Anonymous 03/18/15 (Wed) 08:39:33 f69602 No. 4560 [Last 50 Posts]
Islam's basically going through it's own dark ages. How do we speed it up so it stops shitting up all of Europe?
Anonymous 03/18/15 (Wed) 14:17:30 ea3b6b No. 4566
Islam will stop shitting up Europe when Islam no longer exists.
Anonymous 03/18/15 (Wed) 16:08:37 b153af No. 4574
>>4566 this
Even if Muckslimes stop being violent, they will still be retarded. Look at Christards.
Anonymous 03/18/15 (Wed) 16:16:35 1ac3a6 No. 4578
>>4574 Jihad is built into Islam the way "spreading the word"is built into Christianity.
As long as Christianity exists some one will be out there handing out chick tracts or whatever.
As long as Islam exist someone will be attacking unbelievers.
Anonymous 03/19/15 (Thu) 03:45:12 9a22c3 No. 4640
>>4578 Islam, as far as their holy book goes, is just as violent as Christianity and Judaism. It's just Islam is less modernized in most places where it's widely believed. Maybe one day people all over the world will be well educated enough and the standard of living will be high enough that no one will believe in any religion. Maybe one day, in a utopian future.
But yeah, you're right. Islam is a very violent religion. There's no dancing around that fact.
Anonymous 03/19/15 (Thu) 04:00:07 0cf629 No. 4642
File: 1426737607341.jpg (42.26 KB, 634x354, 317:177, 26C06C3000000578-0-image-a….jpg )
>>4640 and that's the inference in OP as well
but that's simply not true, the places where we see islam at it's most extreme and it's worst are in the most developed Islamic nations:
Saudi Arabia: rich islamic nation
Syria: rich islamic nations
Iraq:rich Islamic nation
most of ISIS is from turkey - rich progressive Islamic nation
most jihadists, Including bin laden are very highly educated, from wealthy families and have everything going for them, they are very likely to be extremely successful individuals in life
this notion that Islamic violence is a product of social circumstances or national disarray is simply not supported by the evidence
Anonymous 03/19/15 (Thu) 04:21:39 9a22c3 No. 4647
>>4642 Countries that have BOTH a high standard of living and whose population are well educated are less religious. Saudi Arabia may be rich as fuck, but many people there believe the Sun goes around the Earth.
Anonymous 03/19/15 (Thu) 04:35:44 0cf629 No. 4650
File: 1426739744281.jpg (238.9 KB, 1388x911, 1388:911, ScreenHunter_140 Mar. 19 0….jpg )
>>4647 so here is HDI index, as you can see Saudi Arabia is high on the list, up there above many UAE countries and far above moderate Muslim countries like Indonesia
as we can see, there is no correlation between religious extremisim and the level of human development, or standard of living etc. in a nation
and this carries over into people too, jihadists are just as likely to hold masters degrees in the science and come from wealthy secular families (all of the 911 guys, bin laden and many other top terrorists) as they are to be some poor extremist nobody
Anonymous 03/19/15 (Thu) 04:36:41 0cf629 No. 4651
>>4650 and yes HDI combines education and wealth and standard of living
Anonymous 03/19/15 (Thu) 05:19:03 fa8b28 No. 4653
>>4651 Does it account for the ocean of oil they're floating on which enriches their lives without their having to lift a finger for any of it?
Anonymous 03/19/15 (Thu) 05:24:31 53117e No. 4655
File: 1426742671810.jpg (Spoiler Image, 184.47 KB, 1000x1389, 1000:1389, solution.jpg )
Anonymous 03/19/15 (Thu) 05:29:20 9a22c3 No. 4656
>>4650 I meant having a high standard of living and being well educated separate. Not both added together. By BOTH I meant a lot of both. It's not an and/or situation.
Get it now? Like if we used a number system i'd say "Counties with a SOL > 80 & EDU > 80" NOT "Counties with a SOL + EDU > 160"
Anonymous 03/19/15 (Thu) 05:38:44 0cf629 No. 4659
>>4656 saudi is rich
saudi is also highly educated
why do I feel like I'm the only one posting facts and figures in this thread. . .
kinda ironic atheists relying on assertions to defend islam and the christian using facts and data to crtique Islam
>>4653 so now the manner of obtaining wealth counts? Canada is also a resource economy so what
Anonymous 03/19/15 (Thu) 05:53:44 fa8b28 No. 4665
>>4659 Why the hell wouldn't it? Yes, it matters whether someone's economy is the result of their own hard work in discovering and exploiting their own resources and not letting someone else do it for them and just pay them for it because it's all happening inside their fence. Yes it matters if someone's wealth is the result of their shrewd business dealings and hard work or if they just happened to get lucky because they squatted on a plot of land that they couldn't have possibly known would contain unimaginable wealth underneath it.
If some dude from a neighborhood in a different county visited my house and found oil in my backyard, then offered me hundreds of thousands of dollars if I would allow him to extract and sell it, would you have any respect for me and my lavish lifestyle? Would you consider me to be an enlightened person whose opinions on world affairs should be taken into serious consideration? If I homeschool my children with whatever the fuck I feel like teaching them, would you say that the education standards of my household are high?
This is the opposite of what is happening. The atheists in this thread are dismissive of Islam, and you are the one defending it with data and statistics. But, as I have effortlessly demonstrated, statistics can be used to paint a misleading picture, especially when critical information is conveniently left out of the data used to draw conclusions.
They didn't earn their wealth. They got lucky and happened to sit on enormous amounts of oil. They don't have amazing education. They drill Islamic preachings into students from very young ages in their "schools," which is why their "educated" students can come out with all sorts of fancy credentials while still thinking it's a good idea to hijack a plane and fly it into an office building.
Need any more amazingly simple things explained in detail, or can we have this conversation without you deceptively pretending to be stupid?
Anonymous 03/19/15 (Thu) 06:09:51 9a22c3 No. 4672
>>4659 I just looked up Saudi Arabia in the Education Index. It's in upper middle, I wouldn't call it "highly educated".
Who is defending Islam?
>>4665 Also, Saudi Arabia is a monarchy. Monarchies are notorious for using religion to control people.
Anonymous 03/19/15 (Thu) 06:16:45 ea3b6b No. 4673
>>4659 Oh, it's you again…
Anonymous 03/19/15 (Thu) 06:25:37 fa8b28 No. 4677
>>4673 It looks like he's here to stay. Hopefully he can learn how to handle himself in a debate while he spends his time among us. It'll probably be a painful ride until then.
Anonymous 03/19/15 (Thu) 07:47:49 f69602 No. 4690
>>4659 Hello statuefag/"Hurr atheist sucks Islam's dick" fag.
>>4677 He needs a proper name and picture to associate him with.
Anonymous 03/19/15 (Thu) 14:49:03 0cf629 No. 4722
>>4665 >>4672 not really because you seem to be saying that islam's violence is a result of cultural/national phenomenon and not something inherent to Islam itself
also when looking at stuff like this, you have to look at it on a global basis. Yes Saudi is not as educated as say America. However with a 99% literacy rate of men, and 97% for women, great infrastructure, high degree of science education (comparatively) they are a sucessful educated country.
and no having tons of resources doesn't automatically result in wealth as is demonstrated by much of Africa - you still need infastructure, governance, etc to be able to exploit it properly or at least to attract foreign investment to help exploit it
Anonymous 03/19/15 (Thu) 18:49:48 fa8b28 No. 4735
>>4722 You really want to handwave this oil business away? Do you really think Saudi Arabia would be doing anywhere near this well without the oil?
Or is it possible that - just maybe - without the vast quantities of the most valuable consumable resource in the world sitting underneath of them, they'd be just like the Afghans - a bunch of tribal nobodies with no monetary means to prop up their ridiculous piety?
Anonymous 03/19/15 (Thu) 19:03:11 a777c8 No. 4736
>>4690 How about "Alex's special baby?"
Anonymous 03/19/15 (Thu) 19:18:18 3fdd9f No. 4737
>>4690 >Hello statuefag/"Hurr atheist sucks Islam's dick" fag. You mean non-capitalization guy
Anonymous 03/19/15 (Thu) 20:18:08 ea3b6b No. 4748
>>4650 Why are you defending Islam, Statuefag?
Anonymous 03/19/15 (Thu) 21:21:12 9a22c3 No. 4753
>>4722 >not really because you seem to be saying that islam's violence is a result of cultural/national phenomenon and not something inherent to Islam itself No one said or even implied that. Yes, Islam is a violet religion. That's established. Now the question is, why are people participating in such a violent religion?
It doesn't matter who you compare them to. What matter is that they're not educated ENOUGH. Enough to be skeptical of their religion, and realize that Islam (as well as all religions) are made up.
Anonymous 03/20/15 (Fri) 03:38:41 0cf629 No. 4775
>>4748 I thought this was people being fecicious but it seems like there is genuine confusion on the issue
I am saying that Islam is inherently violent. That the violence in Islam comes from the fact that the Koran is violent, that the prophet is violent and the commandments are violent.
Other people are saying it's because of national and social circumstances, which is why I'm trying to point out that there is no link between social well-being, education etc. and Islamic violence and radicalism. Which is why I'm trying to demonstrate that Saudi is rich and highly educated, I want to show the paradox of Islamic radicalism existing alongside the wealth and education of Saudi Arabia.
I want to show that Islam is violent because that's the nature of Islam, and it will be violent no matter how well educated or stable or prosperous it becomes. Just like non-violence is a part of the nature of Jainism and it will always be non-violent no matter how poor, or unstable or uneducated Jains become
>>4753 well then no amount of education is enough because there have been many very smart and very educated jihads and Islamic fundamentalists. There is no connection, the 9/11 hijackers had masters degrees.
no that is not the quesiton, the question is why is it violent and the answer is because the Koran is violent and Mohammed is violent.
I am not interested in why because I am not interested in hearing terrorists whine about israel and America and all the things that make them kill people when really the reasons can be found in the Koran and the commandments of the prophet and a doctrine and culture that glorifies religious violence
>>4735 you are correct, no Saudi Arabia would be nowhere without oil, but that's really besides the point. The fact is it does have oil, it is rich, it is educated, literate, smart, and yet it still embraces a mad form of islamic fundamentalism.
Same with Turkey, it is rich, educated, relatively open, and yet they represent the largest contingent of ISIS members.
w
Anonymous 03/20/15 (Fri) 04:08:33 a777c8 No. 4779
>>4775 I can't be bothered to try and understand what he wrote in this word salad of a post. It doesn't flow at all, and it was never revised. It looks like someone ejaculated a post and wants me to read it simply because they replied to me.
What does "fecicious" even mean…? I looked it up and it's not even a real word. This should be obvious, but the quickest way lose an audience is to write a post no one can even read. The second quickest way is to make a post so bad they don't want to read it. OP has decided to combine both approaches for maximum tl;dr power levels.
Anonymous 03/20/15 (Fri) 04:11:31 f69602 No. 4782
>>4779 M8, the guy you're replying to isn't the OP.
Anonymous 03/20/15 (Fri) 04:29:20 a777c8 No. 4786
>>4782 I misspoke. Thought his post was part of this thread:
>>4548
Anonymous 03/20/15 (Fri) 04:53:01 0cf629 No. 4790
>>4779 somehow I think the definition is poignant
Anonymous 03/20/15 (Fri) 06:10:05 a777c8 No. 4799
>>4790 He has far too many wrong letters to have wanted to write facetious. His intellect coined the a new word, "fecicious" which I'm guessing is derived from feces + thinking.
Anonymous 03/20/15 (Fri) 06:14:22 0cf629 No. 4802
>>4799 yes so the definition is being flippant and regarding serious matters as jokes
I think that describes you quite well I'm sorry to say
I don't know how we would react to a person who attempts to shut down debate by attacking spelling and grammar, but not positively I would say, but then again, atheists haven't come out looking very good in any of these threads
Anonymous 03/20/15 (Fri) 06:14:25 f69602 No. 4803
>>4790 Facetious is indeed a word.
Fecicious is not a word.
Guess which one you used. Would you like me to screen cap it for you too?
Anonymous 03/20/15 (Fri) 06:15:14 0cf629 No. 4804
>>4803 that's great, you finally won an argument, now if we could get back to the topic at hand
Anonymous 03/20/15 (Fri) 06:21:21 f69602 No. 4807
>>4804 Ah ah ah, you admitted that I won an argument in the thread where you posted your buttmad about being banned from /islam/ as well. In fact all you've done is move goal posts so as far as I'm concerned, you lost.
Sorry kid, better luck next time. I'll leave you with a very inspiring quote.
"Thanks-a so much for-a playing my game"
-Mario
Anonymous 03/20/15 (Fri) 14:38:28 0cf629 No. 4823
>>4807 >>4807 congradulations . . . now if we can take the thread from grammar to actually respond to this
>>4775 Other people are saying it's because of national and social circumstances, which is why I'm trying to point out that there is no link between social well-being, education etc. and Islamic violence and radicalism. Which is why I'm trying to demonstrate that Saudi is rich and highly educated, I want to show the paradox of Islamic radicalism existing alongside the wealth and education of Saudi Arabia.
I want to show that Islam is violent because that's the nature of Islam, and it will be violent no matter how well educated or stable or prosperous it becomes. Just like non-violence is a part of the nature of Jainism and it will always be non-violent no matter how poor, or unstable or uneducated Jains become
I don't think anyone has responded to anything I said there in a serious light . . . in fact the whole board has ignored it which really does seem dishonest
Anonymous 03/20/15 (Fri) 17:18:40 9a22c3 No. 4840
>>4775 >well then no amount of education is enough because there have been many very smart and very educated jihads and Islamic fundamentalists. There is no connection, the 9/11 hijackers had masters degrees. There is a statistical correlation between intelligence/education and non-religiousness.
Then why are you having this conversation? Just because you don't want to understand more, doesn't mean other people don't.
Anonymous 03/20/15 (Fri) 18:12:48 0cf629 No. 4849
>>4840 you are confusing terms, while there is some statistical correlation demonstrated between IQ and m research is so far inconclusive on whether there is any link between religiousness and education and the interesting part about the research is that it varies with denomination an country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_education see sort of response makes sense when you cut off my full two sentences at the first 6 words to take it out of context - what I am saying is that you shouldn't dismiss Islamic violence a a product of American or Israeli policy or te result of some legitimate grievance
many Muslims have taken the position that Islamist violence is wrong and inexcusable no matter what the political or social circumstances. It would be nice if atheists could catch up to that
Atheist spokesperson Sam Harris has this story where some Afgha insurgents were seen fighting alongside US troops. When asked why one replied that he saw a Taliban operative behead a 13 year old girl and said fuck them these people need to die. Meanwhile we have western atheists and secularists going - but why are they violent, is it social circumstances. If only western secularists could catch up to the thought and values level of that afghan man and his friends who could see evil for what it was.
Anonymous 03/20/15 (Fri) 18:37:54 a777c8 No. 4851
>>4849 There's a lot going on in that article but focus on this part which actually uses numbers:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_education#Mixed_relationships If you go for a phd (which is about as high as you can get on the academic ladder,) you are highly likely to be or become Atheist/Agnostic.
Anonymous 03/20/15 (Fri) 18:41:39 9a22c3 No. 4852
>>4849 >what I am saying is that you shouldn't dismiss Islamic violence a a product of American or Israeli policy or te result of some legitimate grievance No one is saying that but you. You've been putting words into people mouths the whole time you've been ITT.
This is what you don't understand. Religion is a political tool used to control people. To get them to do things they wouldn't normally do (such as killing children). No one is excusing the violence. We are just wondering why they allow themselves to be used by Islam. Why are they letting themselves become vessels of Islamic violence. If we could find a way get people to detect bullshit better, then we could free ourselves of Islam and it's violence.
You're confusing us seeing the big picture with us tolerating Islam. We see the same problem you do, we just want to solve it.
Anonymous 03/20/15 (Fri) 18:48:24 b153af No. 4853
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play. >>4849 >many Muslims have taken the position that Islamist violence is wrong and inexcusable no matter what the political or social circumstances. In contradiction to their Holy texts.
Great fellow, he extensively studied various religions and found Islam being inherently more violent than other religions.
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/no-ordinary-violence
Anonymous 03/20/15 (Fri) 18:50:40 b153af No. 4855
>>4640 >Islam, as far as their holy book goes, is just as violent as Christianity and Judaism. That is demonstrably false. While all three desert cults encourage violence in some form, Islam takes the cake.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm
Anonymous 03/20/15 (Fri) 19:05:43 a777c8 No. 4857
>>4852 > all desert religions encourage violence Which alone is reason to we are justified in bashing on any of them at times of our choosing. Christianity does not get a free pass: see Uganda and the gays Christians are killing there right now. Even if Islam has more violence, I'm not going to switch from criticizing Christianity to it just to please some Christian nitwit. Because Christianity is still bad, and imo has done more harm than good to the world. You just don't see it because of your own biases. Take your plank from your own eye and then you can criticize Islam more clearly. I'm not going to stop criticizing Napolean because you say Hitler is even cruler.
>>4853 I don't know who this guy is, ans I don't care when you're not watching the videos others have posted.
This is still the best recent post and you ignored it:
>>4855
Anonymous 03/20/15 (Fri) 19:12:59 a777c8 No. 4858
>>4852 I meant this post. The ipad is a pain.
Anonymous 03/20/15 (Fri) 19:15:07 b153af No. 4859
>>4857 >I don't know who this guy is That's Sam Harris.
>and you ignored it: >>4855 (You) I posted that, those were my two posts except for another really early on in this thread. I've been afk for a few days so I'll make the effort to catch up with what's going on.
I don't think anyone here is asking you of that, I hope not. Criticize both. Just lets not excuses for Islamic violence as just products of poverty, etc. Sam Harris goes over the Tibetans being impoverished and oppressed far more by the Chinese but they do not react the same way. Watch the vid.
Anonymous 03/20/15 (Fri) 19:27:15 a777c8 No. 4861
>>4859 I thought you were the other guy. Perhaps I should take a break since talking to him has confused me.
Anonymous 03/20/15 (Fri) 20:43:22 9a22c3 No. 4866
>>4855 >Christianity, Judaism and Islam are violent religions >But Islam is more violent >I prove it by cherry picking violent passages for the Quran and then comparing them to nothing. http://www.evilbible.com/Evil%20Bible%20Quotes.htm http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
Anonymous 03/20/15 (Fri) 20:56:40 b153af No. 4870
>>4866 Read the context, most of those passages are events mentioning killing or cruel acts.
>Because God liked Abel's animal sacrifice more than Cain's vegetables, Cain kills his brother Abel in a fit of religious jealousy. 4:8 The quotes I posted are not cherry picked, they highlight calls to violence.
> Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things." >Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Your analysis sucks.
Anonymous 03/20/15 (Fri) 21:05:38 a777c8 No. 4872
>>4870 That's the very definition of cherry picking and you didn't read his links did you. Read them now. Btw, I can cherry pick biblical quotes too.
If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)
Anonymous 03/20/15 (Fri) 22:00:11 b153af No. 4877
>>4872 >That's the very definition of cherry picking Nope. To take religious scripture literally means reading each line, you are trying to dismiss what is an inconvenience to your Islamic apologistics. There is no such thing as cherrypicking in religion, these are the words of skywizrads. Unless you can find a quote where it says "everything I said is bullshit" all of it is there to debunk the religion as a whole.
Lets go over the quotes:
> "Should people cheat God? Yet you have cheated me! "But you ask, 'What do you mean? When did we ever cheat you?' "You have cheated me of the tithes and offerings due to me. You are under a curse, for your whole nation has been cheating me. Bring all the tithes into the storehouse so there will be enough food in my Temple. If you do," says the LORD Almighty, "I will open the windows of heaven for you. I will pour out a blessing so great you won't have enough room to take it in! Try it! Let me prove it to you! Your crops will be abundant, for I will guard them from insects and disease. Your grapes will not shrivel before they are ripe," says the LORD Almighty. (Malachi 3:8-11 NLT) > The LORD is a jealous God, filled with vengeance and wrath. He takes revenge on all who oppose him and furiously destroys his enemies! The LORD is slow to get angry, but his power is great, and he never lets the guilty go unpunished. He displays his power in the whirlwind and the storm. The billowing clouds are the dust beneath his feet. At his command the oceans and rivers dry up, the lush pastures of Bashan and Carmel fade, and the green forests of Lebanon wilt. In his presence the mountains quake, and the hills melt away; the earth trembles, and its people are destroyed. Who can stand before his fierce anger? Who can survive his burning fury? His rage blazes forth like fire, and the mountains crumble to dust in his presence. The LORD is good. When trouble comes, he is a strong refuge. And he knows everyone who trusts in him. But he sweeps away his enemies in an overwhelming flood. He pursues his foes into the darkness of night. (Nahum 1:2-8 NLT) > "I have wiped out many nations, devastating their fortress walls and towers. Their cities are now deserted; their streets are in silent ruin. There are no survivors to even tell what happened. I thought, 'Surely they will have reverence for me now! Surely they will listen to my warnings, so I won't need to strike again.' But no; however much I punish them, they continue their evil practices from dawn till dusk and dusk till dawn." So now the LORD says: "Be patient; the time is coming soon when I will stand up and accuse these evil nations. For it is my decision to gather together the kingdoms of the earth and pour out my fiercest anger and fury on them. All the earth will be devoured by the fire of my jealousy. "On that day I will purify the lips of all people, so that everyone will be able to worship the LORD together. My scattered people who live beyond the rivers of Ethiopia will come to present their offerings. (Zephaniah 3:6-10 NLT) None of these are calls for Christards to violence, rather it's the Christard take on karma. Bad things will come tho those who do things against their skywizard.
Only the second quote is a direct call to violence. The first is about Revelations, it's not a call to violence as much as a proclamation that violence will occur. It wouldn't be judgement day any other way.
I provided you a page full of quotes saying that being a literal Muslim means killing for Allah.
You just suck at reading comprehension, dude.
Anonymous 03/20/15 (Fri) 22:06:18 b153af No. 4879
>>4877 Actually the second quote could just be more karma shit.
Anonymous 03/20/15 (Fri) 22:12:22 7076d7 No. 4882
>>4877 You replied to an Atheist, and then I started to write a post to argue with you until I realized it. Funny.
Anonymous 03/20/15 (Fri) 22:13:27 b153af No. 4883
>>4880 > on your book's own atrocities.
Anonymous 03/20/15 (Fri) 22:14:21 b153af No. 4884
>>4882 Oh ok. Yeah no I'm no Christard.
Anonymous 03/20/15 (Fri) 22:35:51 a777c8 No. 4886
>>4883 If I find a single quote encouraging barbaric murder will that shut you up?
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+21%3A18-21&version=KJV And take Leviticus 20:10 for good measure. Inb4 the parable about Jesus sparing the adulterer was a forgery inserted into the text much later.
Now go back to your doghouse.
Anonymous 03/20/15 (Fri) 23:02:36 b153af No. 4889
>>4886 >If I find a single quote encouraging barbaric murder will that shut you up? Why so hostile? Does it bother you that Islam is more violent overall? That's a silly thing to get upset over.
> And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. Yeah there's one.
Two
Now compare that to:
> Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing…but if they resist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" >Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things." >Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." >Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." It goes on.
What? This just says Judaism is more violent than Christianity as there was no Jesus to contradict those passages.
In terms of violence (from most to least, not all religions included):
Islam>Judaism>Christianity>Buddhism>Jainism
I don't know why people think religion would be equally violent. These beliefs came from different parts of the world at different times from different people. It's silly to think "dey all be equal."
The fuck is wrong with you? Did you crawl out of Salon, Huffingglue Post or something? So hostile to inquiry.
Anonymous 03/21/15 (Sat) 00:53:40 9a22c3 No. 4896
>>4889 You're an idiot. First, is malice something that can be measured. No. Neither is malicious violence. You can't measure violence of one religion compared to another, because you can't create an objective system to measure it with. How would you do it? Count each call to violence in both holy books? What if some calls to violence are more violent than others? Then what? Use a rating system for each call? What about calls to peace? Should we factor those in to, or just ignore them? What about real world violence? What about historical violence?
Even if you could. Even if you could prove Islam is more violent than Christianity. It would be like saying a pound of shit is less shitty than two pounds of shit.
Anonymous 03/21/15 (Sat) 01:01:46 0cf629 No. 4898
>>4896 if there is no objective standard of violence or malice than we can call nothing violent or malicious, not hitler, not pol pot, not Christianity or anything else
in fact I think by that standard we can get rid of all words that have no precise definition, including the words precise, and definition because we have relegated nearly the entirety English language to the point of meaninglessness
Anonymous 03/21/15 (Sat) 01:34:52 9a22c3 No. 4903
>>4898 >if there is no objective standard of violence or malice than we can call nothing violent or malicious, not hitler, not pol pot, not Christianity or anything else It's called subjectivity, you loony. You can call Hitler, Pol Pot and Christianity violent. You can even say one is more violent than another, but that'd be your opinion. You can even use figures to back up your opinion, but it's still subjective.
Anonymous 03/21/15 (Sat) 04:14:00 b153af No. 4905
File: 1426911240535.jpg (16.06 KB, 600x337, 600:337, sam_harris_quote_kill_peop….jpg )
>>4896 >First, is malice something that can be measured. No. Second this is nonsequitur. Malice is not what even being measured, religious people always think they're doing good.
But violence can measured in terms of severity by the kind of physical damage it inflicts. And passages can be compared in terms of the scale and severity of violence they call for.
But you can take the number of passages that command violence of one religion and compare that to the number of another. You can compare proportionality in their texts of such passages too. You're the idiot if you think you can't quantify this.
But you can compare this with reasonable standards. And you can make it objective, just state what you're actually measuring. In this which book contains more commands to violence. You're pretty much asking "which is more objective, the mean, median or mode?" All.
Who said the passages have to have equal weighing? If its says "hurt them", it's not as severe as "kill them".
Sure, just state your assumptions.
Factor those in as well, why not? The more variables we take in the better our understanding of what we're studying.
Well since we're looking at the scripture literally it's not necessary for this. However to get a picture of how the scripture influences the real world yeah this is valuable info.
Agreed, Islam is just much stinkier shit.
Well you haven't proven they're equal. So far the evidence seems to suggest given all the provided measures one is more literally violent and you're having some temper tantrum over that.
Anonymous 03/21/15 (Sat) 06:23:59 0cf629 No. 4906
>>4903 by that standard everything is a matter of opinion and there is no point debating anything because there is no real truth outside of mathematics.
Anonymous 03/21/15 (Sat) 06:43:32 b153af No. 4910
>>4896 How do we objectively measure poverty? Do we just set an arbitrary point where we find it reasonable for a minimal living standard? Is it it the minimal or the middle? Is it the bare minimum cost to keep one alive? Is it having some things? How many things? What about different countries with different living standards? What about welfare? How do we compare poverty between countries? Poverty is subjective.
Anonymous 03/21/15 (Sat) 06:49:46 b153af No. 4911
>>4903 >but it's still subject You say this like opinions should all be dismissed just for being opinions, like there is no truth to them because they are subjective.
If the evidence backs up the opinion there's some truth to it then. Not all opinions are equal. There are stupid and thoughtful opinions.
Anonymous 03/21/15 (Sat) 15:56:16 9a22c3 No. 4917
>>4905 >But violence can measured in terms of severity by the kind of physical damage it inflicts. And passages can be compared in terms of the scale and severity of violence they call for. No, violence is subjective. Specific acts that can described as violent, however, are not. Like: "This movie is really violent" "No, it's not that violent, I think this other movie is more violent." those are just opinions. Saying "In this movie 12 people are shot and killed, 3 are shot and wounded and 1 person was stabbed to death." is a fact if it's true. Even so, someone still might consider a film with less deaths in it to be more violent.
Get it yet?
Sure, I guess you can do that. It would still be subjective. Sure you'd have a number for the Anon's Scale of Violence, but still…
>>4906 >If something subjective it doesn't matter You're an idiot.
>>4910 It is. So, what?
>>4911 >You say this like opinions should all be dismissed just for being opinions, like there is no truth to them because they are subjective. When did I say that?
Agreed
Why is something being subjective so hard for so many people to swallow? Just because something is subjective, doesn't mean it's meaningless or insignificant. By the way, look at what I was responding to for context of what I was saying:
>>4889 This idiot thinks he can "prove" Islam is more violent than Christianity by cherry picking quotes from the Quran and comparing them to nothing other than a few quotes from the Bible only AFTER someone else has done the work and pointed them out for him. He honestly sounds like a butt hurt Christfag. In my opinion Islam is more violent than Christianity, but anon's method comparing them is still asinine.
Anonymous 03/21/15 (Sat) 16:48:08 0cf629 No. 4918
>>4917 >>4917 yeah well that's all just your opinion man!
yes but who decides what we describe as violent
what counts as getting shot or stabbed - does it have to be done with a knife, what about if someone had a paper cut, is that stabbed, is any projectile hit a shooting, do paintball guns count, what about example of nonviolence in the movie
Excuse me, I do not think the word few has been defined - does few mean two, four, six.
some people think that die hard is more violent than when harry met sally, but that's just an opinion, fuck them!
Anonymous 03/21/15 (Sat) 16:49:21 91946c No. 4919
Not gonna read all this thread because I am lazy, are people ITT defending islam or something? lol if so
Anonymous 03/21/15 (Sat) 16:56:30 9a22c3 No. 4920
>>4918 >yes but who decides what we describe as violent You decide what you think is violent. I decide what I think is violent.
>I do not think the word few has been defined >that's just an opinion, fuck them! Now, you're just going full retard.
Anonymous 03/21/15 (Sat) 16:59:47 9a22c3 No. 4921
>>4919 One Christard is butt mad because he thinks atheists stick up for Islam. Then he jumps ITT and defends Islam. The he falsely accuses everyone else of defending Islam.
tl;dr: we have, yet another, shit poster from /christian/
Anonymous 03/21/15 (Sat) 17:08:13 0cf629 No. 4923
>>4920 No I'm using the same standard this anon, whom I presume is you enunciated here.
Anonymous 03/21/15 (Sat) 17:09:50 0cf629 No. 4924
>>4923 you'd like to think that except the people defending Islam ITT have also been attacking Christianity see
>>4872 >>4886 >>4896
Anonymous 03/21/15 (Sat) 17:15:10 a777c8 No. 4925
>>4924 Never has the perojative of Christard been more aptly used.
Anonymous 03/21/15 (Sat) 17:17:55 9a22c3 No. 4927
>>4923 >No I'm using the same standard this anon, whom I presume is you enunciated here. No, no you're not. You are only showcasing that you do not understand the message I'm trying to convey. You've only demonstrated that you don't understand what subjective means, and how it's different from something being objective.
You've missed the point.
Anonymous 03/21/15 (Sat) 17:21:05 9a22c3 No. 4928
>>4924 >Saying Islam and Christianity are both shit, is some how attacking Christity and defending Islam. What?
Anonymous 03/21/15 (Sat) 17:24:31 0cf629 No. 4929
>>4927 what I am showcasing is how obtuse you are being in setting the definition of ordinary words such as violence far outside of their ordinary meaning
There are objectively agreed upon meanings for the word violence, if the meaning was entirely subjective then dictionaries and indeed language would not be possible.
to show something is more violent than something else is merely to who that one meets the dictionary definition (and not some assholes obtuse on the spot definition which is later defended under idiotic claims of subjectivity)
look if you are going to be argumentative to the point of arguing the definition of ordinary words like violence, atheism is the least of your problems, you have a whole host of mental issues.
>>4928 Yes those angry aggressive denials of the violent nature of Islam don't count as defense.
Anonymous 03/21/15 (Sat) 17:35:16 a777c8 No. 4930
>>4929 You keep,using the word objective. I don't think you know what it means.
Anonymous 03/21/15 (Sat) 18:28:52 b153af No. 4932
File: 1426962532044.gif (392.93 KB, 493x342, 493:342, tumblr_me9v45s1pd1r4wbhxo1….gif )
>>4917 >No, violence is subjective. So is poverty. Yet most people have a fairly consistent understanding of what it means.
So is saying there are this many commands to violence in this book compared to that.
If they can have a rationale for it that isn't contradictory to the facts they aren't wrong. Otherwise their opinion is wrong.
Your point is so stupid.
We use HDI, GDP, poverty line, etc as measures of poverty and they work just fine.
You have no problem in quantifying poverty so why do you have an issue quantifying violent verses?
You're the asshole who tried to dismiss my proposed measures because they were subjective, otherwise this all has been pointless.
Keep in mind the only subjective part is that it is considered to rate violence, it kinda does very well as violence is a physical act so you can distinguish it from other behavior fairly easily. If we define violence as acts that harm another we can easily quantify violence from that point. You can put a severity scale but lets not to keep it more objective. So what is being measured is objective, namely the count of literal calls to violence.
I made it very clear I wanted to make a count of all such quotes as I said numerous times. So not cherry picking.
Whoever does the work doesn't matter as long as the methodology is followed.
Projection.
Why? Whats so wrong in just counting the number of times the text literally says "go be violent in my name" and doing some stats analysis? We can look at proportionality, raw number, etc. Also keep in mind the goal is just to compare texts.
Anyway I think you've demonstrated that you're enough of an imbecile that you're not worth arguing with.
Case in point:
>You decide what you think is violent. I decide what I think is violent. There are limits you can't say violence is behavior that doesn't harm or at least have the intention. Otherwise the word has no meaning.
Anonymous 03/21/15 (Sat) 18:59:46 b153af No. 4933
>>4919 Some idiot, namely
>>4921 getting upset over quantifying violent verses and calling everyone he disagrees with a Christard, though there might be a Christard here. If there is they probably demonstrated more reason than that idiot.
>>4921 >everyone I disagree with is a Christard. It's like I'm on /pol/, everyone is JIDF.
Anonymous 03/21/15 (Sat) 19:13:41 b153af No. 4934
>>4933 Also notice how he went from cherrypicking bible verses, which the vast majority of aren't even commands to violence, to compare them to the direct commands to violence in the Quarn, which there are pages of, to this whole "violence is subjective so whatever measure you use for violence I'll just dismiss". Talk about moving the goalpost.
Anonymous 03/21/15 (Sat) 23:36:42 9a22c3 No. 4952
>>4932 >So is poverty. Yet most people have a fairly consistent understanding of what it means. So, if something subjective then people can't understand what it means? No.
Ok. And?
Opinions can't be wrong, just unreasonable.
Yep
Because it's not good evidence. It wouldn't prove it as a fact. People who disagreed with the analysis could pick it apart very easily. It'd just be unconvincing to anyone who didn't already hold it's preconception. But, by all means don't let that stop you. You seem determined:
>>>4935 Really? In what way have I acted like a Christfag? You're really reaching for an insult now.
Hey, I might be slow, but I'm ahead of you.
You really are having a hard time with what "subjective" means. If something is subjective that doesn't mean that it's not real. It doesn't mean that it's meaningless or irrelevant. Subjective things are real, and they are relevant. They can have a real life effect on you. Just keep in mind that they're not black and white. Take evil for example. Evil is subjective. There's gray area. Some people might think A is evil, and someone else might say A isn't evil. Everyone might agree A is evil, but even then it's still subjective. Everyone might say A and B are evil, but then disagree on which is more evil. Because you don't have just black and white, you have gray and all the shades between.
Anonymous 03/21/15 (Sat) 23:57:37 a777c8 No. 4954
>>4932 >gdp indexes / gdp per capita is an objective way to measure poverty I'd like to write a post showing where how this too is a tool, but if you misuse a tool you won't get optiimsl results. It's more of a rule of thumb since there are with caveats. Under about 8,000 usd a year generally means the country is developing. However poverty is relative, and a poor man in America might have social welfare programs that provide better food and a higher standard of living than someplace else even if he is homeless. Conversely, in Africa being poor might not mean being homeless and begging, but having to forage in the jungle and squatting there too.
Then too there is PPP or purchasing power parity,
Which says you might be able to buy the same amount of goods in China with much less money as in America. China itself has great income inequality as big as it's land, which hurts blanket statements like saying the whole country is poor when there are wealthy families and fairly developed cities on the coast. Every number is relative to another under certain conditions, and statistics are just a tool for comparisons. Having numbers is not enough and you still have to know how to interpret the data or you may be misled.
Anonymous 03/22/15 (Sun) 00:45:05 40dd6e No. 4957
Only they themselves can choose their destiny. Reformation, or destruction.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-reformation-for-islam-1426859626?mod=trending_now_2 1. Muhammad’s semi-divine status, along with the literalist reading of the Quran. >Muhammad should not be seen as infallible, let alone as a source of divine writ. He should be seen as a historical figure who united the Arab tribes in a premodern context that cannot be replicated in the 21st century. And although Islam maintains that the Quran is the literal word of Allah, it is, in historical reality, a book that was shaped by human hands. Large parts of the Quran simply reflect the tribal values of the 7th-century Arabian context from which it emerged. The Quran’s eternal spiritual values must be separated from the cultural accidents of the place and time of its birth. 2. The supremacy of life after death. >The appeal of martyrdom will fade only when Muslims assign a greater value to the rewards of this life than to those promised in the hereafter. 3. Shariah, the vast body of religious legislation. >Muslims should learn to put the dynamic, evolving laws made by human beings above those aspects of Shariah that are violent, intolerant or anachronistic. 4. The right of individual Muslims to enforce Islamic law. >There is no room in the modern world for religious police, vigilantes and politically empowered clerics. 5. The imperative to wage jihad, or holy war. >Islam must become a true religion of peace, which means rejecting the imposition of religion by the sword.
Anonymous 03/22/15 (Sun) 01:02:51 b153af No. 4958
>>4952 >Opinions can't be wrong, just unreasonable. What if they contradict fact? I'd say then their opinion is wrong.
Why? Are you saying if we want to analyze books literally that good evidence isn't setting objective standards to which to measure how many passages encourage the believers to violence?
I'll agree that the standards we choose have subjectivity to them, no argument there. But once we set the standards and set the same standards to all these books we can be objective from that point on. For example my standard is passages that command or encourage the believer to inflict harm (bodily/cellular damage) or death upon someone. So every time the book literally says "go kill for me", "go hurt for me" or "kill and you will be rewarded in the next life", etc that gets a count of +1 until the end of the book. Do this for all these religious text and compare the raw number or the proportion of the text devoted to this. I don't know why you think this is poor evidence. It's just sticking to the text and comparing which one has a greater focus on encouraging violence.
Perhaps the measures can have correlations to real world violence, so we not only account for poverty but this as well. I'd be surprised if religion played no role as it sets the mindset of so many people, if people are constantly reading text that tells them to be violent in the name of their god that could influence their decisions. But that's not the point of this exercise, it was merely to look at the text in of themselves.
If the issue is with the difference between harm and kill you can count those separately. It would be interesting to see how the books vary this way.
If the issue is do we count words or statements? I'd say to use statements as statements between religions can vary between wordiness skewing the data.
Actually I can prove given the definition of violence as acts that inflict harm or death upon another that one book commands more often than another of its follower to do this. That can be easily proven though a lot of tedious work is required.
And yet you seem to be having an impossible time picking it apart. We have different interpretations of violence. Granted, now with the strict definition that I've been repeating ad nauseam that criticism falls apart.
If someone defines purple as cat and violence as dog, it's probably impossible to communicate with them. And no preconceptions required merely a strict definition of violence.
>Subjective things are real, and they are relevant. Subjective things are based on opinion, feeling and taste. They do not have to be real, they can be imaginary or real. Objective things are always real, they are based on measurements, facts, etc.
Good and evil are subjective by definition. There is no objective good or evil as they depend on the set of morals that are not universal.
Violence can be strictly defined to be used to evaluate behaviors that are described by the set definition, it doesn't depend on someone's morality as it's a description of physical action and not a moral judgement of that action. So if I define violence as acts that inflict harm or death upon someone then every time someone kills someone that falls under that definition. In fact it does so objectively the act meets the criteria. The physical action that was taken resulted in someones death and according to the strict definition of violence it is violence, that's a fact.
It's like defining breathing, lets say it is the behavior of inhaling air or some gas into your lungs and back out. Every time you inhaled and exhaled you have according to this definition taken a breathe. It's physical and measurable and strictly defined.
Anonymous 03/22/15 (Sun) 01:04:21 b153af No. 4959
>>4954 >but if you misuse a tool you won't get optiimsl results. Agreed, there are definitely limits to how useful these metrics are and when they can be applied to give meaningful results.
You can relate any number to another, the question is which variables influence the system and how. Stats helps us find these variables, the mechanism still needs to be discovered if any. Sometimes having strong correlation doesn't mean the variable influences the other like ice cream sales and murders, though they are connected to hot weather.
Agreed, and interpretations of this data suggesting the Islamic books are as violent as the other desert cults seems to fall under being misled. If all these measures all show Islam as having more verses and more often I don't see how anyone could reasonably say the evidence suggests the books are all literally equally violent.
It's like with HDI, GDP, PPP, etc consistently putting Uganda at the bottom and Canada at the top. Having the interpretation that Uganda is less poverty stricken than Canada is being misled.
Anonymous 03/22/15 (Sun) 01:45:00 9a22c3 No. 4961
>>4933 Wow, either you are the Christfag that's been plaguing this thread, or you're an idiot jumping to conclusions that has no idea what's going on ITT. Either way you're still a faggot.
Anonymous 03/22/15 (Sun) 01:50:54 9a22c3 No. 4962
>>4934 The two posts you are referring to were made by two different people. I know, I made one of them.
No one moved the goal post back, you were just talking to two different people.
Anonymous 03/22/15 (Sun) 02:06:40 b153af No. 4963
>>4961 >or you're an idiot jumping to conclusions that has no idea what's going on ITT And you do? There are no poster IDs and some faggot has been calling everyone a Christfaggot. We don't even have a count of unique posters.
But it can be demonstrated that someone did indeed get upset or had an upset tone in their writing over the notion of quantifying violent verses. They calmed down which is nice, or I assume that's them. We won't know without poster IDs.
>>4962 >No one moved the goal post back, you were just talking to two different people. Or so you claim without poster IDs we'll never know, you could be the Christfaggot that has been plaguing this thread. Pretending to be an atheist and defending Islam to make us look bad.
If anything this thread demonstrates that we do in fact need poster IDs.
Also it's kinda annoying that whenever someone says Islam is more violent on this board so many assume that's coming from a Christard. If you're going to be skeptical actually be skeptical. This is /pol/ tier "hurr durr everyone I disagree with is JIDF". And me saying this does not make me a Christard ffs.
Anonymous 03/22/15 (Sun) 03:34:45 9a22c3 No. 4972
>>4958 Ok then. What's more violent A Nightmare on Elm Street or Friday the 13th?
I'm talking about the originals, of course.
Anonymous 03/22/15 (Sun) 06:24:58 b153af No. 4978
>>4972 To be honest I haven't seen them or the recent ones. But I doubt either encourage violence, it's more a depiction of violence am I right? So I guess this is a matter of which was the bigger bloodbath?
I guess we can look at this in several ways, we can count the number of times people were slashed, how many people were killed, for what proportion of the film were these scenes depicting violence (though here is a bit cloudy, do we take the the start of the violence when the scene changes or do we take the total time when the swing of the machete starts and when blood starts to fly until the last machete swing or until the scene changes)? I'd say do all and compare. And I'm sure you can think of other things we can quantify.
Either way we can employ several metrics to assist us in coming to a reasonable conclusion. Perhaps one film is the clear winner in all these measures at which point it's kinda easy to suggest that one is more violent than the other. Or maybe one has less dead people but the violence drags on for longer, then it's hard to say. Or maybe we can say in this case one has less violence as in the number of people who were (fictionally) inflicted harm or death but the camera immersed the audience in violence for longer periods of time since that is what we hypothetically found.
Also one thought, maybe these films desensitize people to violence and the time immersed in violence is a greater factor in this than the number of people killed. We could weigh that as more important based on it's relative correlation for desensitization.
Another thought, maybe we can count the total number of pixels representing blood from each frame. This would give us a good idea of the relative bloodbathyness in each film. Just be careful not to count ketchup. We can look at the average concentration of blood on frames or something like [total bloody pixels in film/(pixels per frame*number of frames in film)] or just compare raw counts. The length of end credits aren't really part of the film and may skew some of the data so leave that out for the total frame count.
So I can't answer your question but provide some methodology to answer it. Anyway I'm approaching crunch time so I won't really be able to spend more time on this thread.
Anonymous 03/22/15 (Sun) 16:55:28 e65dcd No. 5023
>>4972 Friday the 13th because the violence is more realistic. A bed blood fountain doesn't feel as gruesome as an arrow through the chest.
Anonymous 03/22/15 (Sun) 19:12:21 5c810b No. 5033
>>4560 Hopefully by getting rid of it, but Islam is embedded into its adherents' cultures unfortunately. Don't get me wrong; Islam is bad, but they have had very productive times scientificially, artistically, etc. before. They need to rediscover that shit to be on even footing with Western (and a lot of Eastern, for that matter) society.
They need is their Renaissance.
Anonymous 03/22/15 (Sun) 21:47:20 9a22c3 No. 5040
>>4978 >So I can't answer your question but provide some methodology to answer it. There's no one right way to answer it. You can't objectively prove that one is more violent than the other. You can analyze the films in different ways to try and back up your opinion, but that's it. Case in point.
Anonymous 03/22/15 (Sun) 21:53:21 0cf629 No. 5041
>>5040 now let's play the same game with Friday the 13th and Disney's frozen
Can we say that one film is more violent than the other? Is it merely subjective to say that Frozen is less violent? Does this bring your analogy into question.
Anonymous 03/22/15 (Sun) 21:53:45 9a22c3 No. 5042
>>5023 I disagree. I think A Nightmare on Elm Street is more violent because the violence is unrealistic. Freddy kills people in the dream world, meaning he doesn't have any restraints on his murder methods. Johnny Deep being swallowed by a blood spewing bed is more gruesome than Kevin Bacon being stabbed though the neck with an arrow. But, that's just my opinion.
Anonymous 03/22/15 (Sun) 21:56:15 9a22c3 No. 5043
>>5041 >Whose more evil Hitler or Gandhi I chose comparable things for a reason. Just because most or all people would say Hitler is more evil, doesn't mean evil isn't subjective.
Anonymous 03/22/15 (Sun) 21:58:08 b153af No. 5044
>>5040 But you can objectively prove if one has more blood on film, more screams, more people killed, exposes the audience to more violent acts, etc. These metrics are good enough for me to sufficiently determine which is more violent than the other.
Because if one film exceeds in all these metrics it's clearly the more violent one using the strict definition of violence, the contrary statement goes against the evidence.
Which is more impoverished Uganda or Botswana?
>>5043 http://improb.com/airchives/paperair/volume1/v1i3/air-1-3-apples.html
Anonymous 03/22/15 (Sun) 21:58:44 b153af No. 5045
>>5044 Anyway I did say I wasn't going to waste more time in this thread.
Anonymous 03/22/15 (Sun) 22:09:24 9a22c3 No. 5049
>>5044 Well then. If you can prove one film is more violent than the other objectively, why haven't you done it? You talk quite the talk with little action. Are you saying you can't? That's the point I've been trying to make.
I'll ask you once more, and I'd like an answer if you wish to continue this conversation. What film is more violent A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) or Friday the 13th (1980)?
Hardly
Anonymous 03/22/15 (Sun) 22:09:13 b153af No. 5050
>>5042 Before I go there is a discrepancy in measuring poverty between what are termed objective measures like relative position in income distribution and subjective measure like self-assessed status (opinion). There is some overlap but often enough they don't.
http://www.saldru.uct.ac.za/documentation/redi-papers/30-comparing-subjective-and-objective-measures-of-poverty-in-south-africa/file
Anonymous 03/22/15 (Sun) 22:11:16 0cf629 No. 5051
>>5043 >I chose comparable things for a reason. Just because most or all people would say Hitler is more evil, doesn't mean evil isn't subjective. So now you have to demonstrate that Christianity and islam are comparable in the way Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm street are and not in the same way Frozen and Friday the 13th are
I don't think that has been demonstrated as for yet ans thus your analogy cannot stand up
Anonymous 03/22/15 (Sun) 22:15:52 b153af No. 5053
>>5049 >why haven't you done it? You talk quite the talk with little action. Are you saying you can't? That's the point I've been trying to make. Because I'm not going to waste my time watching shitty slasher flicks counting the pixels on the screen or the number of dead bodies or whatever. There is a methodology to follow that takes time and I want to spend my time better. I really don't care that you have such a difficult time with quantifying things that aren't poverty.
Anyway I'm out.
Anonymous 03/22/15 (Sun) 22:36:31 9a22c3 No. 5060
>>5050 Ok, you are welcome to use objective things that correlate to violence in your analysis of the films.
Anonymous 03/22/15 (Sun) 22:43:53 9a22c3 No. 5061
>>5051 They're both Abrahamic religions. They are VERY comparable.
Anonymous 03/22/15 (Sun) 22:46:10 9a22c3 No. 5062
>>5053 >I can do it if I wanted to, I just don't feel like it. Whatever you say pal.
Anonymous 03/22/15 (Sun) 23:01:58 b153af No. 5065
>>5043 >>5061 >>5051 What idiocy, you can compare anything. Gandhi used nonviolence while Hitler used violence, there look compared. Fucking hell you guys are idiots.
>>5062 Do you not realize how long this would take? Just watching 1 film is at least 1.5 hours. Am I getting paid for this research? No? Fuck off then. I gave you the methodology, if you really care about your shitty films do it.
Fuck this thread, the other atheist (>>5062) is as if not more retarded than the Christard.
Peace, bitches.
Anonymous 03/22/15 (Sun) 23:07:50 9a22c3 No. 5068
>>5065 >>5053 >>5045 >I'm out Don't forget, you're here forever.
Anonymous 03/22/15 (Sun) 23:21:04 0cf629 No. 5076
>>5061 >They're both Abrahamic religions. They are VERY comparable. not really because they take completely different points
Christianity is based completely off Jesus and the apostles comments on them
Islam is based completely on the works of Mohammed and the writings about the lives of him and his companions.
Yes they are similar in that Mohammed used many Christian themes and stories, and names but the similarities end there because he established a completely different set of rules and different set of world views.
The rules of Christianity, (turn the other cheek, he who lives by the sword dies by the sword, blessed are the persecuted etc) are a far cry from the rules of Mohammed.
You have to show that they are similar enough that a comparison of Christianity and Islam is like comaring firday the 13th and nightmare on elm street, you have to demonstrate that this is an apt analogy and I dont believe that the mere fact that they are Abraham is enough to establish that.
For example modern reform judaism is a far cry from the Judaism of the iron age where they regularly stoned people and were constantly at war, the mere fact that both are abrahamic doesn't mean that they are similar enough to be compared alongside each other like two slasher flicks and that its not more apt to compare modern Judaism to a Disney flick and ancient Judaism to a slasher flick.
Similarly I think Christianity has much more in common with modern, reformed judaism whereas Islam is much more similar to ancient blood bath death cult judaism.
Anonymous 03/23/15 (Mon) 00:01:02 9a22c3 No. 5088
>>5065 You're just acting overly defensive by refusing to analyse them. Which make's you look like you've realized you're wrong and just don't want to admit it. Backed into a corner and desperate. Hell, analyzing the Quaran and Bible would take longer than two movies. One of the reasons I chose those two because their large fan bases. There are plenty of resources out there for you. You could probably find a super cut of all the violent parts. It's not due tomorrow, take as much time as you want.
Anonymous 03/23/15 (Mon) 03:36:00 19ca20 No. 5123
>>5076 Can you compare Christianity to Islam? How would you compare them? I don't know, you tell me. I know their are differences between them, but that's beside the point. The point being, can you objectively prove Christianity is more violent than Islam? If you could, then you could also objectively prove that one of the two films (A Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday the 13th) is more violent than the other. In fact it would be easier. Combing over and analyzing the Quran and Bible could take months, maybe even years. Analyzing those two movies would only take few days to a few weeks. I'm just making things easier, so you can put your money where your mouth is. If you can demonstrate that you can objectively prove which film is more violent, I will believe you when you say you can do them same with two religions.
So, I'll ask again. What film is more violent A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) or Friday the 13th (1980)?
Anonymous 03/23/15 (Mon) 03:42:26 0cf629 No. 5124
>>5123 yeah but like I said before we do that you have to show that comparing Christianity to Islam is like comparing Nightmare on elm to Friday and not like comparing Bambi to Friday you haven't yet demonstrated that yet and thus your analogy cannot stand.
This whole argument that the comparison is fair because they are both Abrahamic doesn't hold up.
Nightmare and Friday, it's difficult to tell which is more violent because they both have huge quantities of violence
So is it the same with Christianity and Islam? Do we have to sit here and compare verse by verse by reading both texts?
No because someone else has already done that for us and posted it on this board in another thread
http://8ch.net/atheism/res/4935.html and clearly demonstrated that Islam is much much more violent than Christianity and so it's not like comparing two similar slasher flicks, as you, for no reason, suggest it is
Anonymous 03/23/15 (Mon) 04:19:36 19ca20 No. 5129
>>5124 It's a demonstration. I'm asking you to demonstrate what you claim you can do. That's it. If you can demonstrate it, I will be inclined to believe you can do it.
Then you've lost the argument by admitting you can't compare them.
That's up to you. You're the one making the claim.
You know what, I think I'm talking to a different guy. Are you the same guy I've been talking to ITT, or are you some other guy just wondered in and is lost?
Yeah, you're some other guy, who has absolutely no clue why I keep asking about horror movies, and why it's relevant. Never mind, you are at the tail end of a very long conversation. Just forget it. I would suggest you lurk more.
No, that's not what I'm suggesting it is "Mr. Buts-into-a-conversation-without-knowing-what-it's-about-first". What I'm asking is, did he prove it objectively like he claims he can. Like as an obsolete indisputable fact. Not a matter of opinion.
Anonymous 03/23/15 (Mon) 04:20:50 19ca20 No. 5130
Anonymous 03/23/15 (Mon) 04:26:33 b153af No. 5131
>>5088 >>5123 Jesus fuck you're a gibbering numbskull. No one will waste weeks to prove an obvious implication of the methodology. All the study will show is that each movie will for each metric is either greater than, equal to or less than the other. If you want to say the movie with more blood, more violence, longer depictions of violence is actually less violent then your subjective opinion is wrong. The objective measures would not support it, your interpretation would be full of shit and only true to you and not based on the reality. If they're about the same then they're about the same.
You're practically looking at dinosaur fossils after being carbon dated and saying that "hurr we still could interpret it that they are 10,000 years old durr". See there are limits to subjective interpretation of data, if your interpretation is based on feeling despite what's demonstrated you're full of shit. If your conclusion is based on the evidence that is objective interpretation.
Holy fucking shit, it's like I have to spoonfeed basic logic into your retarded skull. I seriously doubt you're an atheist, probably some retarded Islamist pretending to be an atheist. You lack all semblance of reason.
And look here's a quick comparison proving these religions are different:
Quran: 77,429 words
http://corpus.quran.com/releasenotes.jsp Bible: 930,243 words
http://www.artbible.info/concordance/ And you can show Islam is more violent than Christianity just as you can show Uganda is more impoverished than Canada. But you're a retarded postmodernist whose dogma is that everything is the result of poverty. This is really why you're having such a hissy fit, you can't stand that poverty might not be the end all and be all that there might be other factors that influence these complex behaviors and events. But lets keep our heads up our asses instead of developing a model that takes into account all the variables being computed.
Or is it because Muslims are brown and anyone criticizing Islam is racist? You're pathetic for an atheist if you're going to bend over for a religion because they aren't cis white males.
Fucking hell why am I wasting my time when I have a Capstone design report to finish?
>>5068 You said it, but I'm going afk after this.
>>5124 Well to be fair there was no formal tabulation of the count of verses. Just methodology and one set of studies looking at word count of violent words. It's written why it's incomplete in the thread.
However it's looking like Islam is more violent overall. Especially given the word count of their books being smaller.
>>5129 >Not a matter of opinion. So you can have the opinion that Uganda is as impoverished as Canada and you'd still be right despite all the evidence showing that isn't so? No because that's objectively wrong, it is in contraction to the evidence. I'm sorry if you are on LSD and the charts evened out in your drugged up brain.
This is the point, dipshit. You can demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that the contrary is wrong leaving you with the other hypothesis.
Seriously lay off the hippie drum circle bong.
Peace out, niggers.
Anonymous 03/23/15 (Mon) 04:30:33 b153af No. 5132
File: 1427085033031.jpg (81.22 KB, 400x346, 200:173, b2e37a37-2615-4b7d-ad89-4c….jpg )
Guys look the world is equally impoverished all around, who cares what the data shows? My opinion is supreme. My opinion can disagree with the facts and therefore debunking them.
Anonymous 03/23/15 (Mon) 04:52:19 19ca20 No. 5134
>>5131 >>5132 You're try to hide behind the comparison of poverty, but I'm not buying it. I don't think saying what is more violent, is like saying who is more poor. Nah, that analogy doesn't really hold up. Because it's not about mine or your opinion, it's about finding a method that can demonstrate what's more violent. There are methods to measure poverty sure, but I haven't heard of a method to measure how violent something is.
You know what would hold up? Answering what film is more violent A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) or Friday the 13th (1980)?
Nope
Anonymous 03/23/15 (Mon) 05:23:37 0cf629 No. 5136
>>5132 Dude that's totally like two horror movies, totally no difference
Anonymous 03/23/15 (Mon) 05:36:05 0cf629 No. 5138
>>5134 actually it's almost exactly the same thing because poverty is subjective
do we measure poverty by GDP, per capita GDP, purchasing power parity?
If the people in a given town have money but lack of infrastructure and corrupt government causes them not to be able to get everything they need is that poverty?
So we can see that in any measure there are grey areas and confusion. Does that mean that poverty is the same everywhere and Poverty in America is the same as Poverty in Zambia just because both countries are examples of post colonial English culture.
No way, because by any sensible measure America is much less improvished than Zambia and the pockets of poverty in America won't change that.
Same with Islam and Christianity, yes there are violent verses and examples of violence in Christianity. But Christianity doesn't form hundreds of militias hellbent on Jihad, have bloody borders in nearly every nation that it's been a part of, doesn't kill apostates, doesn't stone adulators or hang homosexuals.
The biggest fear in the middle east is that their nation will fall to Islamists. This is why any involvement in an Islamist group leads to imprisonment and torture in nations like Syria, Egypt, and any Muslim country with secular rule. This is why we have instant secretarian warfare the moment a dictator collapses (see Iraq, Libya).
This is why governments like the Taliban exist and nations like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan support them.
To pretend that's the same level of violence as your average christian couple protesting homosexuals and abortions is just willful ignorance, ludicrous, and I can't even imagine what could motivate it other than crass stupidity and a hatred for Western civilization. This isn't even anti-Christianity anymore, it's just anti-humanity.
Anonymous 03/23/15 (Mon) 05:46:42 b153af No. 5140
>>5134 >You're try to hide behind the comparison of poverty No I'm trying to show you how they relate, you goddamn retard.
I wouldn't expect someone as retarded as you to get much of anything.
Your opinion. See you're pomo.
Case in point:
>Nah, that analogy doesn't really hold up. You even contradict yourself. All you have is you opinion.
I gave you plenty throughout the thread, dipshit. Count the number of times it engages in violent behavior, violent behavior defined strictly as actions one does to another inflicting harm and death (we can also add intent because a doctor technically does poke through some tissue when injecting a flue shot, but lets not because this more complex things get the harder it gets for people as cognitively deficient as you) . There's one measure. Do you not know what a measure is? Do I really have to spoonfeed this much? Man you're more retarded than I gave you credit for. Look we've been measuring violent behavior for a while:
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats And the CDC has about 400 pages going over some measures:
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/yv_compendium.pdf Plus some shit to hurt your pomo ass:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2922855/ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912004047 http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/mp2014130a.html http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22297589 Look another factor besides poverty and culture that needs to be considered in modelling violence. You must be so sore right now. Oh but let me guess this is just whitey oppressin?
It's like you have trisomy 21 or very something alike.
Frozen or Friday the 13th? Or which is more impoverished Botswana or Uganda? You've been dodging this.
Besides as I've said before but apparently no amount of repeating will get shit through your think but hollow head. All the study will show is that for each movie each metric will either be greater than, equal to or less than the other. If you want to say the movie with more blood, more violence, longer depictions of violence is actually less violent then your subjective opinion is wrong. The objective measures would not support it, your interpretation would be full of shit and only true to you and not based on the reality. If they're about the same then they're about the same.
There's no point in this exercise.
Denial, fucking hipster pomo.
Even Christards are more reasonable than you.
Why can't I leave? I have lab in the morning. It's like your autism is contagious (that's a joke by the way). Fuck it, I'm out.
Anonymous 03/23/15 (Mon) 19:23:11 19ca20 No. 5177
>>5138 >>5140 >Poverty No, and I've already explained why. This is about finding and using a method that can demonstrate and prove objectively what is more violent.
Nope, you don't get to pick the films. If you do, I can always say it wasn't a fair comparison. But if I chose the films, I can't back peddle if you prove your point.
So, what film is more violent A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) or Friday the 13th (1980)?
Anonymous 03/23/15 (Mon) 20:04:04 19ca20 No. 5178
File: 1427141043661.jpg (123.29 KB, 1034x772, 517:386, 55db2a67e928bee60ada5083cf….jpg )
>>5131 >>5140 You need to learn what the words fact, opinion, objective and subjective mean.
Anonymous 03/23/15 (Mon) 20:05:58 19ca20 No. 5179
File: 1427141158339.png (93.89 KB, 455x228, 455:228, Don't forget you're here f….png )
>>5140 >Why can't I leave? I tried to warn you.
Anonymous 03/23/15 (Mon) 21:53:53 b153af No. 5186
File: 1427147633608.jpg (40.03 KB, 570x269, 570:269, fruit-flies-diane-dodd-exp….jpg )
>>5177 >This is about finding and using a method that can demonstrate and prove objectively what is more violent. I can only demonstrate, even evolution isn't proven formally with how many vast resources employed and you expect me to prove this? Fuck off. It's just demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt at this point. Be realistic.
So let me demonstrate this whole thing for the last time:
First we have to define what we mean by violence. Strictly as behaviors that inflict harm (including death) upon others. So real world events that literally meet this description.
Then simply count the times this is met and see which is greater than, equal to, or less than the other.
Now lets say you had a problem with my definition, you can have your own definition of violence and still count the times something happens that meets your description. If you don't catch it it is your error, not the methodology's.
But how do you think poverty is measured, dingus?
It's defined as severe economic disadvantage. It's arguably even more subjective the way it's defined because what's severe? It's not merely disadvantage because the second richest person is disadvantaged to the richest or maybe relatively speaking. Also based on money that has a value which is entirely based on subjective demand. At least with violence measures it's based on a direct physical action. Every time the physical action happens you count it. It's like counting the times the there is a voltage between the nodes.
Now poverty could be defined as getting less than your nutritional needs but that doesn't get the whole picture. Because people also need clothes but is that 1 set or 2 because you need to at least have clothes while you wash? Shelter but designs vary so much and material costs, material access, I guess it could be access to cheapest available.
Lets talk about how money gets its value which all these measures are based on pretty much, I doubt anyone really does the minimum calorie and micronutrients counts, those are at best just estimates based on economic analysis.
Why Do you know Canada is less impoverished than Uganda? Despite all these caveats to measuring poverty?
And we haven't even really discussed these measures. Like where people sit in relative position in income distribution. Doesn't seem like a bad measure, it would meet the definition since being in the 1st quartile is more economically disadvantaged than being in the 3rd. But so is relative position in violent crime offending distribution for violence. If someone killed 7 people they were more violent than someone who killed 3. And someone making 80k is less impoverished to someone making 30k. 80k eventhough money is subjectively valued, 80k is still more than 30k. Just like 8 people dead is more than 3 people dead.
It's simple inequalities.
And saying "go kill them" 10 times is more than saying that 3. Unless you want to be a total Christard right now and say when the book says "go kill" it really means go pet a bunny.
Which is more impoverished Uganda or Botswana? We know they're impoverished but how?
You've been trying to say all 3 of the desert cults are as equally as violent in their texts, they're all equally retarded but that's another matter. This is your mistake that I think the Christard was trying to get you to understand. Abrahamic is the authors. Slasher flick is a descriptor, it describes a movie involving killing and horrific violence based on the content. Just by using these two films this you're admitting you know when violence happens [and you don't thin it's petting bunnies like in Frozen (haven't seen it) or whatever]. This is your error.
You can't be reasonable and say comparing Spielberg movies is the same to comparing Romantic comedies. These are different types of categories. Even if it was the same author could for one book write it as a gore fest, the second book as a romantic comedy and the third as a horror even in the same series. While romantic comedies will all have the intention of being funny and romantic in some way. But in this case Spielberg was different people in different places at different times merely one set that built on the previous while the third rewrote the books entirely. And just as you can rewrite Frozen into a slasher flick you can rewrite past books and make them even more violent.
>>5178 samefag
Someone actually wrote shit in the book or captured things on film, it's not a skywizard. I know you want it to be some magical man but there is absolutely no evidence for it.
Anonymous 03/23/15 (Mon) 22:02:10 b153af No. 5187
>>5186 How do we know Uganda is more impoverished than Canada?
Are there things we measure to compare them in terms of what we define as poverty?
How did we ever come to this conclusion?
We're pomos, it's just our opinion.
Like whitey being evil. That's why when a Muslim flies a plane into a building, it's actually all whitey's fault. The fact he was screaming Allahu Ackbar had nothing to do with it. It's just whitey and his patriarchy.
Anonymous 03/23/15 (Mon) 22:04:39 b153af No. 5189
>>5187 btw guys in pic are Christarded, funny how they resemble white liberal hipsters so much.
Anonymous 03/23/15 (Mon) 22:27:57 b153af No. 5193
>>5186 If the problem is with the word harm, physical injury is a better term.
Violence is the application of physical force to injure someone.
So we can count the instances of the application of violence. Whenever the action described occurs count it. There measure.
Anonymous 03/23/15 (Mon) 22:38:42 19ca20 No. 5195
>>5186 So, are you admitting that you can't objectively prove what film is more violent? Or is this another rant about how you could in theory but refuse to do so in practice? In your fit of rage you've written quite the essay, but still refuse to answer my question. Why not just answer it?
What film is more violent A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) or Friday the 13th (1980)?
So, I made an after thought post. So, what? You do it too, even more so than me.
>>5187 Straw man
I'm not a postmodernist, but I am a skeptic. If you were one too, you wouldn't be so desperate to prove me wrong just because I piss you off. You'd be listening to what I'm saying more, and trying to understand the message I'm trying to convey.
>>5193 Nope, that's not the problem.
Anonymous 03/23/15 (Mon) 22:57:17 b153af No. 5201
>>5195 >So, are you admitting that you can't objectively prove what film is more violent? Holy shit, actually read what I wrote.
What will the practice actually do? Either we find one movie has a greater degree of violence according to these objective measures (just like the objective measures in poverty, actually more objective for reasons mentioned earlier) than another or we find they're relatively hard to distinguish aside from aesthetics and quality. Why do I need to do this? Honestly what will this prove? That we can count instances between two groups and see the relation? Are you seriously saying we can't count the number of times people are killed in a movie and compare that? Are you fucking kidding me?
Where I describe in detail the thinking behind it. You're just an idiot and it's frustrating trying to get you to understand.
I am you fucking tard, you just have an IQ half of a peanut and don't understand what I'm saying. This is the problem.
HAHAHAHAHA, you say this like pomos are skeptical. Also where is your skepticism to Uganda being more impoverished than Canada? You're selectively critical like a pomo, you only are critical of things that can debunk your poverty is everything narrative. See pomos are critical of Western civilization but they bend over backwards for Islam.
You're the one whose desperate here, you've given no real criticism to what I'm saying. And idiots like you do piss me off.
That's so rich, and you wonder why I get pissed off? Why not read my "essay"?
Are you seriously saying we can't count the number of times people are killed in a movie and compare that?
Are you seriously saying we can't count the number of times people are killed in a movie and compare that?
Are you seriously saying we can't count the number of times people are killed in a movie and compare that?
Are you seriously saying we can't count the number of times people are killed in a movie and compare that?
Are you seriously saying we can't count the number of times people are killed in a movie and compare that?
Are you seriously saying we can't count the number of times people are killed in a movie and compare that?
Anonymous 03/23/15 (Mon) 22:58:56 0cf629 No. 5202
>>5195 the point you are trying to convey is a logical fallacy
see: false analogy
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/False_analogy you are drawing a false comparison between two religions and two slasher flicks with the hidden (and unproven) assumption that the similarities in violence between Christianity and Islam is like that of Slasher movies or that the levels of violence are even comparable
check this I can use your false analogy to prove all sorts of stupid shit
is a brithday part more violent than a concentration camp?
well it's like comparing two slasher flicks, Friday the 13th and Nighmare on Elm street
since we can't say that one is more violent than the other it is unreasonable to conclude that a concentration is less violent than a birthday party.
Thus we should have no aversion to North Korean concentration camps as since they are no different from birthday parties
Anonymous 03/23/15 (Mon) 23:02:43 b153af No. 5204
>>5201 Watch as the faggot invokes Dunning Kruger.
Anonymous 03/24/15 (Tue) 01:16:39 19ca20 No. 5253
>>5201 >I am you fucking tard Ok then, what's the answer? What's your conclusion? Which movie is more violent?
The answer to your question is in your previous sentence here:
>Either we find one movie has a greater degree of violence according to these objective measures than another or we find they're relatively hard to distinguish aside from aesthetics and quality. Yep, we do just that. Now, are the measures you use superior to other measures that demonstrate a different result? How would you prove that one measure is better than the other? This would be easier if you would just answer my question, take a position and analyze the films. I tried to tell you, and you wouldn't listen. So, now I'm trying to show you.
Oh, I understand fully what you are saying.
Nope, I never said that.
Your problem is that in your frustration you fire off in 10 directions, 9 of which are irrelevant and don't address my points or anything that I've said. You need to chill.
>>5202 We've been over this. We're not comparing two religions to two slasher flicks. I'm trying to get him to demonstrate his claim. If he can demonstrate his claim on the films, I will believe him when he says the same can be done for the religions.
Anonymous 03/24/15 (Tue) 01:19:11 0cf629 No. 5254
>>5253 >>5253 >> I'm trying to get him to demonstrate his claim. If he can demonstrate his claim on the films, I will believe him when he says the same can be done for the religions. And thats called an argument by analogy and an argument by analogy falls apart if the analogy is weak
Fuck this board needs lessons in logical fallacies.
Anonymous 03/24/15 (Tue) 01:51:00 19ca20 No. 5255
>>5254 I think it's a fair way to demonstrate his claim. He thinks he can demonstrate both using the similar logic, and that's good enough for me. So, how is that comparison weak? How is it illogical? Sounds logical to me.
Well, you completely misrepresented my argument here:
>>5202 That's a logical fallacy.
Anonymous 03/24/15 (Tue) 02:00:44 0cf629 No. 5258
>>5255 I've explained it multiple ways here
- comparing Christianity to Islam is not like comparing two slasher flicks
- just because it's hard to tell which flick is more violent does not mean we cannot compare two different religions, there might be other reasons it's hard to tell the violence level of two flicks (like they are both very violent and very similar movies)
a false analogy - you are drawing an analogy between violence in two different religions with violence in two films, and you are claiming tha just because it's hard to tell for these two particular films it's hard to tell for two different religions
I've already showed you why the method of logic is unreasonable because it can be used to prove absurd things
I can say we cannot tell the difference in violence between school schootings and school dances because you cannot tell the violence between two movies. I can claim the difference between school shootings and dances are matters of opinion because no one can tell the violence level in movies.
I don't know how many ways to explain it to you so I'm just going to conclude at this point you are irrational
Anonymous 03/24/15 (Tue) 02:07:22 ea3b6b No. 5260
>>5189 This, /pol/ was always right about black people, but they were always wrong about christianity.
Anonymous 03/24/15 (Tue) 03:21:18 19ca20 No. 5263
>>5258 No, the logic isn't "because the relationship X exists between the slasher film, then Y about religions must be true." It's "Demonstrate what you claim you can do with the slasher films on the slashers films, then I believe your similar claim about the religions."
You keep twisting what I've said around.
See:
>you are claiming that just because it's hard to tell for these two particular films it's hard to tell for two different religions That's not what I'm claiming at all. That's not even close.
Anonymous 03/24/15 (Tue) 03:40:23 0cf629 No. 5264
>>5263 >It's "Demonstrate what you claim you can do with the slasher films on the slashers films, then I believe your similar claim about the religions." what about school shootings and school dances
or waterballons and nuclear weapons
do we have to fuck I'll your words because you are such a . . .
Demonstrate what you claim you can do with the slasher films on the slashers films, then I believe your similar claim about school events and projectile weapons?
Anonymous 03/24/15 (Tue) 03:53:40 19ca20 No. 5266
>>5264 >what about school shootings and school dances >or waterballons and nuclear weapons I don't know. What about them? They have nothing to do with any of my points.
Ok, if you can demonstrate your logic pertaining to school events and projectile weapons or whatever with slasher films somehow, then that would be great.
Anonymous 03/24/15 (Tue) 03:58:31 b153af No. 5267
>>5254 >Fuck this board needs lessons in logical fallacies. You said it, bro.
>>5253 I'm not going to bother posting at length anymore since this really cuts into my study time.
So you admit we can measure violence now. Thank you for conceding.
Anyway the results differing says nothing about which was the better measure. For what this is I don't have to correlate it to anything, it's just merely counting violent incidents. It's like asking to see if adding 1 unit of distance every time you pass it to get to the city measures how much you walked. If you want to see how these metrics correlate to other things fine, but correlating the count of violent incidents of A to the number of violent incidents of A will give you r=1.
I'm literally just counting violent incidents. It's that simple. Someone who engaged in 0 violent incidents is less violent than someone who engaged in 1, but be my guest and try to prove 0>1.
If you think we need some way of assessing severity of the injury, well there are ways we can factor that in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injury_Severity_Score http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbreviated_Injury_Scale http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_Capacity_Index Other than this adding subjectivity I have no problem with that, in fact I mentioned it earlier. But we're still counting the number of violent incidents but just evaluating the severity of injury and assigning the corresponding weighting. I'm all for this. And you would've known if you read and understood what I wrote.
Now you know how I feel. It's amazing the mental gymnastics you're pulling.
>>5255 >How is it illogical? Someone beat me to it when they brought up Frozen vs Friday 13th. You knew right away which was more violent. Why? Is it because the amount of scenes depicting violence far outweighed one than the other? But this was inconvenient to you because of the obvious implication, hence why you picked two movies which will probably measure more or less identically thinking that somehow disproves the measure. But them being identical or close to is expected. They're violent films, depicting violent incidents are what the films are about. Now if the measure was to show Frozen as being more violent that would show the measure is bad, be my guest though.
>>5263 >"Demonstrate what you claim you can do with the slasher films on the slashers films, then I believe your similar claim about the religions." There are shorter way to demonstrate the same thing.
Look at these 2 gifs. In one we count 1 instance of violence according to the definition. In the other we count 0 instances of violence. 1>0 So we can concluded based on the measured evidence one depicts violence more than another. There it works.
You don't have to watch 2 whole shitty movies to get the same point across.
Anonymous 03/24/15 (Tue) 04:13:57 b153af No. 5268
Can you spot the gif with violence?
Anonymous 03/24/15 (Tue) 04:20:51 b153af No. 5269
>>5267 >Now if the measure was to show Frozen as being more violent that would show the measure is bad Or maybe it wouldn't show that it's bad but how most humans perceive violence is inaccurate.
Anonymous 03/24/15 (Tue) 04:25:59 b153af No. 5271
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play. >>4560 >Islam's basically going through it's own dark ages. Prove it, protip: you can't.
Anonymous 03/24/15 (Tue) 18:25:00 19ca20 No. 5312
>>5267 >>5268 >Frozen vs Friday 13th We've been through this. Saying Gandhi is less evil than Hitler, doesn't make evil objective.
Ok, if that's the method you want to use. Are you saying Friday the 13th is more violent than A Nightmare on Elm Street? How is that objective?
Anonymous 03/24/15 (Tue) 18:35:39 b153af No. 5313
>>5312 >violence is as subjective as evil vi·o·lence
ˈvī(ə)ləns/
noun
noun: violence
behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
e·vil
ˈēvəl/
adjective
adjective: evil
profoundly immoral and malevolent.
Anonymous 03/24/15 (Tue) 18:52:11 19ca20 No. 5318
>>5313 >violence is not as subjective as other subjective things Ok, but you still didn't answer:
Ok, if that's the method you want to use. Are you saying Friday the 13th is more violent than A Nightmare on Elm Street? How is that objective?
Anonymous 03/24/15 (Tue) 19:15:53 19ca20 No. 5324
>>5322 >All violent incidents are equal Nope.
Anonymous 03/24/15 (Tue) 19:28:19 ea3b6b No. 5326
>>5324 >Implying that under these circumstances they're not
Anonymous 03/24/15 (Tue) 19:45:52 19ca20 No. 5328
>>5326 So, you're saying you saying Friday the 13th is more violent than A Nightmare on Elm Street, just because it has more violent incidents?
Anonymous 03/24/15 (Tue) 20:07:11 ea3b6b No. 5329
>>5328 You just answered your own question.
Anonymous 03/24/15 (Tue) 20:34:41 19ca20 No. 5331
>>5329 I think A Nightmare on Elm Street is more violent. While it has fewer violent incidents the violent incidents are more violent, making it more violent over all. But, that's just my opinion.
Anonymous 03/24/15 (Tue) 20:54:23 19ca20 No. 5334
>>5333 Well, all you're doing now is shit posting, dodging my questions, ignoring my points, and misrepresenting and exaggerating my arguments and position. Seams as though you've backed yourself into a corner, and now your just acting retarded in order to avoid admitting I was right. I looks like this conversation is over.