Australian Politics Forum - Gandalf's version of human rights

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Gandalf's version of human rights
Reply #75 - Jan 27^th, 2014 at 9:01am

freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 10:53pm:

Because it is a stupid point to make. No-one is suggesting this.

Whenever I ask for evidence for your claim that the vast majority of non-Malays in Malaysia oppose Malays introducing hudud apostasy laws on themselves, you describe it as "common sense" that non-muslims would "oppose muslims killing people in the name of islam". You must know that describing it this way without even mentioning the word "apostasy" is misleading and dishonest.

You simply can't bring yourself to say "its common sense that non Malays would oppose Malays introducing execution for apostasy laws on themselves" - because you know it really isn't such a no-brainer, and you would have to acknowledge that some actual evidence is required to support your position.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48834
At my desk.

Re: Gandalf's version of human rights
Reply #76 - Jan 27^th, 2014 at 9:18am

Quote:

Whenever I ask for evidence for your claim that the vast majority of non-Malays in Malaysia oppose Malays introducing hudud apostasy laws on themselves, you describe it as "common sense" that non-muslims would "oppose muslims killing people in the name of islam". You must know that describing it this way without even mentioning the word "apostasy" is misleading and dishonest.

Putting it on a survey and insisting the result tells you about apostasy laws is stupid - just as your attempt to judge support for apostasy laws from a survey that does not mention it is stupid.

It is still killing people in the name of Islam and that is why they would oppose it - not because the question phrases it that way, but because that is what it is. It takes some impressive Islamic mental gymnastics to come up with the idea that non-Muslims would see it as a Muslim's right to kill people in the name of Islam, and expect people to take you seriously.

Quote:

You simply can't bring yourself to say "its common sense that non Malays would oppose Malays introducing execution for apostasy laws on themselves"

It's common sense that non Malays would oppose Malays introducing execution for apostasy laws on themselves.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Gandalf's version of human rights
Reply #77 - Jan 27^th, 2014 at 10:15am

freediver wrote on Jan 27^th, 2014 at 9:18am:

Putting it on a survey and insisting the result tells you about apostasy laws is stupid - just as your attempt to judge support for apostasy laws from a survey that does not mention it is stupid.

They were asked about hudud, and apostasy laws are part of hudud. But we've flogged that dead horse enough times. In any case, is your point about all this that its "common sense" that non-muslims would oppose execution for apostasy, but not chopping off limbs for theft? Doesn't seem very common sense to me.

freediver wrote on Jan 27^th, 2014 at 9:18am:

It's common sense that non Malays would oppose Malays introducing execution for apostasy laws on themselves.

Well congratulations, you really are able to say it.

It is utterly absurd though, to assume this about a group of people in a culture and society you know nothing about. They are not in a westernised liberal demoracy you know.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48834
At my desk.

Re: Gandalf's version of human rights
Reply #78 - Jan 27^th, 2014 at 10:33am

Quote:

They were asked about hudud, and apostasy laws are part of hudud.

Apostasy laws are also part of killing people in the name of Islam. Why does your trick work but not mine? Is this some special Islamic logic you haven't told me about yet?

Quote:

But we've flogged that dead horse enough times.

Apparently not.

Quote:

In any case, is your point about all this that its "common sense" that non-muslims would oppose execution for apostasy, but not chopping off limbs for theft?

The less barbaric the law, the more support it is likely to find, both among Muslims and non-Muslims. The Pew survey demonstrates this for Muslims. I would expect the vast majority of non-Muslims to oppose amputations also, which is why it is still not law, despite an even bigger majority of the Muslim population supporting it. Note that your survey did not actually ask whether respondents support or oppose such laws.

Quote:

Doesn't seem very common sense to me.

That's because Islam requires self-delusion on your part. In order to delude others, you must first delude yourself.

Quote:

It is utterly absurd though, to assume this about a group of people in a culture and society you know nothing about. They are not in a westernised liberal demoracy you know.

Thanks to Islam. Not because of the Chinese. Not because of the Indians. Not because of the Thais. They would be well into the 20th century if not for the Muslims. It is a powerful retrograde influence on the society.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Gandalf's version of human rights
Reply #79 - Jan 27^th, 2014 at 5:18pm

freediver wrote on Jan 27^th, 2014 at 10:33am:

Quote:
They were asked about hudud, and apostasy laws are part of hudud.

Apostasy laws are also part of killing people in the name of Islam. Why does your trick work but not mine?

Really FD? Roll Eyes

Ask someone about "hudud law" and its quite difficult to respond intelligently and not be thinking of apostasy and adultery laws - in fact I think its fair to say that these two aspects would be front and centre in most people's mind when they think of "hudud law".

But ask someone about "killing in the name of islam" then no one can seriously suggest its not a liitle bit more open-ended and non-specific phrase compared to "hudud law". "Killing in the name of islam" could be anything from terrorist acts (most likely) to an islamic state or group launching a jihad war, to finally (and least associated) - implementing islamic capital punishment.

freediver wrote on Jan 27^th, 2014 at 10:33am:

The less barbaric the law, the more support it is likely to find, both among Muslims and non-Muslims.

That depends entirely on what people consider "less barbaric". Some might consider being permanently maimed and disabled for life as being more barbaric than simply being killed off in one stroke. Here's a thought: maybe the higher level of support for maiming for theft as opposed to killing for apostasy has nothing to do with the 'level of barbarity' - but the fact that theft is something that is much closer to people's heart than apostasy (certainly in Malaysia where theft is rampant) - and they feel more strongly about people being severely punished for that than apostasy.

No doubt though FD knows best in the 'blindly assuming what people think" stakes. All I ask is that you don't once again take these musings of mine as *ME* blindly assuming what people think - again.

freediver wrote on Jan 27^th, 2014 at 10:33am:

Thanks to Islam. Not because of the Chinese. Not because of the Indians. Not because of the Thais. They would be well into the 20th century if not for the Muslims. It is a powerful retrograde influence on the society.

Is that you trying to wriggle out of your previously adamant claim that non-muslim Malaysians would most definitely "passionately oppose" hudud apostasy laws for Malays?

Please tell me more about this "retrograde influence on the society" FD. I'm particularly interested in how the attitudes towards (say) hudud law of non-muslims under the this "retrograde influence" (as in the non-muslims in Malaysia) is affected, and how you can maintain so adamantly your position that its "common sense" that such non-muslims would oppose hudud laws so passionately.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48834
At my desk.

Re: Gandalf's version of human rights
Reply #80 - Jan 27^th, 2014 at 10:06pm

Quote:

Ask someone about "hudud law" and its quite difficult to respond intelligently and not be thinking of apostasy and adultery laws - in fact I think its fair to say that these two aspects would be front and centre in most people's mind when they think of "hudud law".

I did not know about it until this discussion, so I don't see why you would expect non-Muslim Malaysians to. According to you, there is no serious debate about it in Malaysia either. If you go by your questionnaire, you would be lead to believe it is about "rampant crime" - ie nothing to do with apostasy or adultery. I have read news articles from Malaysia that are all about the crime angle. Your survey is transparent spin for the gullible and foolish.

Quote:

But ask someone about "killing in the name of islam"

Earth to Gandalf: no-one is suggestiong a survey question be phrased that way.

Quote:

then no one can seriously suggest its not a liitle bit more open-ended and non-specific phrase compared to "hudud law"

It is in English, which is a good start. Take a guess at what response you would get among non-Muslim English speaking people if asked whether they knew the meaning of kill, Islam and hudud law.

Quote:

That depends entirely on what people consider "less barbaric". Some might consider being permanently maimed and disabled for life as being more barbaric than simply being killed off in one stroke.

Not sure what the method is for apostasy, but for adultery it is stoning to death, which is about as bad as it gets. With apostasy, there are far-reaching implications for freedom and human rights, regardless of the method used to kill (in the name of Islam).

Quote:

Here's a thought: maybe the higher level of support for maiming for theft as opposed to killing for apostasy has nothing to do with the 'level of barbarity' - but the fact that theft is something that is much closer to people's heart than apostasy (certainly in Malaysia where theft is rampant) - and they feel more strongly about people being severely punished for that than apostasy.

Perhaps they see one as a crime and one as not a crime.

Quote:

No doubt though FD knows best in the 'blindly assuming what people think" stakes. All I ask is that you don't once again take these musings of mine as *ME* blindly assuming what people think - again.

No problem. It has been a long time since you have been game to hold an opinion in this debate.

Quote:

Is that you trying to wriggle out of your previously adamant claim that non-muslim Malaysians would most definitely "passionately oppose" hudud apostasy laws for Malays?

Quote me.

Quote:

Please tell me more about this "retrograde influence on the society" FD.

Executing apostates. Stoning adulterers to death. Hacking thieves limbs off. Raping little girls. You know how it is. Even you conceded that Islam has it's problems.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Gandalf's version of human rights
Reply #81 - Jan 28^th, 2014 at 7:06am

freediver wrote on Jan 27^th, 2014 at 10:06pm:

I did not know about it until this discussion, so I don't see why you would expect non-Muslim Malaysians to.

You've never heard of it - living in a country that has a 2% muslim population, and likely never interacted with a muslim in the real world in your entire life - and you think people living in a 60% muslim country where daily interactions with muslims is literally unavoidlable - will be as ignorant about islam as you?

freediver wrote on Jan 27^th, 2014 at 10:06pm:

Quote:
Is that you trying to wriggle out of your previously adamant claim that non-muslim Malaysians would most definitely "passionately oppose" hudud apostasy laws for Malays?

Quote me.

So you aren't adamant most non-Muslim Malaysians oppose the law? Grin

You'll have to explain that one to me.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48834
At my desk.

Re: Gandalf's version of human rights
Reply #82 - Jan 29^th, 2014 at 7:55pm

Quote:

You've never heard of it - living in a country that has a 2% muslim population, and likely never interacted with a muslim in the real world in your entire life - and you think people living in a 60% muslim country where daily interactions with muslims is literally unavoidlable - will be as ignorant about islam as you?

I have actually read Malaysian news articles insisting that the first step should be to educate people what hudud laws actually are. Furthermore, you are the one who insisted that there is no serious debate about them and they are not even on the radar. But the point is, your survey deliberately steered people's thoughts away from executing apostates, stoning adulterers to death, or even whether they support any of the hudud laws. It is stransparent spin for the gullible and foolish. It did not ask respondent's open-ended questions about hudud law. It asked them specific, limited questions that are clearly only relevent to one aspect of hudud law and not to either of the to laws we were actually discussing.

I interact with a few Muslims in real life, but I am hardly going to discover the meaning of hudud law from those interactions. Likewise, even though you have been to Malaysia and interacted with Muslims there, you never asked them their opinion about executing apostates or stoning adulterers to death. You assumed you knew what they thought, but you were dead wrong, and your dodgy survey is your last grasping attempting to cling to your self delusions.

Quote:

So you aren't adamant most non-Muslim Malaysians oppose the law? Grin You'll have to explain that one to me.

I have, over and over again. You seem oblivious to it. I should not have to explain what I said, over and over again, because you cannot bring yourself to quote what I actually said.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Gandalf's version of human rights
Reply #83 - Jan 30^th, 2014 at 7:57am

freediver wrote on Jan 29^th, 2014 at 7:55pm:

You assumed you knew what they thought, but you were dead wrong

Actually I never assumed - continually trying to explain this to you is an exercise in futility.

But you are right, its possible they weren't thinking about apostasy and stoning, but that was never the point.

My only point has ever been that you have no basis to assume that the majority of non-Malays (non-muslims) oppose the implementation of these laws on Malays. But since you now seem to be denying this, there's not much else I can say.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48834
At my desk.

Re: Gandalf's version of human rights
Reply #84 - Jan 30^th, 2014 at 9:56pm

Quote:

Actually I never assumed - continually trying to explain this to you is an exercise in futility.

So you know for a fact that these Muslims would suddenly come to their sense if actually given the opportunity to pass these laws? You know for a fact that it will never happen in Malaysia? You know for a fact that they only support it because it is somehow not real?

Quote:

But you are right, its possible they weren't thinking about apostasy and stoning, but that was never the point.

Yes it was. You argued long and hard that you can tell what they think about apostasy and stoning from a survey that went to unusual lengths to avoid mentioning it.

Quote:

My only point has ever been that you have no basis to assume that the majority of non-Malays (non-muslims) oppose the implementation of these laws on Malays.

Yes I have. They are human. We have been over this. It takes great effort to overcome something so intrinsic to people's humanity. Something like Islam. This is not natural in any way. Rather, you are projecting Islam's barbarity onto other groups, because you cannot accept that Islam really is the cause of it.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Gandalf's version of human rights
Reply #85 - Jan 31^st, 2014 at 7:37am

freediver wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 9:56pm:

So you know for a fact that these Muslims would suddenly come to their sense if actually given the opportunity to pass these laws

lol *NO!*. When is it going to sink through FD? - I'm not the one making *ANY* hard and fast assumptions about what anyone thinks. Thats you remember?

freediver wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 9:56pm:

Quote:
My only point has ever been that you have no basis to assume that the majority of non-Malays (non-muslims) oppose the implementation of these laws on Malays.

Yes I have. They are human. We have been over this.

Ah yes, "honest guesses" and "deferring to common sense", how could I forget Roll Eyes

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48834
At my desk.

Re: Gandalf's version of human rights
Reply #86 - Jan 31^st, 2014 at 8:06pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 31^st, 2014 at 7:37am:

freediver wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 9:56pm:

So you know for a fact that these Muslims would suddenly come to their sense if actually given the opportunity to pass these laws

lol *NO!*. When is it going to sink through FD? - I'm not the one making *ANY* hard and fast assumptions about what anyone thinks. Thats you remember?

So I was imagining these posts?

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 10:11am:

What you refuse to contemplate is that in both cases, we are talking about an abstract principle, that is as far away from the reality of the individual's day-to-day life as can be: Malaysians don't, and never will, have the opportunity to partake in a stoning and witness the full horrors of what happens, and nor will an average American ever partake in a drone strike in which they must witness women and children getting killed, maimed and/or psychologically traumatised for the rest of their lives.

Quote:

Like I said, to them stoning is just an abstract principle that is as far away from their reality as you can get. Ask them an inconsequential question about a principle that they know they will never see in real life, they'll answer 'yes' - but actually put a stone in their hands and say "beat that adulterer to death", and they will undoubtedly reel in horror.

Quote:

When it never has and never will happen in the society they live in - of course it is. Should I expect a new thread to be started about this

Quote:

I suspect because the responders are completely detached from their own personal reality when answering such questions. Asking "should adulterers be stoned" to a person who has never known the practice, and who is acutely aware that the practice will never be implemented in his society is obviously completely different to dragging an actual adulterer up to the same person and asking them to condemn them to death via stoning.

Why is it completely different Gandalf, particularly in a country where one state has already passed a law to execute apostates, and where, nationally, the majority of muslims support such a law?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Gandalf's version of human rights
Reply #87 - Jan 31^st, 2014 at 9:59pm

freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2014 at 8:06pm:

So I was imagining these posts?

You imagined that those posts was me making blind assumptions about what people think - yes.

freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2014 at 8:06pm:

Why is it completely different Gandalf, particularly in a country where one state has already passed a law to execute apostates

Take a wild guess and tell me how many people you think will ever be stoned under this law?

I promise you, no one will ever be stoned legally in Malaysia - ever. So yeah, having a law on the books that will never be implemented is vastly different to asking someone to condemn an actual person to death by stoning.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48834
At my desk.

Re: Gandalf's version of human rights
Reply #88 - Jan 31^st, 2014 at 10:42pm

Quote:

You imagined that those posts was me making blind assumptions about what people think - yes.

True. They do not actually think that. In reality, they support executing apostates and stoning adulterers to death. Your assumption regarded what they were going to think. You assumed - blindly, that they would change their mind, and your explanations for this assumption have been shown to be completely false.

Quote:

Take a wild guess and tell me how many people you think will ever be stoned under this law?

Not many. Hopefully none. It is still a pretty messed up law, and a messed up thing to believe.

Quote:

I promise you, no one will ever be stoned legally in Malaysia - ever.

Because non-Muslims hold the democratic balance of power.

Quote:

So yeah, having a law on the books that will never be implemented is vastly different to asking someone to condemn an actual person to death by stoning.

The law was for apostasy. It was rejected federally on constitutional grounds. My point was merely to disprove your claim that this is an abstract thing for Malaysians they they do not debate seriously and are unfamiliar with. In reality, they came very close to having the death penalty for apostasy. In reality, the majority of Muslims support it and will vote for it if given the chance. In reality, it is the non-Muslim balance of power that prevents this from happening, rather than your ludicrous suggestion that it is lack of willpower or intent on behalf of the majority of Muslims who support it. That is all - I am just trying to get you to acknowledge the reality, rather than merely trying to deny you ever had an opinion on the issue.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Gandalf's version of human rights
Reply #89 - Feb 1^st, 2014 at 12:08am

freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2014 at 10:42pm:

Your assumption regarded what they were going to think.

I assumed nothing. Clearly its not getting through is it?

freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2014 at 10:42pm:

My point was merely to disprove your claim that this is an abstract thing for Malaysians they they do not debate seriously and are unfamiliar with.

PAS state legislators in Terrenganu and Kelantan passed the laws by stealth 20 years ago, knowing full well that the federal would never allow it to be implemented. Voters in those two states never got to vote on it, and I'm guessing the vast majority of people there don't even know they have these laws on the books. Until someone is actually executed for apostasy (which will be never), it is absolutely still an abstract thing for Malaysians.

freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2014 at 10:42pm:

In reality, the majority of Muslims support it and will vote for it if given the chance. In reality, it is the non-Muslim balance of power that prevents this from happening, rather than your ludicrous suggestion that it is lack of willpower or intent on behalf of the majority of Muslims who support it.

Pure conjecture. That is the reality you need to acknowledge.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged