L: Give me a break, David. Any position I take on the subject is necessarily the product of being â€œvery, very attachedâ€ to Islam (if not being outrightly unconscious because I am a woman) and the reverse cannot be said of Kevin with respect to his position here? On what grounds do you make this statement, exactly?
D: The tone of your posts becomes very different whenever the subject of Islam is brought up. You seem to get very defensive and your interactions with others starts getting a bit nasty.
I think thatâ€™s an illusion caused by your own attachment. What actually happens is: 1) the tone of my posts is exactly the same whenever I see anything I think is completely stupid, itâ€˜s just that you only object when it involves Kevin. I think there are a few people here who can testify to that (witness Steven Coyle, Unidian, Tumbleman, Jamesh, Cory, Ryan, Nick, etc.; and not even on the subject of Islam--although, under your particular system of logic, you could make it all about Islam). In fact, come to think of it, it would probably be easier to isolate those with whom my interactions have never been â€œa bit nastyâ€--and, no Kelly, I was never joking). And, 2) this is probably the only issue regarding which I consider Kevinâ€™s â€œifsâ€ to be particularly stupid. Of course, every now and then I object to his Woman commentaries, as I have with Sue, yourself and others (must be because of Islam), but I find this issue to be most fraught with stupidity.
By contrast, Kevin's approach remains the same, as always.
So? What does that have to do with Islam, David?
I don't see anything controversial in Kevin saying that Muslim fundamentalists are likely to be the ones who trigger off a nuclear war.
No, thereâ€™s nothing controversial about it. Quite a mediocre statement, really. Doesnâ€™t take any courage at all and is just plain meaningless. But, the question was not whether or not it was controversial! Does wisdom lack controversy?
They are clearly more militant, more organized, and more enamoured with martydom than nearly everyone else.
[laughs] Reeeally???? Whereâ€™s your evidence. You think the West is less militant (even though stationed on almost every flippen country on the planet) and less organised (wow!) and less enamoured with martyrdom? What the hell is ANZAC day all about, then, if you donâ€˜t exclude dying for a noble cause from the definition of â€œmartyrdomâ€? Would you not die for wisdom, David Quinn?
And nuclear weapons are becoming more accessible.
Andâ€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦? That must be because of Islam, I reckon.
So again, I don't see what your problem is.
Take the beam out of your eye.
I can only put it down to some unresolved issues that you might have in your relationship with Islam.
Well, if nothing else makes sense then I guess it must be true.
You do come from a Turkish background, don't you?
Yes. 100% Muslim blood. Your point being?
K: If it's true, and if it is important to draw attention to the most obvious (in terms of mass physical violence) symptoms of dogmatism and mindlessness, then I don't see how it is not wise to speak of Islam in this context.
Thatâ€™s a pretty big â€œif,â€ Kevin.
L: I note that you said it seems more likely that nuclear catastrophe will come from Islam
K: Yes, for the foreseeable future at least.
You mean, for at least the future you can see. I see no wisdom in your statement. Not when you first said it, and not now.
K: I explained that Islam is only the symptom of a more systemic disease. It is, however, one of the more obvious and ugly symptoms.
Are you aware, Kevin, that Pakistan is predominantly Muslim? Something like 95%. And they have had nuclear weapons since the seventies. So, how do you factor this into the more obvious and ugly symptoms of disease?
So it certainly doesn't have inherent existence.
Thankfully. Otherwise there is the possibility you might have been right.
Once we recognize the symptoms for what they are, and own them, then we can be serious about tackling the causes of the disease.
Exactly. Right now, all your foreseeable future consists of are symptoms and not causes.
Thanks, Elizabeth! But I think I prefer to speak for myself, as and when I deem appropriate.
Dan, I can always count on you to catch theâ€¦.subtleties
D: Both Elizabeth and Leyla are playing the victim card, which is part of the feminine disease that Kevin correctly talks about.
Um, well--not unless the victim is wisdom, surelyâ€¦
I see NO wisdom!
Kelly: Kevin's approach portrays matters in terms of how much wisdom they reveal.
Whereas Dan's says that those involved aren't interested in wisdom, so to represent people accurately, one must ....... ?
It hardly takes much effort to substantiate an idea in this manner: â€œIf it's true
, and if it is important to draw attention to the most obvious (in terms of mass physical violence) symptoms of dogmatism and mindlessness, then I don't see how it is not wise to speak of predominantly Christian nations in this context.
So, where's the truth that makes it true and, therefore, wise?