Expectations for President Obama

[Prime Junta]

Maybe checking up what that label really means can be a good idea. For instance, based on a poll a few years ago many Swedes believe a "communist" is someone who care for their community, someone who promotes soliditarity and democracy.

Who decides what a label "really means?"

If you decide that, say, being a Muslim "really means" wanting to live like the Taliban, and therefore everyone who claims to be a Muslim but doesn't want to live like the Taliban isn't really a Muslim. How is this not the "No True Scotsman" fallacy?

I assume that Islam and muslim is related to the Qur'an and the Hadith. I believe I am closer in that description than one "muslim" I talked to who said "to be a muslim means that you are a good person", else I will be forced to call myself muslim. And communist depending on the description above.

That definition may be useful for some situations, but in this context it's pretty useless. We're discussing identities again, and in that context, anyone who identifies with the umma is a Muslim, regardless of what they believe.

Look, JemyM -- words have two purposes: to facilitate thinking, and to enable communication. Definitions change depending on context. You have a strong tendency to impose your definitions -- which are quite often very far removed from more established ones -- on any conversation you're having about a topic. That means that rather than facilitating communication, they become an impediment to communication: when you say Muslim or Christian or good or evil, you mean completely different things than what most people understand by these terms. You'll always be talking at cross-purposes with them -- unless you start out by defining your terms, and get the other party to agree that for the purposes of this conversation, we'll agree that "Muslim" means what you say it means.

Or, of course, you could just use the terms the way they're generally used, and save yourself the trouble.

But it's completely incorrect to assume that your definition is any "truer" than any other definition. Definitions are never true or false; they're simply more or less useful for some purpose or other.

 

[dteowner]

Finally, I'm by no means in love with Islam -- if I were, I'd be a Muslim, and I have no intention whatsoever to convert. I just know enough about it, and about Muslims, to understand that neither it nor they are a threat to us, whatever these things may mean.

Unless you're saying Islamic extremists are not Muslims, this is patently false. There's plenty of video of extremists talking about "death to the infidels" and such, and there's that hole in Manhattan. Are they a small minority of a largely peaceful group? Sure, I'll buy that. No threat? Don't even go there.

 

[Corwin]

Strangely, my biggest problem with (some) muslims, is not their 'religious' beliefs, or even terrorism, but the way I see (and hear) them treat women, both muslim and non-muslim women!! I realise this does not apply to all muslim males, but IN MY EXPERIENCE it does apply to the majority of them. I'm not sure if this is religious or cultural, and I'd be interested in hearing more about this from reasonable muslims.

 

[dteowner]

To bring this back around to topic, apparently Saint Barack "misspoke":
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/index.php

Y'all might remember that I pointed out his withdrawal plan changed from 18 months to 16 right before the election. Well, now the time frame is gone entirely. That beeping you hear is the train in reverse. The dripping you hear are the tears of the flock as they realize Saint Barack ain't quite what they thought.

 

[magerette]

To bring this back around to topic, apparently Saint Barack "misspoke":
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/index.php

Y'all might remember that I pointed out his withdrawal plan changed from 18 months to 16 right before the election. Well, now the time frame is gone entirely. That beeping you hear is the train in reverse. The dripping you hear are the tears of the flock as they realize Saint Barack ain't quite what they thought.

Did you miss this link on the same page? http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/index.php#phased-withdrawal which states clearly:

The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.

Or did you mean this?

Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: successfully ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased.

Either way, my tears are not yet flowing. I believe I said this exact same thing to shadow_hk earlier about a lack of tail turning. Moderate. Center. Learn these terms. There will be a short quiz on Friday on how Move-on.org is not on the Obama transition team.

And how did Dr Hackenbush end up with Happy Panda? You can't leave this board for 24 hours....

 

[JemyM]

But it's completely incorrect to assume that your definition is any "truer" than any other definition. Definitions are never true or false; they're simply more or less useful for some purpose or other.

I know about your feelings on this subject and I disagree. I do not find this behavior healthy and I do not believe it should be promoted.

Your position seems to be that "it's just their identity". Identity is indeed important to a person and the great majority have a few groups they identify with. But I cannot agree that "muslim" or "christian" is "just an identity". "Muslim" and "christian" are different from expressions such as "Goth" and "Nerd" in being tied to a list of books that you are meant to read and to consider extremely valuable, absolute and eternal, and that's basically the core point in my argument. You cannot separate the identity from the book. No, they wont need to read them, they wont need to promote them, but their religion say that they should and they will be forced to defend those books if challenged to keep their identity. That's part of the label and the identity that they have chosen.

There's also an important distinction between "Muslim"/"Christian" and "Liberal"/"Socialist" in the first two being absolute. You cannot change their message and write a new book based on current situations like the latest two does. The later two evolves. Sure, people still read "On Liberty" and "Das Kapital", but they wont take those books as absolute and unchangeable. The Qur'an and the bible is reinterpreted, but there are passages that simply cannot be reinterpreted enough to change "barbaric and outdated" into good.

Now, it's only natural that a person will protect whoever share their identity and continue to promote that identity despite of it's bad eggs. That's where the "no true scotsman" fallacy pops up in trying to separate yourself from the worst your religion has to offer, but it's also often the case that they instead take up the challenge to defend what shouldn't be defended, this includes defending bad prophets, priests, mullahs, imams and madmen who quote the worst passages of the holy books in a political agenda, or even those passages themselves, just to make their chosen identity sound "ok".

This means that they, by their chosen identity, act as support to books that should be buried deep into a dusty library. By their support, they are kept alive and they are allowed to continue to be a rubberband back to the past instead of allowing society to evolve. I would prefer they would pick a more liberal group to belong to, but if they would at least identify themselves with race or ethnic origin instead, they wouldn't be tied to never-changing books.

 

[Benedict]

Either way, my tears are not yet flowing.

Likewise, Obama is not a set of clear, black and white ideals and promises and every failure to stick to a rigid schedule is a disappointment. He's an incredibly intelligent and hugely pragmatic man who, if you actually delve into the detail of what he says, thinks about things very clearly.

Far from being disappointed about him not sticking to exactly what he said months in advanced, I'd be disappointed if he was dogmatic about it. I don't want arbitrary goals that a leader sticks to even if the world changes around them and those goals don't make sense any more. I want a leader who's hugely intelligent and makes the best decisions he can every day, even if those decisions aren't the ones he thought he'd be making a year before.

 

[Naked Ninja]

tied to a list of books that you are meant to read and to consider extremely valuable, absolute and eternal

I like the way you highlighted the key flaw in your argument for us. Thanks.

I belong to the movement within Christianity which doesn't consider the bible to be absolute, instead believing it to be a guide written by men about religious matters, and as such open to a degree of interpretation.

You know how schools of thought can change over time, right? Schools of thought on religious matters can do the same. The way that people look at the bible can change just as the way people look at political philosophies can. Amazing, I know.

That attitude you propose, that the bible is absolute and should be taken only on face value, that is an attitude imposed by man on other men. Jesus didn't say "btw, there is this book coming out after I die, be sure to follow it blindly, mmm'kay." So your implication that Christians have to do so or they aren't (your definition of) "real" Christians is simply false.

but their religion say that they should and they will be forced to defend those books if challenged to keep their identity.

From what I've seen it's kinda opposite. You seem to need to constantly challenge those books in order to keep your atheist identity. If you were as secure in that belief as you said you wouldn't need to bring this up at every turn. I'm just saying.

Now, it's only natural that a person will protect whoever share their identity and continue to promote that identity despite of it's bad eggs. That's where the "no true scotsman" fallacy pops up in trying to separate yourself from the worst your religion has to offer, but it's also often the case that they instead take up the challenge to defend what shouldn't be defended

That doesn't apply to every group identity? Political parties don't try to protect their own where you come from? Cause they do here. Well then, let's abolish every form of human group identity, because they all have that element.

By their support, they are kept alive and they are allowed to continue to be a rubberband back to the past instead of allowing society to evolve.

Naive. If religion were completely abolished tomorrow people would still find something to be divided on, to fight wars about, politics, resources, sport teams, whatever. It's the nature of man himself, not religion, that causes this strife. We won't evolve past it until we stop being homo sapiens, stop being a bunch of territorial monkeys.

I would prefer they would pick a more liberal group to belong to

You don't get to choose that for other people, sorry. No matter how many pointless forum arguments you engage in.

 

[JemyM]

I belong to the movement within Christianity which doesn't consider the bible to be absolute, instead believing it to be a guide written by men about religious matters, and as such open to a degree of interpretation.

Christianity is a force beyond your control.

You know how schools of thought can change over time, right? Schools of thought on religious matters can do the same. The way that people look at the bible can change just as the way people look at political philosophies can. Amazing, I know.

Not really. Scripture havn't changed. We are social creatures and we adapt, meaning that we take extra care with opinions that is disliked by people we are depending on. As long as there are those who hold parts of it as true, as well as the entities described within (God, Jesus etc) there will be those who take the original text, as it is, seriously.

That attitude you propose, that the bible is absolute and should be taken only on face value, that is an attitude imposed by man on other men.

It's actually the bible itself that carry that attitude, regardless what anyone say.

Jesus didn't say "btw, there is this book coming out after I die, be sure to follow it blindly, mmm'kay." So your implication that Christians have to do so or they aren't (your definition of) "real" Christians is simply false.

He does say "who ever is not with me, is against me", and there are those more eager to listen directly to Jesus than taking your opinion on how scripture should be interpreted. He, by popular opinion, can give them eternal life, when you cannot. He is, by popular opinion, the son of God, son of the creator, son of the source of moral behavior etc. etc. You are just a human.

In other words, as long as people believe in it, whatever the book has to say, its message carry a tremendous amount of value to those who do.

From what I've seen it's kinda opposite. You seem to need to constantly challenge those books in order to keep your atheist identity. If you were as secure in that belief as you said you wouldn't need to bring this up at every turn. I'm just saying.

I challenge everything that pose a threat to democracy. I do not use the label "atheist" as I find that label meaningless.

That doesn't apply to every group identity? Political parties don't try to protect their own where you come from? Cause they do here. Well then, let's abolish every form of human group identity, because they all have that element.

John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx didn't offer supernatural powers and eternal life if you do as they say. Their message is far more debateable than the ones from God, Jesus or Muhammed.

Naive. If religion were completely abolished tomorrow people would still find something to be divided on, to fight wars about, politics, resources, sport teams, whatever. It's the nature of man himself, not religion, that causes this strife. We won't evolve past it until we stop being homo sapiens, stop being a bunch of territorial monkeys.

False statement. Historically the amount of wars fought have dropped through the ages meaning that we are doing something right. I recommend Steven Pinker on the myth of violence.

 

[Pladio]

False statement. Historically the amount of wars fought have dropped through the ages meaning that we are doing something right. I recommend Steven Pinker on the myth of violence.

We talked in the gaming thread about correlation doesn't mean cause and effect.

Same here. It's possible the amount of wars have dropped at the same time as religious believers, it doesn't specifically mean that the drop in religious believers caused it though.

 

[JemyM]

We talked in the gaming thread about correlation doesn't mean cause and effect. Same here. It's possible the amount of wars have dropped at the same time as religious believers, it doesn't specifically mean that the drop in religious believers caused it though.

No, but it means that "if mankind wont fight wars due to religion they will fight about something else" is a rather weak statement in our time.

 

[magerette]

I have to agree with this statement by Naked Ninja, JemyM:

... You seem to need to constantly challenge those books [and everything else anyone says about beliefs ever being valid--my comment] in order to keep your atheist identity. If you were as secure in that belief as you said you wouldn't need to bring this up at every turn. I'm just saying.

For someone who dismisses religion as futile, you spend a huge amount of time focusing on it, derailing threads and leading all topics around to the evils of belief in God. I find many of your views interesting and occasionally insightful, but you really seem unaware how strongly this topic pushes your buttons. I question whether you can find a single thread you've participated in where you did not draw religion into the discussion. I don't say this to be snarky, just to perhaps point out a tendency you may be unaware of.

 

[Pladio]

No, but it means that "if mankind wont fight wars due to religion they will fight about something else" is a rather weak statement in our time.

No it's not. There are lots of wars out there which aren't for religion at all. Be it for power, money, stupidity or anything else, not all of them are about religion.

 

[dteowner]

I'll have to listen to the vid when I get home, but I wonder if the "reduction" is in number of conflicts, types of conflicts, affected population by number, affected population by percent, or affected population by geography.

For example, WW2 only counts as a single war, but affected more population than dozens of medieval conflicts combined. Does Darfur count as a war when there's no official declaration? Lots of ways to parse that data, me thinks.

 

[Benedict]

No it's not. There are lots of wars out there which aren't for religion at all. Be it for power, money, stupidity or anything else, not all of them are about religion.

Some of them are about oil, or dislike of brown people with oil for example.

 

[JemyM]

For someone who dismisses religion as futile, you spend a huge amount of time focusing on it, derailing threads and leading all topics around to the evils of belief in God. I find many of your views interesting and occasionally insightful, but you really seem unaware how strongly this topic pushes your buttons. I question whether you can find a single thread you've participated in where you did not draw religion into the discussion. I don't say this to be snarky, just to perhaps point out a tendency you may be unaware of.

I am very aware of it. I have dedicated my life to research how human psychology and certain ideas interact with eachother to produce civilizations. I see some ideas vital to our survival but I also see strong reasons why some beliefs must be questioned. There are none on RPGWatch who openly argue for communism, for nationalism, for white supremacy or for other radical agendas (save for mudsling3's libertarian rants) so I am sorry that I cannot show greater diversity in my character. At least I am not called a muslim here, as I am in other boards.

 

[JemyM]

No it's not. There are lots of wars out there which aren't for religion at all. Be it for power, money, stupidity or anything else, not all of them are about religion.

Right now, or in the past? I predict that there will be a couple of wars fought over natural resources such as water in the future, but the western democracies have crippled many of the radical political agendas, hopefully enough to keep them from overthrowing our governments.

 

[Pladio]

Right now, or in the past? I predict that there will be a couple of wars fought over natural resources such as water in the future, but the western democracies have crippled many of the radical political agendas, hopefully enough to keep them from overthrowing our governments.

Both... - char lim

 

[JemyM]

Both... - char lim

Like I said, I consider it less than likely that western democracies will initiate wars with eachother again, as long as the education systems work. However, I see some examples of how bronze age mythology can still diminish individuals rights to pursuit their personal dreams and happiness.

 

[Pladio]

Like I said, I consider it less than likely that western democracies will initiate wars with eachother again, as long as the education systems work. However, I see some examples of how bronze age mythology can still diminish individuals rights to pursuit their personal dreams and happiness.

The EU has 'forced' the European countries to be more or less dependent on each other which is a deterrent to war. It has linked the countries" economies and politics so close together that a war would not be good, not even for a victor. If at some point in the future, let's say Spain becomes a military and economic superpower and finds that Portugal which would almost not have a military, but access to very valuable resources and minerals, next to it, then I do believe that Spain will attack them if they wouldn't have to fear any big enough sanctions. This is in the same way that China could and actually can do whatever it wants in Tibet.

It has nothing to do with religion and more with power.