you are trying to say because of the bad sentence construction. Are you trying to say I alone should "start thinking" about what I post before I make the post or do you mean that everybody generally should start thinking.
Personally, I always think about what I post, sometimes carefully even. I often go back and revise my posts after I've posted it to the forum. Except for posts where I make a quick observation, all of my posts are carefully written for effect in order to engender a response, much like your response now. Since the purpose of posting is to make PBPP, the more posts I can make the better. The best way to do that is to create a post that gets as many responses which in turn creates many other opportunities for me to respond and get more points. The posts that create the most opportunity are the ones that create the most controversy.
I've said this often enough. I'm surprised that you still haven't twigged to it yet. Just do yourself, and me, a favour. Don't think for one moment that I actually believe the stuff I post and, most important, don't take it seriously. Just go with the flow, as they used to say.
| SolidRaven wrote: | | You could have just linked him or copy and pasted that page from the dictionary but you use your excuse several times to dodge his comments. |
That would be difficult considering that my OED is hard bound. That's right, on paper. It's one of those super-miniturized (is that a word?) versions printed on extremely thin paper, each page containing six photographically reduced copies of the original. It's in two volumes each about 2000 pages long. I got it as a present from my mother when I got my doctorate.
If I didn't see it with my own eyes I would not have believed it. This then represents a change from when my OED was published (1984). I am, to say the least, horrified. Needless to say, I'm going to send a nasty letter, or perhaps e-mail, to Oxford to complain about their error.
At the same time I am glad that you did bother to do the research; that represents an improvement to the normal discussions here. There is also an opportunity here for a new thread on this particular subject. Stay tuned.
| SolidRaven wrote: | | linuxdoctor wrote: |
One who labels other people as dangerous is dangerous himself.
As far as who you consider to be dangerous, I would not limit dangerous people to fanatical adherents of religion only; I would include fanatical adherents of any ideology whatever also. Similarly I would refine and expand Marx's conjecture to read, "ideology is the opiate of the people." |
Dangerous is my middle name.
It depends on how hard you follow your religion mainly. If you blindly believe what is being said you're dangerous. |
That's why I said 'fanatical.' Fanatics don't think, they just react. It is fairly easy to get people to react in a fanatical manner, which is pretty scary in a way. Just look at how easy it is more me to get "the usual suspects" around here (such as yourself) to react to my posts. I could do wonders if I decided to go into politics.
I have actually studied the art of propaganda and the methods of propagandists from the early days of World War I, through the great triumphs of the Nazis in Germany down to modern advertising methods. I know what works and what doesn't. If I go into politics, all I need do first is decide if I want to be thought of the next Mahatma Ghandi or the next Adolf Hitler.
_________________
Misanthrope: someone who realizes that humans really are as stupid as they appear.
If you think I'm 'politically' incorrect you have the wrong politics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
LP-SolidRaven
Dictator of the Dump
Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 7297
Location: The cheese is made out of moon
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| linuxdoctor wrote: | | SolidRaven wrote: | If you want to do it that way, I'll make it simple for you:
linuxdoctor = wrong
solidraven = always correct |
At least you seem to have a sense of humour, especially considering that you know I'm infallible.
|
Sure you are 
| Quote: |
| SolidRaven wrote: | | Since you came to this board, it should be made a rule so you actually have to start thinking before posting. |
I can't quite make out what you are trying to say because of the bad sentence construction. Are you trying to say I alone should "start thinking" about what I post before I make the post or do you mean that everybody generally should start thinking.
Personally, I always think about what I post, sometimes carefully even. I often go back and revise my posts after I've posted it to the forum. Except for posts where I make a quick observation, all of my posts are carefully written for effect in order to engender a response, much like your response now. Since the purpose of posting is to make PBPP, the more posts I can make the better. The best way to do that is to create a post that gets as many responses which in turn creates many other opportunities for me to respond and get more points. The posts that create the most opportunity are the ones that create the most controversy.
I've said this often enough. I'm surprised that you still haven't twigged to it yet. Just do yourself, and me, a favour. Don't think for one moment that I actually believe the stuff I post and, most important, don't take it seriously. Just go with the flow, as they used to say. |
The fact is that I'm simply posting responses at the moment cause I'm totally bored and don't really have anything else to do.
| Quote: | | SolidRaven wrote: | | You could have just linked him or copy and pasted that page from the dictionary but you use your excuse several times to dodge his comments. |
That would be difficult considering that my OED is hard bound. That's right, on paper. It's one of those super-miniturized (is that a word?) versions printed on extremely thin paper, each page containing six photographically reduced copies of the original. It's in two volumes each about 2000 pages long. I got it as a present from my mother when I got my doctorate. |
Maybe buy a new version on cd or dvd? Dictionaries are outdated rather fast these days.
| Quote: |
If I didn't see it with my own eyes I would not have believed it. This then represents a change from when my OED was published (1984). I am, to say the least, horrified. Needless to say, I'm going to send a nasty letter, or perhaps e-mail, to Oxford to complain about their error.
At the same time I am glad that you did bother to do the research; that represents an improvement to the normal discussions here. There is also an opportunity here for a new thread on this particular subject. Stay tuned. |
The change of the meaning of words over time is always an interesting subject and it can lead to funny situations when reading old an old text.
| Quote: | | SolidRaven wrote: | | linuxdoctor wrote: |
One who labels other people as dangerous is dangerous himself.
As far as who you consider to be dangerous, I would not limit dangerous people to fanatical adherents of religion only; I would include fanatical adherents of any ideology whatever also. Similarly I would refine and expand Marx's conjecture to read, "ideology is the opiate of the people." |
Dangerous is my middle name.
It depends on how hard you follow your religion mainly. If you blindly believe what is being said you're dangerous. |
That's why I said 'fanatical.' Fanatics don't think, they just react. It is fairly easy to get people to react in a fanatical manner, which is pretty scary in a way. Just look at how easy it is more me to get "the usual suspects" around here (such as yourself) to react to my posts. I could do wonders if I decided to go into politics. |
I'd probably never get voted on cause I just say it like it is most of the time
| Quote: |
I have actually studied the art of propaganda and the methods of propagandists from the early days of World War I, through the great triumphs of the Nazis in Germany down to modern advertising methods. I know what works and what doesn't. If I go into politics, all I need do first is decide if I want to be thought of the next Mahatma Ghandi or the next Adolf Hitler. |
In the later case your life might end rather sooner than later these days.
_________________
| Quote: |
<bart416> I just realized something
<bart416> we celebrate the fact that this piece of rock made one rotation around a glowing ball of plasma that is kept together due to its own gravity well
<njsg> HAPPY NEW YEAR
<Easter> ^^
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Necromis
Lifeless on my Boat
Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 810
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
017.016
YUSUFALI: When We decide to destroy a population, We (first) send a definite order to those among them who are given the good things of this life and yet transgress; so that the word is proved true against them: then (it is) We destroy them utterly.
PICKTHAL: And when We would destroy a township We send commandment to its folk who live at ease, and afterward they commit abomination therein, and so the Word (of doom) hath effect for it, and we annihilate it with complete annihilation.
SHAKIR: And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction.
017.017
YUSUFALI: How many generations have We destroyed after Noah? and enough is thy Lord to note and see the sins of His servants.
PICKTHAL: How many generations have We destroyed since Noah! And Allah sufficeth as Knower and Beholder of the sins of His slaves.
SHAKIR: And how many of the generations did We destroy after Nuh! and your Lord is sufficient as Knowing and Seeing with regard to His servants' faults.
|
Just a small piece I was able to find on short notice. I could, I am sure, find more examples of violence of this religion. Again however, this is from the origins, and not a reflection of the current moderate followings of the Quran.
The extremists are not against the US for crimes against their religion. Rather because we don't FOLLOW their religion. So this point you make is invalid. Addtionally, the option I am suggesting is not an attack on the religioni but rather the one commiting the crime. After all it is following a teaching of the religion. So by commiting the crime they are simply being punished for their sin by not being allowed to go to heaven. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Rashy
Lifeless Person
Joined: 25 Sep 2006
Posts: 701
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As I said earlier...
| Rashy wrote: | I have a better idea. Instead of fighting the extremists, why don't we fight the reasons that extremists exist? Extremist leaders simply use Islam as an excuse (and a poor one at that) to motivate people to their cause, which more often than not is fueled by political reasons, and not religion.
One of the biggest causes is the governments of the Islamic nations themeselves. Often they fail to promote economic, health, and cultural advancement. This allows extremist leaders to point the blame for failure not at the governments, but at the greedy American pigs. "Since America is such a superpower and wonderful place, why didn't they come to our aid?" And then they use religious and cultural differences to demonize the western world ("they let their women run around like wild animals!") which allows them to build a backing and now they have the means to vent their hatred. In some ways they are right. In the United States most everybody lives very comfortably, while in many places in the world "plumbing" isn't even a part of their vocabulary.
Of course, there are many, many causes of extremism. I honestly believe that the only way we can properly fight extremism is to fight the causes of it. Promote education and economic prosperity in the regions, and already we would be taking large steps towards reducing extremism (I doubt that we could actually ever rid ourselves completely of it though). |
Its just twisted people making use of obscure or unclear scripture to achieve political ends... exactly like what Fred Phelps is doing here in the U.S. (except he isn't getting violent).
_________________
Rashy! |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Necromis
Lifeless on my Boat
Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 810
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Your only problem is that we are already doing that, we have sent multiple amounts of aid to these countries, we have tried to educate them. The reality is some people will be extremists no matter what. It is not an econmic crisis, nor educational crisis. Look at the DOCTORS that tried to set off the bombs in the UK. They were both rich and educated. So your thoughts don't jive with the reality of extremists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
|
|
Forum FAQs 
Knowledge Base 
Memberlist 
Usergroups 
Hosting
Register
Donate 
Profile 
Log in 
