Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Products designed to fail, a documentary

<< < (11/16) > >>

IainB:
Well, then I don't get the quote:
who are eternally obliged by Allah in the Koran to ensure that Islamism is the dominant religion and legal system, and that it is enforced (typically under threat of barbaric punishment or pain of death) in any society/culture where they find themselves

--- End quote ---

I know that Mullahs in many cases pervert parts of the Koran to make such things necessary- but I've never seen any argument that stands up to the light of reason.  In fact, most of the Muslims that I know look down on this perversion of the Koran, which is why I was a bit befuddle about your comments.  In your study of the Koran have you come upon something that I haven't in my admittedly limited exposure to it?
-wraith808 (November 07, 2011, 10:06 AM)
--- End quote ---

I think this is off-topic, though I have tried to bring it back on topic (below). I would suggest we consider getting this and any related religious discussion shifted to its own topic.

In response to your comment:
Yes, exactly so - you probably would not "get the quote" if you were relatively ignorant on the subject.

However, where you say:
I know that Mullahs in many cases pervert parts of the Koran to make such things necessary...
--- End quote ---
- your ignorance would seem to have led you into making a statement that I suspect you would be unable to substantiate at all. It is such a deeply offensive statement as well. We are talking here about very devout Islamic scholars whose faith is unquestionable. They would be committing a crime and a gross blasphemy if they perverted any part of Allah's word, and that - depending on the severity - is something that could even be punishable by death.
No, those Mullahs had better be correct, truthful and accurate in their work, for, otherwise - and especially if they have deliberately perverted Allah's word - they will burn in Hell for eternity after they die.
Islamists are forbidden by Allah to lie, cheat or steal to/from other Islamists. Every good Muslim who has read, understood and learned the Koran knows that Islam draws a clear distinction between two worlds - the world of Islam (Dar al-Islam) and the world of heresy (Dar al-Harb). They are antithetical.
Muslims are all Dar al-Islam, though some Islamic sects - notably Wahabism - are very orthodox and hold that Allah's word (in the Koran) must be followed to the letter. That explains why you will sometime read reports of one Islamic sect killing members of another. For example, the Bahaiists (a Muslim-based sect) are often reported as being variously persecuted and murdered, and having their mosques blown up, by other (e.g., orthodox Wahabist) Muslims. The Bahaiists embrace all other religions and are not at all hegemonic - as opposed to the orthodox Wahabists, who are obliged to push towards Islamic supremacy and a global Caliphate. The Bahaiists produce the Interfaith Explorer that I mentioned above

We are talking about religious belief here, so it is irrational by definition (QED), and therefore we cannot insist that it must make rational sense. If we do so insist, then the usual statement that you might get at this point is along the lines of "Trust in Allah, who is all knowing - whereas we are not." Simply put, that means that you need to believe or "have faith" - and there's always an implicit potential threat in there. It's a very circular argument.

However, a closer study of especially the Koran - and maybe later the Hadith, and Shariah law - will probably reveal to the open-minded reader in search of understanding (as opposed to refutation) that the Islamic religio-political ideology is a precise, self-sustaining and self-regenerating, near-perfect construct. Perfection is of course what one might expect if the construct is Allah's wish and his word.

Once you understand the religion, you can see very clearly that what Islamists do nearly always makes perfect sense - i.e., it is in line and consistent with the Koran, and doing things like cutting off an Infidel's head with a knife is an honourable thing to do, as it emulates the prophet Mohammed (pbuh) who is known to have personally similarly lopped off the heads of over 500 Infidels and enemies of Islam. Emulating the prophet Mohammed (pbuh) in action in your life is regarded as being an incredibly honourable thing to do, and a sure-fire way of getting a ticket to Paradise when you die.

Islamists are so consistent that the most surprising thing to me about 911 was not the act of killing all those people (which was a deliberate and cowardly act of war and a crime), but that the US FAA and the US Defense agencies had not seen it coming.That is, after the evidence of the crash of Egypt Air Flight 990 on Oct. 31, 1999. Thus 911 was predictable, but yet I heard Condoleezza Rice say on a TV show only the other night (The Late Show with David Letterman) that "We didn't suspect that anyone would do this" (OWTTE). I don't believe it.

It seems to me that, as a species, we create religio-political ideologies and then somehow allow ourselves to be enthralled and enslaved by that creation. We want to have "Leaders" but get tyrants of one form or another - e.g., individual tyrants/despots, or bureaucracies.
So we invented the hegemonic Soviet version of Communism/Marxism, and the non-hegemonic Chinese Communism, and our old friend Capitalism. All these are infants in the historical sense. The two most successful religio-political ideologies, and that have stood the test of time, are Christianity (2,000 years old) and Islamism (1,400 years old). Christianity has had its teeth pulled, and anyway is arguably not as perfect a system a Islamism. And  Islamism remains as the one with the potential to blow the others away.

At least with Islamism, effectively stealing from or ripping off people as in Products designed to fail, or lending money at interest (usury) are illegal and may be punishable by death.
So maybe the quick approach to stopping the practice of Planned Obsolescence could be to convert to Islamism and get it over with...oh, but wait...    ;)

wraith808:
your ignorance would seem to have led you into making a statement that I suspect you would be unable to substantiate at all.
-IainB (November 08, 2011, 08:07 AM)
--- End quote ---

One last statement- or rather, two words.  Radical Wahhabism.  And I'll leave it at that, as I do know what I am talking about on that regard, and we will have to agree to disagree.

Stoic Joker:
your ignorance would seem to have led you into making a statement that I suspect you would be unable to substantiate at all.
-IainB (November 08, 2011, 08:07 AM)
--- End quote ---

One last statement- or rather, two words.  Radical Wahhabism.  And I'll leave it at that, as I do know what I am talking about on that regard, and we will have to agree to disagree.-wraith808 (November 08, 2011, 09:30 AM)
--- End quote ---

I don't think IainB meant any offense with that statement, he's just been on a roll here lately with the rules of debate logic thing. I've actually been enjoying the discussing ... Albeit quietly as I've never had the time to read the Koran so haven't anything relevant to add.

Carol Haynes:
None of it is a question of real belief - it is all about power.
-Carol Haynes (November 07, 2011, 09:55 AM)
--- End quote ---

Well, though this is off-topic (and I do try to bring t back, below), I do think it is a very interesting point.

First off, I should say that you make an interesting and potentially valid point, but you diminish it's validity by over-generalisation.
-IainB (November 08, 2011, 05:56 AM)
--- End quote ---

Probably true (I am good at that).

I suppose what I was trying to say is that if you look at political systems around the world (and pretty much religious systems too - another generalisation) there are many individuals who are driven by a true belief in their cause but not all of them become totally intolerant of others. There does however seem to be an inverse relationship between passion and tolerance - the most passionate believe in almost anything usually pushes himself away from reasonable response to someone else's alternative point of view.

What I do believe is a reasonable generalisation is that by the time politics and/or religion become organised tolerance goes out of the window - especially when they start encountering success.

Certainly groups that reach the point where their influence is noticed outside their own circle seem to exhibit tendencies towards intolerance. Unfortunately it seems to be part of the human condition and a variety of xenophobia. It starts in the school playground - if you aren't one of our gang you are wrong and carries on through life with increasing unpleasant sanctions.

To get back to the original topic corporations exhibit exactly the same behaviour and become predatory/aggressive/psychopathic to protect market share - even to the point of screwing their own customers.

The thing I find very odd is that there are so many genuinely caring and considerate people within all of these organisations - it is the herd mentality that takes over and makes groups of people rail against the very things they originally agreed on.

You only have to look at your average political party - lots of people who probably started out wanting to do something useful all voting against their personal ideas and principles because the party they represent has told them to! What they all forget is that the party is supposed to represent them .... instead we get the politics and compromise of power.

I was half-listening to an interesting discussion on the radio today as I drove to a job about how the Church of England (which many consider to be a benign vaccine to - or antidote for - Christianity) needs to keep its inherited wealth so that they can serve the poorest in the community. What they seem to forget is that in early Christianity this didn't involve investing money into clergy, clergy's pensions, building etc. it involved getting out and doing something practical with the poor and needy - whether it is healing the sick, feeding the poor or helping prostitutes to get out of their 'profession'. I am sure the very clergy inhabiting those expensive buildings would actually agree with my characterisation of early Christianity but too many of them spend their entire career on maintaining the infrastructure, fund-raising etc. instead of living in poverty alongside the poor which was presumably part of their original calling!

IainB:
your ignorance would seem to have led you into making a statement that I suspect you would be unable to substantiate at all.
-IainB (November 08, 2011, 08:07 AM)
--- End quote ---
One last statement- or rather, two words.  Radical Wahhabism.  And I'll leave it at that, as I do know what I am talking about on that regard, and we will have to agree to disagree.-wraith808 (November 08, 2011, 09:30 AM)
--- End quote ---

I don't think IainB meant any offense with that statement, he's just been on a roll here lately with the rules of debate logic thing. I've actually been enjoying the discussing ... Albeit quietly as I've never had the time to read the Koran so haven't anything relevant to add.
-Stoic Joker (November 08, 2011, 11:27 AM)
--- End quote ---

In case @Stoic Joker had inferred that I might have been rude/offensive, I would just like to say that I had no intention of so being. I was merely taking at face value the comment about relative ignorance:
I know that Mullahs in many cases pervert parts of the Koran to make such things necessary- but I've never seen any argument that stands up to the light of reason.  In fact, most of the Muslims that I know look down on this perversion of the Koran, which is why I was a bit befuddle about your comments.  In your study of the Koran have you come upon something that I haven't in my admittedly limited exposure to it?
-wraith808 (November 07, 2011, 10:06 AM)
--- End quote ---
There is an admission of ignorance of the thing being discussed. The emboldened bit poses a redundant question which is answered in the same question - i.e., It would be reasonable to suppose that if you admitted to having had only a limited exposure to the Koran, then someone who had studied the thing for 11 years would very likely "have ... come upon something that..." you hadn't. (That's why I did not bother attempting an answer to that Q.)

Then the confirmation of ignorance is tacitly made (no denial), together with a statement:
One last statement- or rather, two words.  Radical Wahhabism.  And I'll leave it at that, as I do know what I am talking about on that regard, and we will have to agree to disagree.-wraith808 (November 08, 2011, 09:30 AM)
--- End quote ---
- so there is a claim to special knowledge that something is a fact, but without proof. So the overall gist of this seems to be a now qualified set of statements:
I am relativey ignorant about the Koran, having had an "admittedly limited exposure to it".
I do know what I am talking about as regards "Mullahs in many cases pervert parts of the Koran to make such things necessary".
I know that Mullahs - "Radical Wahhabists" - in many cases pervert parts of the Koran to make such things [in reference to Allah's directive for Islamic supremacy] necessary.
By implication, I refute the truth of [Allah's directive for Islamic supremacy], despite being ignorant of where this might be detailed in the Koran.
So I hold to my statement (without substantiation) that Mullahs - "Radical Wahhabists" - in many cases pervert parts of the Koran, but am not prepared/able to substantiate it.

--- End quote ---
It would not be correct to call this a good example of a valid argument - for anything, really.
Furthermore it is a smear - i.e., it makes an easy and deliberately unsubstantiated and fundamentally offensive allegation about the Mullahs - one which they are not here to defend themselves from. Regardless of what our opinion might be regarding Islamists, we do not know whether this allegation is true nor, if it is true, then to what extent it is true.

I do not wish to convey here the impression that I am "standing up for" or supporting the spiritual or moral integrity of Islamic Mullahs/Imams generally here, nor for that matter that I would stand up for Roman Catholic priests - it being a matter of record that both these groups at least have a propensity for what the Western laws call pedophilia - i.e., to bugger little boys and/or rape little girls. They also rape mature women. That is reprehensible to me, yet they often seem to be allowed to get away with it with little or no punishment, sometimes especially because it may not directly breach the religious laws (deemed to come from God/Allah) that they uphold as supreme - e.g., what we in the West call "pedophilia" is effectively de rigueur for Muslim men with little girls, as it is a behaviour that emulates the prophet Mohammed (pbuh), who reportedly married Aisha at age 6 or 7. So there's nothing "wrong" with it, d'you see? It's religious custom, innit? Oh, so that's all right then, best beloved.

Some people might say that this sort of thing would make the individual Imam/priest "unfit to perform the role of Imam/priest", but how silly would that statement be?
I mean, it's akin to saying that because you commited some crime - sexual or otherwise - then you are not fit to go around talking about your imaginary friend to anyone who wants to listen and who might actually even believe in the same imaginary friend. Eh? That's surely a non sequitur. Why shouldn't they be free to do this, despite whatever crime they may have commtted? What has one thing got to do with the other?

Fortunately, I think there is no law - not yet in the Western world, at any rate - that prohibits people from walking around or standing on platforms talking about their imaginary friends and myths about these imaginary friends. Even though they are unequivocally being irrational in their belief (QED), psychiatrists do not certify these people as being insane nor keep them locked up in lunatic asylums (though some religious orders effectively save the psychiatrists the trouble by doing that to themselves anyway - i.e., by cloistering themselves in convents or monasteries).

So, whilst we are bellyaching about and discussing the more obscene aspects of Corporations producing products designed to fail, why don't we consider treating, for example, religions, priests, soothsayers and Aboriginal bone-pointing medicine-men all the same - as legal entities (persons) - regardless of whether they are:

* Corporations e.g., including organised/mainstream religions such as the RC Church, the C of E, Islamists, Scientologists, or
* individuals: e.g., including wandering Hindu fakirs/mendicants and medicine-men, palmists, astrologers and other soothsayers/fortune-tellers?
The laws enabling this already exist to some extent in the UK, in the form of the UK Trade Descriptions Act.
The Corporation could thus be obliged to include in their product/service description the caveat that:
"Design obsolescene" may affect/reduce the useful working lifespan of the product/service beyond any period of warranty.
--- End quote ---

This would be similar to the obligatory UK Financial Disclosures Act which mandates that  any offer to buy or "invest" in a financial services product (e.g., a with-profits life policy) must be accompanied by a specific statement which (from memory) says something to the effect that:
"No warranty express or implied is offered that the value of your investment will rise. The value of your investment may rise or fall."
--- End quote ---
This is a bit like the Government Health Warnings on retail tobacco products, I suppose:
"Smoking can damage your health."
or the less equivocal:
"Smoking Kills."

--- End quote ---
- except it would probably be something more along the lines of, for example:
"Investing may be damaging to your financial health."
--- End quote ---

Now, if the product or service that you advertise yourself as providing is not described honestly (factually, truthfully, accurately and correctly), then that is illegal and you may find yourself facing quite a hefty fine. That could include, for example: faith healing; saving your soul; being given 72 virgins in Paradise; climbing aboard the alien spaceship flying in the tail of the Hale-Bopp comet; providing relief from the past problems caused us by the spirits of space aliens, so that you can realise Operating Thetan, etc.
Prof. Richard Dawkins has already recommended this as a useful approach, when he said a while back in an article in the UK Sunday Times newspaper that, "Astrologers should be prosecuted under the trade descriptions act".

I couldn't agree more.    :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page