[Europe] Lorry rams into Berlin market

[HMS Vanguard]

...

Well?

If it's not already obvious, there's no possibility of agreement between us.

[Vassenor]

Well?

If it's not already obvious, there's no possibility of agreement between us.

If it's obvious, it shouldn't be hard for you to explain it.

[Wallenburg]

Well?

If it's not already obvious, there's no possibility of agreement between us.

"I don't have evidence to back up my assertions, so I'll just refuse to support them!"

[HMS Vanguard]

If it's not already obvious, there's no possibility of agreement between us.

"I don't have evidence to back up my assertions, so I'll just refuse to support them!"

It's a question of values, so not amenable to evidence. If you look at Raqqa and think, "these men are doing God's work", and at small town America and think, "how boring and decadent" I cannot persuade you. But I do know strongly what sort of society I prefer, what sort of society I think can advance human culture, what sort of society I think ennobles man. Others disagree.

[Aelex]

"I don't have evidence to back up my assertions, so I'll just refuse to support them!"

Do you really need "evidences" of the fact that whites made the U.S of A what it is today?

[Minzerland II]

The Dark Ages had hardly anything to do with technological depravity, rather with the loss of knowledge after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, which the Muslim World, may I remind you, lost too; the Muslim World wasn't, at least greatly, more advanced than Europe in many things besides medicine, mathematics and science: Europe wasn't a backwater by any means.

I'll admit that the Muslim World was more advanced in medicine than Europe, however, they took and integrated much from the West and Eastern Roman Empires, and Greeks. The Muslim World was equal in almost all.

I don't see how this changes anything. No-one claims the west did descend into "technological depravity" or to Madimvs Maximvs.

'Dark Ages' implies a lot of 'backwater' nonsense, including 'technological depravity'. Also, Severan did claim that.

The driving point was that the west was behind in medicine, and lost a lot of its knowledge during this period - knowledge preserved by Arab scholars.
No-one is claiming the Arab world was oh so much better than the west.

It was heavily implied.

The sole point is, the west lost its knowledge and didn't do a lot of reclaiming it, while the Arab world preserved it in their libraries; and eventually, we were able to restore this knowledge by adapting these libraries back to western languages.

Not that medicine moved especially forwards once we did.

That's the point Severan was making:

Or just not have Muslims. There are massive downsides of your plan for the government to outlaw political speech across the spectrum, establish an intrusive surveillance state, and kick down peoples' doors in the middle of the night, and even then often fail to stop attacks. What is the down side of not having Muslims?

Knowledge? In the Dark Age of Europe, the Muslims are the one who kept the tab on technology and knowledge, while church had to imposed restrictions in innovations simply because of the reasons of powers. Without us, you'll be not advanced in any way.

That the Muslim World was better than the West.

[Wallenburg]

"I don't have evidence to back up my assertions, so I'll just refuse to support them!"

It's a question of values, so not amenable to evidence. If you look at Raqqa and think, "these men are doing God's work", and at small town America and think, "how boring and decadent" I cannot persuade you. But I do know strongly what sort of society I prefer, what sort of society I think can advance human culture, what sort of society I think ennobles man. Others disagree.

You are under the rather strange impression that I actually believe any of that shit. Also, "Muslims make Europe worse, Whites make America better" is a claim of fact, not a claim of value.

[Imperializt Russia]

That's not what is stated.

What was stated was that Europe would have stagnated where it was. Whether you believe that is true or not is your own belief, but you're reading interpretations that were not stated.

[Imperializt Russia]

"I don't have evidence to back up my assertions, so I'll just refuse to support them!"

It's a question of values, so not amenable to evidence. If you look at Raqqa and think, "these men are doing God's work", and at small town America and think, "how boring and decadent" I cannot persuade you. But I do know strongly what sort of society I prefer, what sort of society I think can advance human culture, what sort of society I think ennobles man. Others disagree.

If you look at Raqqa and think "wow, Islam as a whole is clearly a monolithic bloc based on the values of the men here and therefore they're all cunts" then you may have a teensy tiny problem with cherrypicking.

[HMS Vanguard]

It's a question of values, so not amenable to evidence. If you look at Raqqa and think, "these men are doing God's work", and at small town America and think, "how boring and decadent" I cannot persuade you. But I do know strongly what sort of society I prefer, what sort of society I think can advance human culture, what sort of society I think ennobles man. Others disagree.

You are under the rather strange impression that I actually believe any of that shit. Also, "Muslims make Europe worse, Whites make America better" is a claim of fact, not a claim of value.

Please objectively define "better".

[HMS Vanguard]

It's a question of values, so not amenable to evidence. If you look at Raqqa and think, "these men are doing God's work", and at small town America and think, "how boring and decadent" I cannot persuade you. But I do know strongly what sort of society I prefer, what sort of society I think can advance human culture, what sort of society I think ennobles man. Others disagree.

If you look at Raqqa and think "wow, Islam as a whole is clearly a monolithic bloc based on the values of the men here and therefore they're all cunts" then you may have a teensy tiny problem with cherrypicking.

Would be a fair point of looking at the rest of the Islamic world radically improved the assessment, but it doesn't.

[Ifreann]

Isn't there an Islam thread where Vanguard's shit might be on-topic?

[Itoshiki]

If you look at Raqqa and think "wow, Islam as a whole is clearly a monolithic bloc based on the values of the men here and therefore they're all cunts" then you may have a teensy tiny problem with cherrypicking.

Would be a fair point of looking at the rest of the Islamic world radically improved the assessment, but it doesn't.

Radical Islam has a tendency to thrive because of its memetic attraction. It appeals several people more than the perceived low-energy moderate Islam, it revels in self-fulfilling cycle of violence, discrimination, and persecution complex by common tribalist association (hence associated with the Prophet's hadith: the Ummah is like a body, if a single part is harmed the others feel the harm also) and dehumanization of the other. It's characteristic of the romanticist, mob-driven ideologies of horseshoe's ends. So while radical Islam by no means constitute a majority, when it sticks (supported by plenty other causes too, religious or otherwise) it stands out over the others and keeps sticking.

[Herargon]

Because, Murica!

The world doesn't revolve around the US

Agreed. The world revolves around its axis.

Isn't there an Islam thread where Vanguard's shit might be on-topic?

Eh, the Vanguardians no longer exist since like 1453..

[HMS Vanguard]

Would be a fair point of looking at the rest of the Islamic world radically improved the assessment, but it doesn't.

Radical Islam has a tendency to thrive because of its memetic attraction. It appeals several people more than the perceived low-energy moderate Islam, it revels in self-fulfilling cycle of violence, discrimination, and persecution complex by common tribalist association (hence associated with the Prophet's hadith: the Ummah is like a body, if a single part is harmed the others feel the harm also) and dehumanization of the other. It's characteristic of the romanticist, mob-driven ideologies of horseshoe's ends. So while radical Islam by no means constitute a majority, when it sticks (supported by plenty other causes too, religious or otherwise) it stands out over the others and keeps sticking.

Radical Islam is really just Islam. Radical Muslims are Muslims who do what the Quran clearly and plainly states, rather than ignoring the Quran because doing that is not convenient to their personal lives.

You can never get rid of Radical islam without getting rid of Islam.

[Itoshiki]

Radical Islam has a tendency to thrive because of its memetic attraction. It appeals several people more than the perceived low-energy moderate Islam, it revels in self-fulfilling cycle of violence, discrimination, and persecution complex by common tribalist association (hence associated with the Prophet's hadith: the Ummah is like a body, if a single part is harmed the others feel the harm also) and dehumanization of the other. It's characteristic of the romanticist, mob-driven ideologies of horseshoe's ends. So while radical Islam by no means constitute a majority, when it sticks (supported by plenty other causes too, religious or otherwise) it stands out over the others and keeps sticking.

Radical Islam is really just Islam. Radical Muslims are Muslims who do what the Quran clearly and plainly states, rather than ignoring the Quran because doing that is not convenient to their personal lives.

You can never get rid of Radical islam without getting rid of Islam.

The Qur'an tells to do many things. It's not a very consistent book. Add that with the Sunnah and there you go.

And getting rid of Islam is impossible, at least by active, violent attempts.

[Imperializt Russia]

Radical Islam has a tendency to thrive because of its memetic attraction. It appeals several people more than the perceived low-energy moderate Islam, it revels in self-fulfilling cycle of violence, discrimination, and persecution complex by common tribalist association (hence associated with the Prophet's hadith: the Ummah is like a body, if a single part is harmed the others feel the harm also) and dehumanization of the other. It's characteristic of the romanticist, mob-driven ideologies of horseshoe's ends. So while radical Islam by no means constitute a majority, when it sticks (supported by plenty other causes too, religious or otherwise) it stands out over the others and keeps sticking.

Radical Islam is really just Islam. Radical Muslims are Muslims who do what the Quran clearly and plainly states, rather than ignoring the Quran because doing that is not convenient to their personal lives.

You can never get rid of Radical islam without getting rid of Islam.

The exact same argument is true of Christianity.

[HMS Vanguard]

Radical Islam is really just Islam. Radical Muslims are Muslims who do what the Quran clearly and plainly states, rather than ignoring the Quran because doing that is not convenient to their personal lives.

You can never get rid of Radical islam without getting rid of Islam.

The Qur'an tells to do many things. It's not a very consistent book. Add that with the Sunnah and there you go.

And getting rid of Islam is impossible, at least by active, violent attempts.

Islam is actually very clear and consistent; it's not Christianity.

[HMS Vanguard]

Radical Islam is really just Islam. Radical Muslims are Muslims who do what the Quran clearly and plainly states, rather than ignoring the Quran because doing that is not convenient to their personal lives.

You can never get rid of Radical islam without getting rid of Islam.

The exact same argument is true of Christianity.

I am not a Christian, and don't want the state to be Christian, and would be just fine if Christianity died. So this is off-topic, just a poke in the eye to a religious group that has nothing whatever to do with the debate.

But as a point of fact, this comparison is wrong. Christianity says submit to worldly authority even if that authority isn't Christian, and don't try to make it Christian. At most Christianity commands disobedience to wrongful authority, defined as submitting to its punishments without resistance. Christianity doesn't command its followers to create a world Christian theocracy.

[Itoshiki]

The Qur'an tells to do many things. It's not a very consistent book. Add that with the Sunnah and there you go.

And getting rid of Islam is impossible, at least by active, violent attempts.

Islam is actually very clear and consistent; it's not Christianity.

No, it isn't. Hence why an entire tradition of interpretations and judgments are built around it. Following "pure, 10/10 exactly as told" Islam is impossible, and you'll find that it's not in the interest of most Muslims to do so, however much they pretend they do. Not that they can fully agree on it anyway.

Getting rid of Islam entirely would also be impossible, I might add, unless one wants to reduce it into European (northern) Christianity today: toothless, tolerant, existing in spite of the civilization.

[Vassenor]

The Qur'an tells to do many things. It's not a very consistent book. Add that with the Sunnah and there you go.

And getting rid of Islam is impossible, at least by active, violent attempts.

Islam is actually very clear and consistent; it's not Christianity.

So what you're saying is that whenever the Islamic community does what you ask and condemns the latest incident, they're all heretics?

[Mefpan]

Radical Islam is really just Islam. Radical Muslims are Muslims who do what the Quran clearly and plainly states, rather than ignoring the Quran because doing that is not convenient to their personal lives.

You can never get rid of Radical islam without getting rid of Islam.

The exact same argument is true of Christianity.

Not really. I'm sick of pretending that Christianity in its current state is just as bad as Islam in its current state.

The power of the church has been curtailed, the Pope is promoting tolerance and peace instead of the killing of heretics and sinners. Crusaderboos are a fucking internet novelty and will die off soon enough, the "worst" that really religious Christians these days do on average is screaming in impotent outrage about how LGBTs shouldn't be allowed to marry, but many would actually be appalled by the idea of actually going to murder them for daring to have a thing for the same sex.

Maybe you could make the case that Christianity in areas like Central Africa is fucking scary. But in the contemporary West, where most of the people posting here live? Fuck, no. When was the last time an Inquisitor kicked down your door for heresy? When was the last time your sister was burned at the stake for witchcraft? When was the last time your brother was put to the sword for daring to lay with another man?

The current Christianity is a declawed tiger, and its adherents far removed from the zeal you find in the Christians of previous centuries, or in the often Islamic migrants that began flooding here in recent years.

[Itoshiki]

The exact same argument is true of Christianity.

Not really. I'm sick of pretending that Christianity in its current state is just as bad as Islam in its current state.

The power of the church has been curtailed, the Pope is promoting tolerance and peace instead of the killing of heretics and sinners. Crusaderboos are a fucking internet novelty and will die off soon enough, the "worst" that really religious Christians these days do on average is screaming in impotent outrage about how LGBTs shouldn't be allowed to marry, but many would actually be appalled by the idea of actually going to murder them for daring to have a thing for the same sex.

Maybe you could make the case that Christianity in areas like Central Africa is fucking scary. But in the contemporary West, where most of the people posting here live? Fuck, no. When was the last time an Inquisitor kicked down your door for heresy? When was the last time your sister was burned at the stake for witchcraft? When was the last time your brother was put to the sword for daring to lay with another man?

The current Christianity is a declawed tiger, and its adherents far removed from the zeal you find in the Christians of previous centuries, or in the often Islamic migrants that began flooding here in recent years.

Hence why I prefer to declaw Islam and avoid policies that may lead to the sharpening of its purist strains.

[HMS Vanguard]

Islam is actually very clear and consistent; it's not Christianity.

No, it isn't. Hence why an entire tradition of interpretations and judgments are built around it. Following "pure, 10/10 exactly as told" Islam is impossible, and you'll find that it's not in the interest of most Muslims to do so, however much they pretend they do. Not that they can fully agree on it anyway.

Maybe but that is equivocation. What school of Islam rejects the legitimacy and desirability of a Caliphate in principle? What school puts secular law of Westphalian states ahead of Shariah in principle? The differences between schools are about points tangential to this discussion, for the most part points only of any interest to Muslims.

Getting rid of Islam entirely would also be impossible, I might add, unless one wants to reduce it into European (northern) Christianity today: toothless, tolerant, existing in spite of the civilization.

I don't think that is true although it may be very expensive. Simply removing Islam from Europe and the USA would be pretty easy.

[HMS Vanguard]

Islam is actually very clear and consistent; it's not Christianity.

So what you're saying is that whenever the Islamic community does what you ask and condemns the latest incident, they're all heretics?

There is no "Islamic community" to condemn anything; it's not the Catholic Church.

When most Muslims they condemn terrorist attacks they do not deny the justification in principle of using violence to establish a caliphate, and those who do are heretics or more likely apostates.