Ranting to /dev/null

HA! are you saying we are at war with the islamic nation? thats really absurd, for one I think more people need to forget about the stupid bullshit that dead people did thousands of years ago. We live in a different time and ideas have changed. War is an outdated idea and americans should not lower themselves to the level of idiots who want to declare religous wars. 9-11 wasn't about islam really it was about crazy zealots that happened to be islamic. Thats just my two cents though.

I don't know exactly where you're getting whatever it is your sniffing, but it must be some pretty good shit.

War an "outdated idea"? Where the hell do you get that? What, exactly, is "outdated" about the "idea" of war? What possible standard could you be using to come up with a silly idea like that?

There is no Islamic nation. There hasn't been for a few centuries. There is, however, a broader Islamic community and civlization, with which we have never really stopped being at war. And how on earth can you support the idea that 9/11 had nothing to do Islam? Haven't you been paying attention? Don't you read the things they write? I mean come on, there are several hundred million people that refer to America as "The Great Satan". What, do you think they're kidding or something? Mullahs have been calling for the destruction of America for decades. Does that somehow not count or something? Please, oh evolved one, tell me exactly how the existence of a massive group of people, more or less unified in their religious convictions, dedicated to the idea that America is evil, and seeking the conversion of America and Europe to Islam does not constitute a religious war? It doesn't matter that America and Europe aren't particularly religous anymore, it only matters that they want us dead.

You may be all "enlightened" and shit, but it doesn't really matter whether or not you and I think we are at war. Neither does it matter whether or not you and I think the nature of the war is religious, because they do.

Your perspective is exactly the kind of naive, narrow-visioned irresponsibility that's costing us right now. Those "dead people thousands of years ago" set up the world you live in, and like it or not, the things they did affect you today. You want to know why France is not, contrary to their recent behavior, an Islamic country? Because in 732 a man named Charles led the French army to victory over the Moors about a hundred miles from Paris. You want to know why Austria isn't an Islamic nation today? Because in 1683, an Polish king named Jan Sobieski led a cavalry charge down a hill and routed the Turks. Without these two little events that took only a few hours time, the world we live in would be drastically different. The Moors and Turks would likely have conquered most of Europe. America wouldn't even exist. Just because you've forgotten where you came from doesn't mean that I should or that the Islamic world has.

Ah yes, Ryan. Good show. Very good show.

I really appreciated this post.

Oh trust me I know that there are plenty of islamic zealots out there but if you think the entire islamic community thinks that way you obviously know nothing. We live in new times, a time when rational thought has finally become stronger than the silly ideas of religions. I enjoy history and know there is much to be learned from it but I will never take the advice of old world ideals. Sure mabey (lats say in therory) Muslims want to destroy us all but its because they are un-educated and brainwashed, I will not live in nation that sinks to the same low and hates them for the same reason they hate us, stupidity.

P.S. - I'm not calling you stupid you seem quite smart I am simply defending my comment

Rational thought? Um, yeah. You're drinking too deeply from the well of Enlightenment rationalism. It's bunk. There is no intellectual "progress" of mankind. We're exactly the same as we were two thousand years ago. The only difference is that we're richer, and that some sections of the world are still reaping the risidual benefits of a few centuries if unified Christian culture. That's rapidly fading, and there are plenty of places in the world whose standard of living is only marginally better than it was in 500BC.

It's pretty clear that you've got some pretty hard assumptions about education and rationalism and the effects those things have on culture. I entirely reject your assumptions. Rationalism is just as likely to produce totalitarianism as it is to produce liberty. Both Stalinism and Maoism are/were self-consciously rationalistic and scientific. Education is also no protection: the vast majority of the September 11 hijackers were well educated. Most of the radical Islamists are as well, and many are actually educated in the West. We aren't talking about starving peasants. They're actually the least likely to be interested in us, because they've got to spend so much time trying to keep from starving to death. No, we're talking about engineers, physicians, lawyers, and teachers, well-educated and fairly well-to-do individuals, that are leading terror groups. The more educated a devout Muslim gets, the more likely he is to be an extremist.

This too has its roots in history. The well-educated (and not-so-well educated) Muslim remembers that from the 8th to 11th centuries, the Islamic Caliphate was the pinnacle of human civilization. Prosperous, integrated economically, possessed of relatively advanced sanitation and health care, and at the forefront of human knowledge. They also haven't forgotten that around 1400, Europe surpassed them, devalued their currency by flooding the market with precious metal from the New World, and destroyed their primary source of income by sailing around Africa to reach the Orient, avoiding tarrifs and other fees charged by Islamic rulers. We took their place as the center of human civilization, and they want it back.

And don't try and construe my posts as being hateful. I don't hate them. But that doesn't mean that I forget who they are, who I am, and the history that separates us both. Contrary to popular belief, ignoring 1300 years of history is not rational and educated, it's ignorant and blind. I would much rather live in peace than be at war, but that doesn't change the fact that we are and have been at war, like it or not.

PS: I don't think you're stupid either. I just think you're wrong :).

hmmm perhaps your idea of "educated" is different then mine, an educated man would not believe that there are 72 some odd virgins floating around in the sky waiting for him to fly himself into a building.
We do in fact live in a new time whether you like it or not, humanity is advancing, it is a tool of religions to say its not. America has not only set new levels of wealth in the world but also become a breeding spot for new ideas on how humans should react with each other. It would really be a waste to forget all that we have learned.
I have no doubt that I and Muslims are seperated by beliefs but I am also seperated in beliefs by most Christians, Hindus and Budhist. Am I to begin creating walls? Is that logical? No! its dangerous!

I realize my comments seem to based on the fact that I think relgion is alot of crap, but this is not entirely true, I simple think that religion without rational is very dangerous, this is the problem with both Christian and Islamic zealots. But what kind of rationalism is the right kind? Well the Nazis used rational to create fictional reasons for war, this is incorrect rational. Okay I just realized I'm going down a very long rabbit trail here so I'm just going to stop this now heh.

one last thing, what is your basis for believing that the "Nation of Islam" is unified enough to have a solidified view of the west? Thats probally the most important point to this really.

Ryan, that was simply... great. Just fantastic writing. You know we battle over tone a lot, and we've just finished (I think) a short debate over involvement in partisan discourse, but I couldn't agree more with you about the importance of understanding the religious and historical implications of the battle with Islamic radicals.

My only caveat would be that I'm just optimistic enough to hope for mutual understanding somewhere down the line. But I only think this will happen if we're willing to fight this war on two fronts: looking to persuade and understand, yes, but also being willing at all times to destroy those who seek death and unbridled clerical power.

In this particular conversation, my definition of "educated" involves possessing an advanced degree from a prestigious university in the West, US or Europe. Your definition of "educated" seems to be "being a secular humanist". You're plenty willing to assert that your own particular brand of "rationality" is more correct than anyone else's. That makes you absolutely no different from the religions you dislike, with the sole exception being that you're arbitrarily and relatively less excited about killing the people you disagree with (but not above excluding them from being "rational"). But it's a pretty narrow and, when it comes down to it, imperialistic definition, if you ask me. Hell, at least I've got a reason for thinking you're wrong that I didn't pull out of my own ass.

What is your definition of "advancing"? The creation of additional wealth? Then by all means, humanity is "advancing", because there is more wealth now than there ever has been before. But are we "advancing" in compassion? No. In humility? No. In our care for each other? Umm, no. How about in our ability to set aside our differences and work together for the common good? No. We're richer, sure, but history's greatest accumulation of wealth was accompanied by history's bloodiest century. More people were killed by other people in the 20th century than in most of the rest of history put together. Combine the people killed by Nazi Germany (8 odd million), Stalinist Russia (20-30 million, we aren't exactly sure), Maoist China (tens of millions), and various other Communist despotisms (a million or two worldwide), and even before you count casualties of war, you've already got almost fifty million people. Include war deaths and we're easily over 100 million. That would have been something like 65% of the world's population a few hundred years ago. We haven't learned shit, we just speak more eloquently out of our ignorance.

My basis for believing that the general Islamic community is united in their hatred of the West is found in their own statements. Hamas has recently declared the US an "enemy country" for our support of Israel. Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, mentioned already, is one of the world's leading Islamic jurists, and hold's much influence over wide sections of the Muslim world, is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization considered to be moderate, but still explicitly dedicated to jihad and dying in the service of their Prophet. Then there's Al Jihad, Gama'at Islamiya, and, of course, Al Qaida and the Mujahideen. While these groups share no central organization and are at best tangentally and/or circumstantially related, their opinions and goals are essentially unified.

There never really has been a top-down hierarchical structure to the religion of Islam, as Islam makes no distinction between religion and politics. The fractionalization of the Middle East politically has confused matters organizationally, but the various Islamist groups remain unified in spirit. While there isn't anyone who speaks for all of Islam, and hasn't been for many centuries, all of the major voices speak in concert.

Really no belief system has anymore strength over another but since I don’t care to be a nihilist I base my ideas on life on the best information I have. Its based on rational and what history has taught me. One of the main pillars of my belief system is that it may be changed depending on any new information I may gather. Most religions don’t have this idea. A second pillars of my belief is that they are simply my beliefs created by my own mind for my own enjoyment while I believe my way of thinking is basically correct however I do not have all the information in the universe so they are not complete therefore I would certainly never push them on another individual, most religions seem to have imposed themselves at some point (although I think this because of corrupt followers of religions). This is referring to your efforts to debunk my belief system and call it imperialistic.

Considering your next paragraph whether or not humanity is advancing. I certainly don’t think all of humanity is advancing at the same pace or even at all, but some parts of humanity have advanced extremely in the last two centuries. New philosophies have be introduced, new ways of thinking altogether. You can’t deny it. Only a hundred or so years ago slavery was considered normal and encouraged however new ideas changed this view and slavery has ended. That was a good thing, and it was an advancement. There are plenty of nations who have not advanced but this is because they have not been educated correctly. Also there is parts of the thought process that will never advance I recognize that, but in my opinion I believe rational thinking educated humans have advanced.

Terrorist groups do not speak for the Islam that like saying David Koresh speaks for all Christianity. I’m not denying that there is a strong anti-western feeling in the middle east however its defiantly not nearly as widespread as you seem to believe. I would probably like to list some references and the like however I don’t really feel up to right now, perhaps I will write an entry in my blog about this subject soon.

Okay, here's the thing. If you want to say that the people who "believe that there are 72 some odd virgins" are not "educated", you are undeniably forcing your definition of what constitutes education on someone else. Myself, I don't necessarily have a problem with that, because my belief system affords the ability to say "This is right and you are wrong." Yours, however, does not. Your only appeal is to some concept of "rationality". The terrorist can say - quite convincingly as it turns out - that what he is doing is strikingly rational. The only way you can prove him wrong is to say that his concept of rationality is flawed. You can only do this by privilaging your own concept of rationality. So. If you want to say that rationality determines the things people should believe and the way people should act, you're going to have to either come up with a definition of rationality that everyone can agree with (good luck with that one) or be okay with forcing your own definition of rationality on everyone who doesn't agree with you. Dem's the breaks. Same goes for "education". Frankly, your definition sounds a lot more like "indoctrination" than anything I'm comfortable with.

This is really fun. Here I go getting to use completely leftist arguments to debunk someone, rather than the other way around. Yes, it is true that race-based slavery was nominally abolished in this country about 140 years ago. You want to tell me that it's made a massive difference and that the black community has recovered from a century or so of involuntary servitude? Didn't think so. Slavery is still common practice in many places in the world, especially with young girls in Southeast Asia. More than that, it wasn't new ideas that changed the common consensus on slavery. It was old ones. Really old ones. Christian ones, in fact. It wasn't an advancement. Race-based slavery wasn't an innovation when it started during the Age of Sail, and upon getting rid of it once it was no longer convenient, humanity did not enter a new and better moral plane. Your statement "rational thinking educated humans have advanced" can very easily be construed as "middle-class to rich white men in America" have advanced. People all over the world are dying from starvation while grain rots in Nebraska because it's economically expedient for Americans who, when it comes to economics, get the final say in just about everything. Is this any kind of moral improvement? Not in my book. Neither is the fact that the political spectrum is so completely polarized as to make actual discussion practically impossible. Some advancement there, that's for sure. Gosh, this is fun.

[Look, I'm not trying to suggest that you're being racist. That would be completely inappropriate and totally beside the point. I am trying to suggest that your the way you're using the words "rationality" and "education" effectively exclude most of the people in the world. This, by your own definitions, is not rational or particularly pleasant. Something to think about.]

And you're wrong about terrorist groups not speaking for the Muslim world as a whole. While none of them claim to be official spokesmen as far as I can tell - though they all claim to speak for Allah - they have massive support amongst the population. The Islamic Action Front, an even more radical offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, is the largest political party in Jordan, and has held a majority of the parlimentary seats since the early 1990s. Wahhabism, the most fundamentalist strain of Islam, is the official ideology of Saudi Arabia, a state governed by Shari'a. All over the Middle East, rabidly conservative groups are coming to power, asserting shari'a. These people do not like us very much. Dude: wake up. There are several million people who hate you. And good luck finding examples of Muslim love for the West.

1. I'm not forcing anyone to believe the same as me, I only speak for myself only I think I said that quite clearly. If one wishes to listen that is their choice.
2. I also said that I believe while some members of humanity have improved not all have, but if one part is improved to a greater point then it shows that all humanity may improve. I simply say this to make the point that humans can in fact improve. Now I'm not going to go trying to define improvement because we know that will just lead us all around in circles.

Its kind of silly how you seem to want to keep turning my views around to sounds like I’m some sort of neo-nazi, that’s simply not true and I think you know it.

You seem to think my ideas are based on some sort of nothing. My rationality is based on simply bettering human kind. I think most of us prefer not to burn our hands on the stove so we rationalize to ourselves “I do not wish to burn my hand on the stove, I will not touch the stove” you could continue to build about this idea for pages until you reached a perfect rational for hating war and for forgetting past evils I think that was subject that started this whole debate.

As for slavery that was simply an example of how society has changed yes I realize slavery is still happening, however its is against the Geneva Convention therefore generally considered wrong, a man can not really be considered intelligent in this time and embrace slavery.
You seem to think that by improved I mean more wealthy, you said that black Americans have not fully recovered from years a slavery that’s is true but they are not slaves anymore and that’s improvement. Trust me I know humans have not reached any sort of pinnacle so there are countless improvements that must be made, that most of point! So you basically used my entire point against me which tells me you don’t get the point.

I’m really tired so this is a kind of sloppy comment but I’ll conclude with this.

It's only been 350 years. The war lasted almost three times that. You think that this relatively brief respite is going to solve the problem for good? I don't. One thing the Islamic culture has over the West is that they remember their history. They don't forget. They have had their eye on Europe for more than a thousand years. And nothing has changed. Remember the Madrid bombings? Those who claimed responsibility did so for historical reasons. They said it's settling an old score. Ysuf Al-Qaradawi, one of the world's leading Sunni scholars and hailed as a "moderate" by many, has been officially barred from entry to the United States for his rulings praising suicide bombings. He has publicly called for the deaths of all Americans in Iraq, and is self-consciously seeking the conversion of Europe and America to Islam. This guy is mainstream. You don't even want to think what the fringes are like.

The above paragraph from your original entry is what I really mostly had the problem with. You suggest that Muslims have an advantage over us (western peoples) in the fact that they don’t forget the past and seek revenge for it. That’s not their advantage it’s the entire problem! If you don’t get that then your crazy by any intelligent persons rational.
I probably should have skipped right to that and asked you to explain that paragraph.

Okay, here's the thing. If you want to say that the people who "believe that there are 72 some odd virgins" are not "educated", you are undeniably forcing your definition of what constitutes education on someone else. Myself, I don't necessarily have a problem with that, because my belief system affords the ability to say "This is right and you are wrong." Yours, however, does not. Your only appeal is to some concept of "rationality". The terrorist can say - quite convincingly as it turns out - that what he is doing is strikingly rational. The only way you can prove him wrong is to say that his concept of rationality is flawed. You can only do this by privilaging your own concept of rationality. So. If you want to say that rationality determines the things people should believe and the way people should act, you're going to have to either come up with a definition of rationality that everyone can agree with (good luck with that one) or be okay with forcing your own definition of rationality on everyone who doesn't agree with you. Dem's the breaks. Same goes for "education". Frankly, your definition sounds a lot more like "indoctrination" than anything I'm comfortable with.

Ah okay sorry I just realized what you where saying there. Thats not true because my rationalization is based on history and the betterment of humanity, flying a airplane into building does not better humanity (when stripped of the relgious ideas behind it) for anyone in anyway therefore it doesn't function in my model of what is right.

Look. I understand your objection to my thesis. You think that what they're doing isn't rational and reflects unadvanced - hell, unevolved if you will - behavior. All I'm saying is that you've got a pretty clear definition of rationality and advancement that you must force on them if you want to be able to say that what they did is wrong. Yes, I am using your point against you. The fact that I can shows that you've got a problem. If you speak only for yourself, then you have absolutely no room to say anything about the rationality or education of anyone else.

Your rationalization contains a definition for what constitutes "betterment". It seems to be pretty ill-defined, as you've yet to express it, but it's there. The terrorists disagree with you. They think that the world is a better place after September 11 than before. You think they're wrong. They think you're wrong. If you say they're wrong, then you're excluding them from your definition of rationality, which goes against your definition of rationality. You're stuck. By saying that it "doesn't function in your model of what is right" you are saying that your model is better then theirs. You have no room to do this. Stop it.

Ryan, I appreciate the thought you put into your posts, and the clarity with which they are written, however, two things stand out for me:

1. a bombastic tone
2. a Christian bias

1 would be easily explained by a combination of youth and intelligence. I hope it's more the former than the latter. 2 is tougher to deal with. I agree that brainwashing is pretty severe in radical Islam. Although I am from a Judeo-Christian background, I find the Christian church in it's (mostly historic form, thank goodness) to be only slightly better at limiting atrocities, (crusades, dark ages, colonial slaughter) even in the name of god, than the Islamic religion. Personally I believe that the main reason for this is that Islam is higher technology - it's 632 years newer than Christianity and essentially the latest rev on religion. In practice, at least lately, the Jewish religion turns out to be little more peaceful (despite all the eye for an eye thing) because it's older again. Personally I wonder about the next major religion. Or perhaps Islam is the last gasp of mega-religions.

Snow Crash is an interesting book that touches on these topics.

I personally believe that there is a story-arc for major religions - after about 1200-1600 years, something happens and they go through a very dark phase. I believe that is happening to the Islamic relgion right now. It certainly happened to Christianity.

First of all, welcome. You stumbled upon a rather old post, but no matter.

Second of all, I won't really make much of an apology for either of your items. As to the first, I am both relatively young and self-consciously arrogant. Which may not be a particularly endearing trait, but at least I'm not being sneaky about it. As to the second, I'd be much more concerned if you couldn't detect a Christian bias in my writings. I'm not trying to be unbiased. I view this website as a place for me to rant about what I think.

I've read Snow Crash, though if we're both talking about the Stephenson novel, you lost me on the allusion.