Muslim Children Gassed at Dayton Mosque; Does anyone else see the irony in this?

[Amit]

http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/09/27/ddn092608evacweb.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=16

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/28/203016/697/536/613742

they were asking for it tbh

[GreyHam]

not really

[Amit]

not really they were asking for it or not really i don't see the irony because i'm thick

[GreyHam]

both

[Amit]

some retarded americans are afraid of terrorists attacking america so they commit an act of terrorism against americans

luuuuuuuulz

[GreyHam]

tbh anti-muslim sentiment stopped being funny round my parts a while ago - lots of pissed off white scallys and very few muslims to take it out on led to some nasty victimisation of the same people

of course by muslims i mean people of an eastern complexions - half the teggers in Hull dont even know what a muslim is, only that theyre fun to beat on

anti-muslim is something im starting to notice in people i never thought id be hearing any sort of prejudice from, but half the time im wondering why im bothering to defend something that has elements that are undefendable

but yea, lulz

[Amit]

well you defend it because otherwise it's just an even more pathetic situation all around

[Aaron]

be more ironic if it was a syngagoue.

[Det_Nosnip]

anti-muslim is something im starting to notice in people i never thought id be hearing any sort of prejudice from, but half the time im wondering why im bothering to defend something that has elements that are undefendable


Such as?

[Akira]

Such as?

Muslims hate freedom.

[Reaganista]

things like this seem stupid now but in the long term it'll pay off where there's no more muslims/other religionists

Such as?
nothing about islam is defensible

[RNR]

We should just round up anyone who worships deities and execute them. Except for Norse Pagans because Odin is metal.

[Det_Nosnip]

things like this seem stupid now but in the long term it'll pay off where there's no more muslims/other religionists
You consistently bring the lols...thanks for that. :)

nothing about islam is defensible

Right...except if it weren't for the spread of Islam and subsequent unification of the Arabian penninsula, we would be missing:

-Advanced medicine
-Hospitals
-Algebra
-Astronomy
-Chemistry
-Astrolabe
-Telescope
-Pendulums
-Watches
-Soap
-The number 0
-advanced surgery

Now, let's take a look at some of the fundamentals (lolz lolz omg Im a fundamentalist Muslim omg omg) of Islam:

The Five Pillars of Islam are:

1. Shahada- Hold no God before Allah Fairly standard religious doctrine...I'd call it neutral in terms of "defensibility."
2. Salat - Pray 5 times a day. Ok, you could say that this is a waste of time, but from within the religion there's nothing inherently good or bad about this doctrine. One admirable quality of Muslims is that, unlike many of their Christian counterparts, they actually FOLLOW their religion and take it rather seriously.
3. Zakat - Give alms to the poor This is OBLIGATORY for all Muslims and is based upon their total accomolation of wealth. Wealth distribution in Arabic society before Muhammad was incredibly unequal, and the mandatory Zakat made great strides in correcting this and in providing relief.

4. Sawm - Ritual Fasting Ramadan, etc...dusk til dawn fasting. I guess you could complain about this if you want, but there's nothing inherently defensible or indefensible about fasting. Oh, in case you were wondering: people who are sick, pregnant, etc do not have to fast.
5. Hajj - Pilgrimage to Mecca Nothing wrong with getting out there and seeing the world...

Now, granted, you can point to some things and argue that the Hejab is evil because only women wear it etc etc etc but the plain fact of the matter is that blanket statements like "nothing in Islam is defensible" are, ironically, completely indefensible.

[Junooni]

Beautiful post.

[pppoe]

2. Salat - Pray 5 times a day. Ok, you could say that this is a waste of time, but from within the religion there's nothing inherently good or bad about this doctrine. One admirable quality of Muslims is that, unlike many of their Christian counterparts, they actually FOLLOW their religion and take it rather seriously.

I would not consider that an admirable quality.

[Reaganista]

You consistently bring the lols...thanks for that. :)

that's a weak and petty defense mechanism


Right...except if it weren't for the spread of Islam and subsequent unification of the Arabian penninsula, we would be missing:

-Advanced medicine
-Hospitals
-Algebra
-Astronomy
-Chemistry
-Astrolabe
-Telescope
-Pendulums
-Watches
-Soap
-The number 0
-advanced surgery


assuming all that stuff was invented by muslims that's an based upon an idiotic view of technology in historical perspective and is no more inherent to islam than PCs and nuclear bombs are inherent to christianity

Now, let's take a look at some of the fundamentals (lolz lolz omg Im a fundamentalist Muslim omg omg) of Islam:

The Five Pillars of Islam are:

1. Shahada- Hold no God before Allah Fairly standard religious doctrine...I'd call it neutral in terms of "defensibility."

all beliefs in god are indefensible
belief in god that is forced upon other is especially indefensible
if muhammad had came up with this idea and then never told it to anyone then maybe it would be defensible but it would also be moot because we wouldn't know

2. Salat - Pray 5 times a day. Ok, you could say that this is a waste of time, but from within the religion there's nothing inherently good or bad about this doctrine. One admirable quality of Muslims is that, unlike many of their Christian counterparts, they actually FOLLOW their religion and take it rather seriously.

that's a bad thing
christianity's best feature by far is that most of it's followers arent really christians

3. Zakat - Give alms to the poor This is OBLIGATORY for all Muslims and is based upon their total accomolation of wealth. Wealth distribution in Arabic society before Muhammad was incredibly unequal, and the mandatory Zakat made great strides in correcting this and in providing relief.

that obstructs the natural function of the market and leads to ridiculous stuff like islamic credit

4. Sawm - Ritual Fasting Ramadan, etc...dusk til dawn fasting. I guess you could complain about this if you want, but there's nothing inherently defensible or indefensible about fasting. Oh, in case you were wondering: people who are sick, pregnant, etc do not have to fast.

there's no rational basis for defending fasting


5. Hajj - Pilgrimage to Mecca Nothing wrong with getting out there and seeing the world...

i dont see any way to defend sending people to saudi arabia it's the worst country in the world

Now, granted, you can point to some things and argue that the Hejab is evil because only women wear it etc etc etc but the plain fact of the matter is that blanket statements like "nothing in Islam is defensible" are, ironically, completely indefensible.
all religion is completely indefensible

also you forgot to include reducing women to subhuman status religious warfare and suppression of freedom of expression as tenants of islam

[Iskandar]

Hijab is dressing modestly, not an article of clothing.

[Reaganista]

niether is defensible when 'god says so' is the justification

[Det_Nosnip]

that's a weak and petty defense mechanism
Just a simple observation. You're a step or two up from Volumnious Flush but some of your views are quite frankly hilarious.

assuming all that stuff was invented by muslims that's an based upon an idiotic view of technology in historical perspective and is no more inherent to islam than PCs and nuclear bombs are inherent to christianity
I absolutely agree...the influence of both religions has brought great benefits to the world, although Islam played a slightly more direct role in that it served as a direct unifying faith which created an environment that allowed the arts & sciences to flourish whereas European nations were unified on more nationalistic, secular bases albeit with arts & sciences supported and funded by the church.


all beliefs in god are indefensible
Right. :rolleyes:

belief in god that is forced upon other is especially indefensible
I completely agree and if you want to focus on the specific ACTIONS of individuals who may have committed such an offense, your perspective would be completely legitimate.

if muhammad had came up with this idea and then never told it to anyone then maybe it would be defensible but it would also be moot because we wouldn't know
What? That is a complete non sequitor. Muhammad's followers chose to follow him...you can't BLAME him for wanting to reform society.


that's a bad thing
christianity's best feature by far is that most of it's followers arent really christians
Not at all...this arguement has absolutely no philosophical grounding. Either you believe something or you don't.

that obstructs the natural function of the market and leads to ridiculous stuff like islamic credit
We have a moral imperative to obstruct the natural function of the market. Social inequality is an inherently, objectively bad thing.


there's no rational basis for defending fasting
There's no rational basis for attacking it.

i dont see any way to defend sending people to saudi arabia it's the worst country in the world
Definitetly one of the worst governments in the world but that says nothing about the people or the place.

all religion is completely indefensible
Well, then there is no point arguing with you...you're an extremist.

also you forgot to include reducing women to subhuman status
Not a tenant of Islam. The Prophet Muhammad actually made great strides to IMPROVE the status of women. Of course, this was in relation to 7th century Arabia...but religion cannot be viewed within a vacuum. Relative to the society he was born into, Muhammad's views towards women's rights were extraordinarily liberal. What you are describing actually came from later rulers' perversions of Muhammad's original intent through Sharia law, not something that is a fundamental tenant of Islam.


religious warfare

This is not a fundamental tenant of Islam...it is a component that can be attributed to any major religion. Obviously not an adequate defense to someone like you who rejects all religion, but at least something that excuses Islam from any sort of unique indictment.

and suppression of freedom of expression as tenants of islam

That is as much a tenant of Islam as it is a tenant of atheism when one looks at China or Soviet Russia.

[Akira]

DN, why are you arguing with him? He's trolling.

[Reaganista]

Just a simple observation. You're a step or two up from Volumnious Flush but some of your views are quite frankly hilarious.
I absolutely agree...the influence of both religions has brought great benefits to the world, although Islam played a slightly more direct role in that it served as a direct unifying faith which created an environment that allowed the arts & sciences to flourish whereas European nations were unified on more nationalistic, secular bases albeit with arts & sciences supported and funded by the church.

the substance of islam has nothing to do with any of that and is in fact counterproductive to any good or humanistic aim due to its treatment of women

Right. :rolleyes:
ok defend belief in god

I completely agree and if you want to focus on the specific ACTIONS of individuals who may have committed such an offense, your perspective would be completely legitimate.

all organized religion forces itself on followers

What? That is a complete non sequitor. Muhammad's followers chose to follow him...you can't BLAME him for wanting to reform society.

of course i can it was his idea

Not at all...this arguement has absolutely no philosophical grounding. Either you believe something or you don't.

that's true
and therefore because all religions are bad
the religion where the fewest followers are actual believers is the least bad religion

We have a moral imperative to obstruct the natural function of the market. Social inequality is an inherently, objectively bad thing.

no it's not the market is the only rational basis for distributing goods that we have the literal have-nots deserve nothing for providing nothing

There's no rational basis for attacking it.
there's no rational basis for doing anything that serves no purpose
there's no god so fasting for god serves nothing

Definitetly one of the worst governments in the world but that says nothing about the people or the place.

i don't think i was unclear but allow me to clarify the government the people and the place are the worst in the world

Well, then there is no point arguing with you...you're an extremist.

i'm right though

Not a tenant of Islam. The Prophet Muhammad actually made great strides to IMPROVE the status of women. Of course, this was in relation to 7th century Arabia...but religion cannot be viewed within a vacuum.
i agree
i also can't be viewed in the ludicrus context of 7th century arabia
it must be viewed by modern standards which render islam indefensible

Relative to the society he was born into, Muhammad's views towards women's rights were extraordinarily liberal. What you are describing actually came from later rulers' perversions of Muhammad's original intent through Sharia law, not something that is a fundamental tenant of Islam.

even if i were to believe that which i categorically do not it would be completely irrelevant where the vile treatment of women originated from all that is material is that it is widely practiced as a part of islam today

This is not a fundamental tenant of Islam...it is a component that can be attributed to any major religion. Obviously not an adequate defense to someone like you who rejects all religion, but at least something that excuses Islam from any sort of unique indictment.

islam is more explicit about it than the average religion
but yes you're right all religion is dispicable

That is as much a tenant of Islam as it is a tenant of atheism when one looks at China or Soviet Russia.
remember this thing
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/graphics/muhammad_cartoon.jpg

[Reaganista]

DN, why are you arguing with him? He's trolling.
i dont know why people say stuff like this
first of all im not i really hate all religions and i hate islam more than the average religion
second of all what difference could it possibly make whether i mean what im saying or not to say that you'll only argue with someone who sincerely believes their posts implies that you're here to actually change people's minds by arguing with them which is ridiculous

[Iskandar]

no it's not the market is the only rational basis for distributing goodsno that's what the state is for haven't u ever heard of the soviet union

[Reaganista]

that's a basis for distributing goods

[Det_Nosnip]

DN, why are you arguing with him? He's trolling.

No...he's not. I am arguing with him because he appears to be worth arguing with, even if I disagree with him wholeheartedly.

[Det_Nosnip]

the substance of islam has nothing to do with any of that and is in fact counterproductive to any good or humanistic aim due to its treatment of women
You treat Islam like some unified, consistent ideology. Yes, there ARE these elements within the religion...but the same can be said about any ideology, be it secular or religious. You act like all Muslims believe what you are describing.


ok defend belief in god
To what end? You have offered no reason to do so. Believing in god in of itself has no positive or negative merits...it simply is.

all organized religion forces itself on followers
Members of organized religions do this, but religion itself has no power or value.

of course i can it was his idea
But it was their decision to follow him. There was a long period of time where following Muhammad meant a death sentence...you can't possibly argue that the people who followed him did so for anything other than their own volition.

that's true
and therefore because all religions are bad
the religion where the fewest followers are actual believers is the least bad religion
lol...so it is bad because it is effective? Our base assumptions are incompatible, making it impossible to argue this point further.

no it's not the market is the only rational basis for distributing goods that we have the literal have-nots deserve nothing for providing nothing
I disagree. The purpose of the market is to serve the people...when it ceases to do so, it deserves to be curbed or else eliminated altogether. It has no intrinsic value.

there's no rational basis for doing anything that serves no purpose
Says someone on a music messageboard. :rolleyes: Your beliefs cover the "how" to live...religion, music, art, etc are in charge of the "why" to live.

there's no god so fasting for god serves nothing
Circular arguement.

i don't think i was unclear but allow me to clarify the government the people and the place are the worst in the world
Based upon what criterion? I agree with you about the government at least.

i'm right though
lol ok.

i agree
i also can't be viewed in the ludicrus context of 7th century arabia
it must be viewed by modern standards which render islam indefensible
Not if one examines it from a historical standpoint and recognizes what the religion stood for during its day in order to determine how it should evolve today.

even if i were to believe that which i categorically do not it would be completely irrelevant where the vile treatment of women originated from all that is material is that it is widely practiced as a part of islam today
Within very specific groups of people, yes. It is not nearly as wide as you appear to believe.

islam is more explicit about it than the average religion
but yes you're right all religion is dispicable
That has no intrinsic bearing.

remember this thing
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/graphics/muhammad_cartoon.jpg

Yes, I do! Remember this?

http://ngishili.com/images/tank_china.jpg

Either way, the Muslim world had just as much right to object to the cartoon as the cartoonists had to depict it.

[Iskandar]

Saudi Arabia is a very authoritarian government but it's hardly the worst in the world. That would be North Korea.

[FallingSnow]

i wonder if any of you have actually read the Qur'an.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Yes we have all read it. It was our book of the month in July.

[FallingSnow]

Assuming that wasn't sarcastic (which I can't tell), that's very interesting, by virtue of most of the things in here that have been said.

[Give me Beer]

It pains me to see somebody try to defend Islam by mistaken dogma. Islam is not defencible. If you want to practice it the sure, but it is not any better or worse than Christianity. I know that you don't want to seem racist, but Islam is not a skin color, don make it one, please.

It's not because some scientists that were nominally Islamic did some great work, that Islam is the cause of it.

[Mr. Ron]

Take That Islam!

[masada]

You Mowed Their Islawn!

[Give me Beer]

Hey, if you want to, you can come over here and try to live the full joys of living in Molenbeek during Ramadan. Don't drink beer, it'll get you beat up.

;)

Religion is private, keep it private, I don't give a ****. My gf is evangelical Christian, but she knows that I don't want to know and that I don't want to live exactly like she does. She accepts taht, as long as everybody does that, we'll be fine. I just don't want to hear people making arguments for some religion that they wouldn't make for another.

Maybe I sound extremist saying that religion as a whole is indefencable, but to me it is. That doesn't mean I don't support your right to believe in whatever the **** you want.

[Dave de Sylvia]

My girlfriend used to be a fundamentalist Christian, but she is American so she was kind of doomed from the start. She showed me her textbook from Creationism Camp- it's hilarious.

[Raayl]

islam is easy to defend philosophically when you live in america.

PS the argument made me LoL.

[Mr. Ron]

We should just round up anyone who worships deities and execute them. Except for Norse Pagans because Odin is metal.

First damn thing I heard all week that has made any sense.


UP TEH IRONZ \M/

[Reaganista]

You treat Islam like some unified, consistent ideology. Yes, there ARE these elements within the religion...but the same can be said about any ideology, be it secular or religious. You act like all Muslims believe what you are describing.

ok when i talk about islam let me clarify to say im refering to the dearly held beliefs of what is at least a substantial minority or more likely a majority of women hating troglodytes that make up modern muslims

To what end? You have offered no reason to do so. Believing in god in of itself has no positive or negative merits...it simply is.

everything that is wrong with the world is ultimately traceable back to religion

Members of organized religions do this, but religion itself has no power or value.

a religion is it's followers it doesnt exist in any other sense apart from them

But it was their decision to follow him. There was a long period of time where following Muhammad meant a death sentence...you can't possibly argue that the people who followed him did so for anything other than their own volition.
it's wrong to attempt to create a religion

lol...so it is bad because it is effective? Our base assumptions are incompatible, making it impossible to argue this point further.

it's bad because it's a religion
it's worse because it's a religion ppl actually take seriously

I disagree. The purpose of the market is to serve the people...when it ceases to do so, it deserves to be curbed or else eliminated altogether. It has no intrinsic value.

the market dictates what people deserve rewarding people for doing nothing undermines reciprocity

Says someone on a music messageboard. :rolleyes: Your beliefs cover the "how" to live...religion, music, art, etc are in charge of the "why" to live.
Circular arguement.
religion isnt in charge of anything in my life :confused:
also that's not circular

Based upon what criterion? I agree with you about the government at least.
lol ok.
my criterion obviously

Not if one examines it from a historical standpoint and recognizes what the religion stood for during its day in order to determine how it should evolve today.
what it should and will do is wither away like all other religions
but what it should do doesn't have any bearing on what it's doing.

Within very specific groups of people, yes. It is not nearly as wide as you appear to believe.

ok im not going to get into debate about what percentage of muslims practice honor killings and cliterodectomy and making girls grow up in cloth bags and marry who they're told but let's just say we're talking about them and not the heretics who those people execute

That has no intrinsic bearing.

so what

Yes, I do! Remember this?

http://ngishili.com/images/tank_china.jpg

Either way, the Muslim world had just as much right to object to the cartoon as the cartoonists had to depict it.
that doesn't have anything to do with athiesm
and sure muslims have a right to disagree with the content/message but no one has any right to say something like no images of the prophet muhammad and expect people to follow it if they do they attempting to stifle free expression

[McP3000]

everything that is wrong with the world is ultimately traceable back to religion
funniest thing ive read all day

[Reaganista]

defense mechanism

[McP3000]

autobots assemble!

[Iskandar]

i wonder if any of you have actually read the Qur'an.I have read it in Arabic. I take it you have too?

[Aaron]

Muslims hate freedom.
Because Muslims hate fun.

[McP3000]

I have read it in Arabic. I take it you have too?
impressive
Because Muslims hate fun.
exactly

[Det_Nosnip]

It pains me to see somebody try to defend Islam by mistaken dogma. Islam is not defencible. If you want to practice it the sure, but it is not any better or worse than Christianity. I know that you don't want to seem racist, but Islam is not a skin color, don make it one, please.
Huh? :confused: Who said anything about skin color or race?

It's not because some scientists that were nominally Islamic did some great work, that Islam is the cause of it.

That's not what I'm saying at all. Islam gave the people of the Middle East something to unify behind and reformed society in an overwhelmingly positive way to create an environment that fostered and supported the arts and sciences, allowing for extraordinary developments within a region that a century before was still squabbling over whose idol had a bigger ****. Heirgo, without Islam, none of those developments would have been even conceivable.

[Det_Nosnip]

ok when i talk about islam let me clarify to say im refering to the dearly held beliefs of what is at least a substantial minority or more likely a majority of women hating troglodytes that make up modern muslims
That's the problem...few westerners (yourself obviously included) actually KNOW what the majority of Muslims actually believe. All that you are exposed to are the (admittedly loud) minority; that would be like judging Christianity based upon Jerry Falwell.

everything that is wrong with the world is ultimately traceable back to religion
This may be true, but then it could also be traced back to creation if you really take it far enough. Either way, it is a complete non sequitor of an arguement.

a religion is it's followers it doesnt exist in any other sense apart from them


I suppose that is theoretically true but it is foolhardy to blame a religion for the actions of a few adherents who may or, more likely, may not have acted in accordance with the scriptures of the said religion.


it's wrong to attempt to create a religion


it's bad because it's a religion
it's worse because it's a religion ppl actually take seriously
All of these are based upon your perverse view of religion and cannot be debated seriously. Either you accept that religion is inherently bad and all else follows logically, or you reject it and all else is poppycock.

the market dictates what people deserve rewarding people for doing nothing undermines reciprocity
You've given no indication why either of these metaphysical (dare I say religious?) views of the market are justifiable. The market exists solely to serve mankind...it has no intrinsic value.

religion isnt in charge of anything in my life :confused:
Way to completely miss the point.

also that's not circular

At best it is based upon unprovable assumptions that anyone who would disagree with you could never make.

my criterion obviously
Do you normally argue with yourself? :confused: Your criterion are worthless to me. Find something objective that we can agree on or else ignore your biased criterion.

what it should and will do is wither away like all other religions
but what it should do doesn't have any bearing on what it's doing.
Wait...so it SHOULD do it...but it's NOT doing it...but it WILL do it? :confused:


ok im not going to get into debate about what percentage of muslims practice honor killings and cliterodectomy
Probably about as many as the percentage of normal people who practice flayings and sadistic murder.

and making girls grow up in cloth bags and marry who they're told but let's just say we're talking about them and not the heretics who those people execute
I already said that the actions of the vocal but numerically insignificant minority are absolutely indefensible...we agree here.

What we appear to differ on is the must larger (and, in the grand scheme of things, more influential) group of moderate Muslims who are able to reconcile their beliefs with the modern world.

so what
So...it is irrelevant.

that doesn't have anything to do with athiesm


Perhaps you're starting to get it...tank has nothing to do with atheism just like ______ has nothing to do with Islam!

The point that is made, however, is that nobody needs religion to motivate them to suppress the rights of others. The Chinese regime enforces state atheism yet is just as bad if not worse than any of the Islamic theocracies. Just as one can be an atheist and not run people over with tanks, so can one be a Muslim and not blow himself up on a crowded bus.

and sure muslims have a right to disagree with the content/message but no one has any right to say something like no images of the prophet muhammad and expect people to follow it if they do they attempting to stifle free expression

It is a sensitive issue. Should they have freaked out like they did? No. Does this irrevocably demonstrate that Muslims are incapable of practicing and respecting free speech or expression?

NO! It is one isolated incident. Ask a Muslim who grew up in a western democracy such as the United States, and you will get a VERY different response than if you asked a Muslim who grew up in Gaza.

btw Sam Harris and Reza Aslan pretty much had this exact debate and both are much better spoken than you or I. :lol: You would probably cream your pants if you read "The End of Faith" or "Letter to a Christian Nation."

[hismajestythepope]

its john mccains fault tbh

[McP3000]

If Obama is elected, everyone will instantly and permanently love each other forever and ever

[The Stig]

Shifting gears slightly, what are the general thoughts here on the concept of a hate crime? Should crimes be prosecuted more vigorously and punished more severely just because of the fact that someone's thought processes behind the crime were different? Let me break down my thoughts on the subject:

If I shot someone of my own race, sexual orientation, religion (well, raised religion at least), and ethnicity -- A white heterosexual Irish-American Catholic in a random act of violence, I would probably be charged with attempted murder. I could go through plea bargaining and get a reduced sentence, say fifty years imprisonment. (Let's say he is an active FBI agent to make this a federal offense for argument's sake).

Now, say all circumstances remain the same as the above scenario except the person I shot had recently converted to Protestantism (They make all of us Catholics mad with the post-Sunday service rush because they beat us to the restaurants all the time), I could have a hate crime added to my bill. By federal law (the reason our example is an FBI agent -- as an agent of the federal government, this becomes a federal matter), it is required (28 U.S.C. § 994 note Sec. 280003) for my sentencing to be harsher than in the previous example.

In both instances, I shot the man in a non lethal manner for no apparent reason at all. However, if it is revealed that the person is of a different race, religion, et cetera from me and the prosecution believes this may have been motivation for the crime, they are forced to change the final sentencing.

(bolded just because this is becoming too much of a tl;dr post and people may just want the pith of my argument)
With the concept of a hate crime, the person is treated differently during criminal proceedings based solely on their thought patterns or even just perceived thought patterns and/or motivations.

In essence, it can be argued that hate crimes are prosecutions (and subsequent stiff penalization) on thought.

Any thoughts?

[McP3000]

I completely and utterly agree. The use of Hate Crimes are reactionary and preposterous.

I cant believe the issue hasnt been brought up to the supreme court

[The Stig]

I also find Rehnquist's opinion on the matter:

This conduct is thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm.... bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest.

Very shaky. By the same logic, One could argue that an unpopular hate crime verdict could lead to retaliatory crimes (look at the unpopular verdict in the Rodney King trial and its aftermath). One could argue that the stiffer fines would create undue emotional harm (a possible case of cruel and unusual punishment) on the perpetrator for being given a harsh sentence based on his thoughts. I really don't like these.

[Smokey D]

Hate crimes shouldn't be different crimes, but I don't see why motivation can't factor into sentencing.

[The Stig]

I think if it relates to premeditation vs. a passion crime it's reasonable to change punishments as well as the manner in which it was committed (i.e. if torture was involved, et cetera), but if other factors remain the same, motivations behind the crime shouldn't be a factor in charging or sentencing.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Hate crime suggests a pattern of violence and a tendency towards recidivism. I have no idea if they should get longer sentences, but they should probably just be gassed.

[Jude]

Hate crimes are only (legally speaking) worse because there was no motivation that we would generally consider as mitigating the badness. If I shoot a black man because he's black, that's worse than shooting him because he had sex with my wife, but not (again legally speaking) worse than if I shot him because I have an anger problem and he beat me continuously in some card game for money.

Obviously most people consider the racist reason more abhorrent, but it's not grounds alone for heavier sentencing. On the other hand, the lack of other semi-respectable motivation for the crime makes it worse than other crimes in that sense.

[fingers mccoy]

tenants

tenets*

heirgo

ergo*

criterion (used as plural)

criteria*

[Reaganista]

That's the problem...few westerners (yourself obviously included) actually KNOW what the majority of Muslims actually believe. All that you are exposed to are the (admittedly loud) minority; that would be like judging Christianity based upon Jerry Falwell.
whats wrong with judging christianity based on jerry falwell and his followers/people like him


This may be true, but then it could also be traced back to creation if you really take it far enough. Either way, it is a complete non sequitor of an arguement.

creation??

I suppose that is theoretically true but it is foolhardy to blame a religion for the actions of a few adherents who may or, more likely, may not have acted in accordance with the scriptures of the said religion.

when common practice contradicts scriptures it's ridiculous that a religion can claim blamelessness for breaking it's own rules

All of these are based upon your perverse view of religion and cannot be debated seriously. Either you accept that religion is inherently bad and all else follows logically, or you reject it and all else is poppycock.

i accept it

You've given no indication why either of these metaphysical (dare I say religious?) views of the market are justifiable. The market exists solely to serve mankind...it has no intrinsic value.

defeating reciprocity does not serve mankind

Way to completely miss the point.

ok

At best it is based upon unprovable assumptions that anyone who would disagree with you could never make.


Do you normally argue with yourself? :confused: Your criterion are worthless to me. Find something objective that we can agree on or else ignore your biased criterion.


Wait...so it SHOULD do it...but it's NOT doing it...but it WILL do it? :confused:

no that's not what i said

Probably about as many as the percentage of normal people who practice flayings and sadistic murder.

do you seriously believe this or are you joking

I already said that the actions of the vocal but numerically insignificant minority are absolutely indefensible...we agree here.

What we appear to differ on is the must larger (and, in the grand scheme of things, more influential) group of moderate Muslims who are able to reconcile their beliefs with the modern world.
So...it is irrelevant.
an insignificant minority that makes up the majority of believers in several countries and the overwhelming majority of religious leadership
and if by reconcile their beliefs with the modern world you mean not believe them, in the same way christians don't believe in christianity, then i agree those types of muslims are ok for now but eventually they'll all have to go because those types of believers still tend to key in on strange tidbits of their religion and attempt to force them on others like homophobia or creationism or male chauvinism

Perhaps you're starting to get it...tank has nothing to do with atheism just like ______ has nothing to do with Islam!

are you prepared to argue that forbidding any depictions of muhammad has nothing to do with islam

The point that is made, however, is that nobody needs religion to motivate them to suppress the rights of others. The Chinese regime enforces state atheism yet is just as bad if not worse than any of the Islamic theocracies. Just as one can be an atheist and not run people over with tanks, so can one be a Muslim and not blow himself up on a crowded bus.

two wrongs dont make a right


It is a sensitive issue. Should they have freaked out like they did? No. Does this irrevocably demonstrate that Muslims are incapable of practicing and respecting free speech or expression?

NO! It is one isolated incident. Ask a Muslim who grew up in a western democracy such as the United States, and you will get a VERY different response than if you asked a Muslim who grew up in Gaza.

btw Sam Harris and Reza Aslan pretty much had this exact debate and both are much better spoken than you or I. :lol: You would probably cream your pants if you read "The End of Faith" or "Letter to a Christian Nation."
i dont see how keeping women in bags and banning any depiction of the inventor of your religion is at all compatible with free expression

[Reaganista]

With the concept of a hate crime, the person is treated differently during criminal proceedings based solely on their thought patterns or even just perceived thought patterns and/or motivations.
umm that's been the difference between murder/mansalughter/not guilty by insanity or reasonable mistake of fact since like forever

[Iskandar]

Nobody really objects to the concept of hate crimes except libertarians, so.

[VomitStainedCretin]

Religion on its own doesn't make people 'bad', there are pre-existing factors in play which make one more vulnerable to the predatory preachings of the more extreme faith elements, in the same manner that a lack of gun control and violence-saturated media are not directly responsible for school-shootings. However, they are often the straw that breaks the camel's back.

[Sk0rpi0n]

The only thing I find to be even remotely ironic about this thread is that some posters are 'veiling' their sense of religious/ethnic/nationalist superiority in petty, inaccurate political language. An example:

i dont see how keeping women in bags and banning any depiction of the inventor of your religion is at all compatible with free expression

In the majority of nations in the middle-east and northern Africa in which Islamic laws are enforced, upwards of 90% of the residents are Muslims. Thus the laws mirror their religious beliefs, and in themselves, religious beliefs are one type of free expression. The majority has merely chosen religious law and religious expression over other types of expression. More importantly, their are very few countries in which this type of veiling is actually a legal requirement for all female residents, yet many women still continue to do so either out of personal choice (free expression) or because social stigmas remain for being unveiled.

Secondly, saying that women's heads are kept in bags shows your lack of sensitivity and education on the issue. They are not bags but more of a religious or political artifact. This is quite similar to me leveling the exaggerated claim that many Christians foolishly keep their necks in 'nooses' that depict the death of their savior (the cross).

Finally, Muhammad was not the inventor of Islam, but rather, just its last prophet (the fact that he is last is referred to as the 'seal of the prophet'). The religion of Islam actually begins with Abraham, the starting point of both Christianity and Judaism. Thus it would be proper to call Abraham Islam's founder. You should also note that Muslim's also prefer not to depict Abraham, Mary, and Jesus, all of which are characters that appear in the Koran (anglicized spelling). Although I may agree with you that a ban on depictions of these characters may constitute a blow to free expression for some, it is important to recognize that for others it is merely expression of religion. The upside of this is that Muhammad's life has not been subject to the same amount of propaganda and over glorification that now surrounds Jesus life (ie. countless Hollywood movies including 'The passion of the Christ').

[GreyHam]

islamic law on the subjugation of women and treatment of homosexuals are not compatible with laws on many western countries

i wouldnt expect to take my gf to saudi arabia and let her run around in a bikini, i dont understand why people would want to emigrate to a country that frowns on beating their daughters if they try to blend with the culture they know live in

[Mr. Ron]

islamic law on the subjugation of women and treatment of homosexuals are not compatible with laws on many western countries

i wouldnt expect to take my gf to saudi arabia and let her run around in a bikini, i dont understand why people would want to emigrate to a country that frowns on beating their daughters if they try to blend with the culture they know live in

Tell that to Britain.

[Det_Nosnip]

tenets*
Thanks.


ergo*
Hmm...oddly enough, you are correct according to Merriam-Webster, even though I have seen the way I spelled it used repeatedly.


criteria*

Oh, good point.

Sorry, I was rather tired when I wrote that...my grammar seems to be slipping.

[BridgeToSolace]

Did you really just waste a post to respond to a completely ****ing useless post that irrelevantly corrects your spelling?

And did I just waste even more space commenting on it?

[Det_Nosnip]

whats wrong with judging christianity based on jerry falwell and his followers/people like him
They represent extremes outside the norm of believers. A religion should be judged by what the majority of its adherents believe, not what a few wackjobs

creation??
lol it was worth it just to see you freak out.

when common practice contradicts scriptures it's ridiculous that a religion can claim blamelessness for breaking it's own rules
But I thought you said that the religion was what its adherents made it to be...

i accept it
lol well yeah, I think we've established that.


defeating reciprocity does not serve mankind
Sure it does.

ok
no that's not what i said

ok


do you seriously believe this or are you joking
Do you have figures to support your disbelief or are you basing this on your own biased perceptions?

an insignificant minority that makes up the majority of believers in several countries
What? Which? I can think of 1 maybe.

and the overwhelming majority of religious leadership
Such as?

and if by reconcile their beliefs with the modern world you mean not believe them, in the same way christians don't believe in christianity, then i agree those types of muslims are ok for now but eventually they'll all have to go because those types of believers still tend to key in on strange tidbits of their religion and attempt to force them on others like homophobia or creationism or male chauvinism
Right.

are you prepared to argue that forbidding any depictions of muhammad has nothing to do with islam
No, but I am prepared to argue that freaking out and rioting doesn't.

two wrongs dont make a right
But they do illustrate a point.

i dont see how keeping women in bags and banning any depiction of the inventor of your religion is at all compatible with free expression

The former is an obscure case not indicative of the greater faith and the latter a relatively small article in the grand scheme of things.

[Amit]

hijab is pretty gay tho

[Mr. Ron]

idk i wouldn't mind seeing a blanket thrown over some girls at my college js

[Amit]

true tbh jsjs

[Mr. Ron]

just saying you know

[Reaganista]

They represent extremes outside the norm of believers. A religion should be judged by what the majority of its adherents believe, not what a few wackjobs

a few whackjobs that got reagan and Bush II elected

But I thought you said that the religion was what its adherents made it to be...

yeah exactly when current practice contradicts scripture it doesn't matter that you can quote a verse that says "dont store your girls in bags and hack off their clits. Also, teach them to read"

Sure it does.

all egalitarian communities have had a strong basis in reciprocity mandatory charity undermines that in a number of ways

Do you have figures to support your disbelief or are you basing this on your own biased perceptions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting#Prevalence

What? Which? I can think of 1 maybe.
egypt saudi arabia ethiopia sudan iran afghanistan among others

Such as?
any country with sharia law

Right.

ya

No, but I am prepared to argue that freaking out and rioting doesn't.

it doesnt matter how they react no one has any right to ban depictions of the guy who came up with their organization

But they do illustrate a point.
point being chinese have done bad things too?? it's a completely irrelevant point

The former is an obscure case not indicative of the greater faith and the latter a relatively small article in the grand scheme of things.
well the small majority makes up most of them so idk and freedom of speech isnt a relatively small article it's the most important right there is beyond bare necessities

[Reaganista]

The only thing I find to be even remotely ironic about this thread is that some posters are 'veiling' their sense of religious/ethnic/nationalist superiority in petty, inaccurate political language. An example:

im not superior to muslims due to ethnicity/religion/nationality im superior because i dont believe in something as stupid as islam


In the majority of nations in the middle-east and northern Africa in which Islamic laws are enforced, upwards of 90% of the residents are Muslims. Thus the laws mirror their religious beliefs, and in themselves, religious beliefs are one type of free expression.
no reducing half of your society to living property is not freedom of expression

The majority has merely chosen religious law and religious expression over other types of expression. More importantly, their are very few countries in which this type of veiling is actually a legal requirement for all female residents, yet many women still continue to do so either out of personal choice (free expression) or because social stigmas remain for being unveiled.
some of the slaves went back to the plantation

Secondly, saying that women's heads are kept in bags shows your lack of sensitivity and education on the issue. They are not bags but more of a religious or political artifact.
true ive never been accused of being sensitive to religionists
not that they deserve it at all

This is quite similar to me leveling the exaggerated claim that many Christians foolishly keep their necks in 'nooses' that depict the death of their savior (the cross).

no it's not the bag is dehumanizing and either mandatory or 'strongly encouraged' by social coercion


Finally, Muhammad was not the inventor of Islam, but rather, just its last prophet (the fact that he is last is referred to as the 'seal of the prophet'). The religion of Islam actually begins with Abraham, the starting point of both Christianity and Judaism. Thus it would be proper to call Abraham Islam's founder. You should also note that Muslim's also prefer not to depict Abraham, Mary, and Jesus, all of which are characters that appear in the Koran (anglicized spelling). Although I may agree with you that a ban on depictions of these characters may constitute a blow to free expression for some, it is important to recognize that for others it is merely expression of religion. The upside of this is that Muhammad's life has not been subject to the same amount of propaganda and over glorification that now surrounds Jesus life (ie. countless Hollywood movies including 'The passion of the Christ').
no muhammad is the inventor of islam

[FallingSnow]

I fail to see how any one person or figure is the "inventor" of any religion. Religions are simply belief systems that gradually work their way into a cohesive theology over time as like-minded people interact and group together.

The fact that some theologies may center around a particular figure does not mean they "invented" it or founded it in any way.

[Reaganista]

The fact that some theologies may center around a particular figure does not mean they "invented" it or founded it in any way.
ok
but when they invented it then it means they invented it

[FallingSnow]

Muhammad didn't invent Islam though. No one person, as I stated, is the "inventor" of any major religion; furthermore, Islam centers around but was not founded by Muhammad.

[Reaganista]

ok but he did invent it

[FallingSnow]

When it comes to the creation of an ideology, "found" and "invent" are pretty much one and the same; even if they aren't technically, Muhammad did niether.

[Reaganista]

in·vent /ɪnˈvɛnt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-vent] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object)
1. to originate or create as a product of one's own ingenuity, experimentation, or contrivance: to invent the telegraph.
2. to produce or create with the imagination: to invent a story.
3. to make up or fabricate (something fictitious or false): to invent excuses.

that's exactly what he did

[Iskandar]

hack off their clitsexcept that has no basis whatsoever in islam and is strictly a cultural practice but ok

not to mention the efforts of islamic governments to discourage it

[Reaganista]

basis in islam is irrelevant to modern practice

[VomitStainedCretin]

Tell that to Britain."It's political correctness gone mad!!!"



:rolleyes:

[Mr. Ron]

No its sexism backed by the full weight of the British legal system.

[Sk0rpi0n]

ok
but when they invented it then it means they invented it

Evidence?
You haven't done anything more than restate a point which has been discredited by two posts. If Muhammad is the inventor of Islam, do you care to explain how he invented it?

[Amit]

he pulled a lot of bullshit out of his *** and a bunch of people believed him

[FallingSnow]

How likely is it, though, that Islam is a direct reflection of Mohammad's brain? Not very. Otherwise, it would be called Mohammadism.

[Sk0rpi0n]

he pulled a lot of bullpoop out of his *** and a bunch of people believed him

Couldn't this be said about any religion though? I mean, with so many religions, and the possibility that only one or none is correct, aren't the odds equally in favor of Christianity being "bullpoop"?

[Reaganista]

Evidence?
You haven't done anything more than restate a point which has been discredited by two posts. If Muhammad is the inventor of Islam, do you care to explain how he invented it?
more or less the same way i invented the "philosophy" ive been espousing throughout this thread

Couldn't this be said about any religion though?
of course it could
that doesn't make it not apply to this one

[The Stig]

umm that's been the difference between murder/mansalughter/not guilty by insanity or reasonable mistake of fact since like forever

Intent and motive are two separate things, though. I could have no intent and accidentally kill someone. Or I could act in passion or premeditate a murder with full intent to do so. That's the demarcation between manslaughter, Murder 2, and Murder 1, so on and so forth.

I could have a motive of killing someone because he slept with my wife but either act accidentally (get into an argument and kill him on accident in self defense) in passion, or premeditate the murder and carry it out later. Or I could kill a person with a different motive behind my actions (they don't like Wedge Antilles, for example) but still fall under any of the other categories depending on the level of intent I carried. Hate crimes fall under the motive aspect, and much like any other case, should not be tried differently because the motive has changed. If you snap and kill someone because they are a white Irish Catholic, what's the difference between that and killing a man on sudden impulse based on the fact he slept with your wife? It would still be murder two since it was an act of passion. Why sentence harsher based on personal motives for committing said act?

[Sk0rpi0n]

more or less the same way i invented the "philosophy" ive been espousing throughout this thread

You mean the philosophy of 'trolling' while trying to spread your ignorant, unsubstantiated opinions and pass them off as fact? LoL.

I don't think you invented that, but I must admit that you've developed a high degree of skill in it.

[Amit]

Couldn't this be said about any religion though? I mean, with so many religions, and the possibility that only one or none is correct, aren't the odds equally in favor of Christianity being "bullpoop"?

of course it could
that doesn't make it not apply to this one

[Amit]

How likely is it, though, that Islam is a direct reflection of Mohammad's brain? Not very. Otherwise, it would be called Mohammadism.

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Mohammedian

[Sk0rpi0n]

of course it could
that doesn't make it not apply to this one

Well obviously. That was the point of what I said; it makes the challenge to the legitimacy of the religion (Islam) a moot point.

[Amit]

no it doesn't

unless you actually believe religion has any semblance of legitimacy in the first place

in that case

loooooooooooooooooooooool

[Reaganista]

if you kill somebody for sleeping with your wife that's manslaughter instead of murder that's what i was talking about when i said the law considers motive with regard to mansluaghter

[Smokey D]

How likely is it, though, that Islam is a direct reflection of Mohammad's brain? Not very. Otherwise, it would be called Mohammadism.

It was for about 15 centuries.

But you can say a person invented something without say they are responsible for every development and permutation of the concept.

Not that who invented Islam is very relevant to Tway's argument.

if you kill somebody for sleeping with your wife that's manslaughter instead of murder that's what i was talking about when i said the law considers motive with regard to mansluaghter

No it's murder unless a person loses control. If you kill them simply coz your mad at the person it's still murder.

[Reaganista]

"heat of passion" = angry

[Det_Nosnip]

It was for about 15 centuries.
The word "Muhammadian" was invented by the British and considered incredibly sacriligious to Muslims. Muslims do not worship Muhammad; he is a man like anyone else (albeit, a very great man).

Oh, and the Islam that Muhammad "invented" is very different from the Islam of today, just as the Christianity that Jesus "invented" is also very different today.

[Reaganista]

the lightbulb edison invented is very different today

[FallingSnow]

Oh, and the Islam that Muhammad "invented" is very different from the Islam of today, just as the Christianity that Jesus "invented" is also very different today.


This was my entire point. The major religions we know of today are the gradual cultivation and change of many different ideas over time. Obviously Islam is not a direct reflection of everything that was inside Muhammad's head.

[fingers mccoy]

Did you really just waste a post to respond to a completely ****ing useless post that irrelevantly corrects your spelling?

And did I just waste even more space commenting on it?

lol just trying to be helpful

[Serenity]

I find the whole idea of Jesus "inventing" Christianity and everything similar to that theory completely ridiculous.

[spitfirejunky]

Hababi.

[Serenity]

Huh?

[Det_Nosnip]

Did you really just waste a post to respond to a completely ****ing useless post that irrelevantly corrects your spelling?

And did I just waste even more space commenting on it?

Hehe.

[Det_Nosnip]

I find the whole idea of Jesus "inventing" Christianity and everything similar to that theory completely ridiculous.

As you should...thus: my point.

[Serenity]

I'm amazed there are actually other people that share that view. Most people I encounter are relatively ignorant about that issue...in my opinion anyway. I agree with what you and others have said....cultivation of a religion takes time and other ideas, not to mention a large group of different people. I don't think any one person can really "invent an ideology".

There are cases, I should point out though, where one radical has developed his own theology and has gained a small group of followers, but those are more like cults than actual religions.

[The Stig]

"heat of passion" = angry

And that's murder in the second degree as opposed to premeditated murder, which is murder in the first degree. Intent and motive are two distinctly different things.

[Reaganista]

even if modern islam had litterally nothing in common with muhammad's philosophies apart from its religious character he would still be guilty of inventing a religion

And that's murder in the second degree as opposed to premeditated murder, which is murder in the first degree. Intent and motive are two distinctly different things.
heat of passion killings are manslaughter that's what makes them manslaughter
i know intent and motive are different
my point is motive is criminalized too

[Iskandar]

basis in islam is irrelevant to modern practiceyes it does because you're claiming islam is the reason behind FGM when it's really not at all it's a cultural practice and widespread in africa

[Reaganista]

among muslims

[Iskandar]

among muslimsamong africans

not to mention the hundreds of millions of muslims around the entire world who don't practice it

[Reaganista]

man take it up with wikipedia

[Smokey D]

heat of passion killings are manslaughter that's what makes them manslaughter
i know intent and motive are different

I dunno how it works in the US but at common law and in New Zealand statute it's murder unless you can prove a factual loss of self-control. Simply being angry isn't enough.

[Reaganista]

there's no functional difference between heat of passion and being angry it's just heat of passion only allows count if youre angry about certain things and if u kill them right away

[The Stig]

Tway I thought manslaughter was an accidental killing and Murder 2 was heat of passion murder while Murder 1 was premeditated.

[Reaganista]

voluntary mansalughter isnt accidental it's mitigated by happening in 'the heat of passion'

[Smokey D]

there's no functional difference between heat of passion and being angry it's just heat of passion only allows count if youre angry about certain things and if u kill them right away

Yeah they're both murder.

New Zealand doesn't grade murder into murder one or murder two or whatever, so I'm not sure how that plays out. In NZ there's a defence of provocation which converts a murder into a manslaughter but you have to prove a factual loss of self control. Being angry or enraged isn't enough. I can be angy but still quite in control.

Tway I thought manslaughter was an accidental killing and Murder 2 was heat of passion murder while Murder 1 was premeditated.

In NZ and I'm sure there are analogous provisions in the US, manslaughter is a culpable homicide that is not murder. Homicide is the killing of a human being by another, directly or indirectly, by any means whatsoever. Homicide is culpable when it consists in the killing of any person by unlawful act omission without lawful excuse to perform or observe any legal duty etc. A culpable homicide is murder when the offender has the approrpiate mens rea (ie intent to kill or intent to injure and being reckless to death).

[okay]

I'm amazed there are actually other people that share that view. Most people I encounter are relatively ignorant about that issue...in my opinion anyway. I agree with what you and others have said....cultivation of a religion takes time and other ideas, not to mention a large group of different people. I don't think any one person can really "invent an ideology".

There are cases, I should point out though, where one radical has developed his own theology and has gained a small group of followers, but those are more like cults than actual religions.

so would you consider buddhism a cult, or do you think the buddha borrowed too much from hinduism for buddhism to be considered a new theology?

[Reaganista]

Yeah they're both murder.

no one is like the literal definition of voluntary manslaughter and the other is wat a layman would call it


New Zealand doesn't grade murder into murder one or murder two or whatever, so I'm not sure how that plays out. In NZ there's a defence of provocation which converts a murder into a manslaughter but you have to prove a factual loss of self control. Being angry or enraged isn't enough. I can be angy but still quite in control.
factual loss of self control is an insanity defense in any reasonable jurisdiction in america
maybe in arkansas and alabama it's not

[Smokey D]

no one is like the literal definition of voluntary manslaughter and the other is wat a layman would call it

No, anger is purely a motivation which doesn't go to either actus reus or mens rea.

factual loss of self control is an insanity defense in any reasonable jurisdiction in america

No, insanity is a disease of the mind that causes a person to misunderstand the nature or quality of their actions or fail to appreciate the difference between right and wrong. You can't call losing control a disease of the mind.

Factual loss of self control just going crazy. Provocation is a pretty stupid defence anyway. It exists as a creature of statute because murder required a mandatory death penalty and people wanted a way to insert discretion into an otherwise compulsory penalty system.

[Reaganista]

No, anger is purely a motivation which doesn't go to either actus reus or mens rea.

ya that's the whole reason i brought it up


No, insanity is a disease of the mind that causes a person to misunderstand the nature or quality of their actions or fail to appreciate the difference between right and wrong. You can't call losing control a disease of the mind.

yes you can


Factual loss of self control just going crazy.

insane??

[Smokey D]

ya that's the whole reason i brought it up

The law doesn't criminalise things which aren't part of the actus reus or mens rea.

yes you can

Not according to how it's defined at common law.

I dunno what the US has done to alter in statute. Apparently there's an irresistable impulse provision which we don't have.

insane??

Whoops. Not what I meant.

Not legally insane no. It doesn't constitute a disease of the mind.

Provocation is a defence where the person is aware of what they're doing but have what the law considers a really good reason to be really pissed. I suppose provocation crosses over with temporary insanity which doesn't really exist in NZ.

[Reaganista]

The law doesn't criminalise things which aren't part of the actus reus or mens rea.

except when it does


Not according to how it's defined at common law.

I dunno what the US has done to alter in statute. Apparently there's an irresistable impulse provision which we don't have.

ya you guys are a little behind i guess don't worry so is alabama


Whoops. Not what I meant.

lol


Not legally insane no. It doesn't constitute a disease of the mind.

Provocation is a defence where the person is aware of what they're doing but have what the law considers a really good reason to be really pissed.
ya that's a motive that's wat im talking about

[Smokey D]

except when it does

Can you show me how this would work. Like, find a provision or something.

The only way a crime of passion as you call would make a culpable homicide manslaughter in NZ law is if it triggers the provocation threshold. Otherwise it's murder.

ya you guys are a little behind i guess don't worry so is alabama

Nah, to completely redefine the rules of insanity is stupid.


ya that's a motive that's wat im talking about

That's the only time motive might factor into it but you still have to prove a loss of self-control and make out the other elements of the defence. You cant' just say 'I was really angry so I hit them til they died'. There are more steps involved, like the defendant being assessed against the reasonable person with respect to the level of self-control they are expected to exert etc.

[Serenity]

so would you consider buddhism a cult, or do you think the buddha borrowed too much from hinduism for buddhism to be considered a new theology?

Buddhism has also evolved over time to include slight variations (depending on geography) from his actual teachings in my opinion, and has also borrowed ideals from other theologies (perhaps only coincidentally). To say that Buddha "invented" what is modern Buddhism is equally incorrect...just my opinion.

I'm not extremely well versed in Buddhism, btw; I just have a broad overview.

[okay]

There are a lot of schools or sects of buddhism, so it is true that yes, with denominations such as mahayana, zen (a further denomination of mahayana), vagrayana, they have been influenced by local customs and superstitions over time, and initially do accept sutras as legitimate that are not part of the Pali Canon. Though, the theravada school on the other hand, is purported to be the closest to the buddhas original teachings, because they only use the Pali Canon, which is simply the buddha's teachings that were passed down by his disciples before anything was written down, to guide their practice. That said, it is undoubtedly still influenced by local customs in Thailand and wherever else it is practiced traditionally, but ideally it is rather accurate in terms of the original teachings.

[Serenity]

Interesting stuff; I will have to look further into it for my own interest. Thank you!


Anyway, I'm really not quite sure; I still hesitate to say to that he "invented" it, but at a brief glance I think this might be an exception to that rule.

[okay]

With my understanding of it so far, I would say that the Buddha borrowed heavily enough from Hinduism for Buddhism to actually be mostly just a popular sect of Hinduism. Considering that, the Buddha's actual teachings are relatively in the canon of theravada.
So essentially you have an ideology borrowed from an ideology that has formed as you have said, but interpreted via a sage in a slightly different manner, with said sage's teachings becoming the basis for a religion.

[RG560M]

I see the irony.

[ringworm]

how can you defend a copy paste of previous mesopotamian and sumerian fairly tales, which are in turn just revisions of even older fairly tales, as anything defendable

thats like arguing that a golden egg can be found at the end of a magic beanstalk tbo