The following video is the perfect example of how many apologists try their best to hide behind lies and deception when trying to defend the indefensible (religion of Islam). The video is obviously scripted to serve as propaganda in defense of Islam, but it immediately backfires when one rationally considers its arguments:
As we can see, there are two people defending Islam here, the Professor (Let’s call him P) and the Student (S). Let’s tear into both of them, starting with P since his lie is obvious and straight forward:
Tearing P a new one: At the start P is seemingly addressing the relation between Islam and terrorism, claiming that “Because words Mercy, Peace and Compassion have been repeated much more than Jihad, therefore Islam is much more religion of peace than war (or terrorism)”.
Two things immediately dismantle this garbage:
(1) Did the good P forget to include words such as “Slay (قتل)”, which represent killing, being killed or fighting depending on the context and use, and have been repeated multiple times in the Quran? Of course he did not. After all why forget when you can be dishonest to the bone? (As an example look at chapter 9 of the Quran [Al-Towbah], and in particular vers 111)
(2) The context of words matter. How many times peace and mercy have been used for humanity, and not just for Muslims? The following is far closer to what the Quran suggests “Oh sure be merciful, just towards the other Muslims. And by the way kill all infidels and heretics wherever you find them!”
Pathetic try from the good P. Maybe next time he can sugar coat his lies better, so that someone will buy them.
Exposing S on all levels: Now, S is a bit more sneaky. He first comes up with a provocative statement “White superpowers are the biggest terrorists”. This of course is both racist and stupid. But does one very important thing: Diverts the conversation from Islam to US (or “white super powers”, whatever that means). We know this is scripted, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see similar situations play out in the real world.
The conversation about whether Islam is the religion of terrorism is completely irrelevant to what US or any advanced country does, or whether they themselves are terrorists or not. In any discussion of this sort one must stop these diversion tactics and stick to the point. That being said, a simple answer usually shuts this tactic down: “Yes, terrorism is bad, and whoever does it must be brought to justice. Now, let’s go back to our original topic: Islam”.
There is another important point about what S puts forward, which is worth mentioning. Consider the fact that S tries his best to confuse the issue, using “terrorism” to mean civilian casualties in general (though he does not specify even that much). But one immediately realizes what counties such as US do by no means resembles what Taliban, Al-Qaeda or ISIS do. These terrorist organisation kill indiscriminately, just to create fear. They deliberately kill civilians to terrorize those who they see as enemies, while US may be responsible for civilian casualties, but civilians are not US’s targets.
Final word: The Quran does contain statements that can be interpreted as invitation to pluralism or peace. Whether these verses are enough to cover the cruel and inhuman parts is a discussion for another time.
In the meantime, we should be vigilant about scum such as the likes of P and S who try to put up smoke and mirrors and claim this religion is an advocate of peace. Islam is “not” a religion of peace.
The case of Anita Sarkeesian has been very interesting to me, both as a gamer and a gaymer. She has been one of the influential figures to change my mind about mainstream Feminism: In the past, especially when still living in Iran, I did not have a negative opinion on Feminist ideas. If anything my thoughts were mostly positive. After watching Sarkeesian’s videos, listening to Feminist colleagues at work, reading some Feminist outlets, and what went on with #GamerGate, my ideas shifted dramatically to consider the current mainstream Feminism in the media as one of the enemies of reason in this day and age.
The Case Against Sarkeesian’s Views
Terrible arguments: Simply put, Sarkeesian’s “criticisms” of the role of women in video games is a none-argument, and therefore baseless. Looking at the first 3 videos of her “Tropes vs. Women” series, she usually starts by naming many games that use some form of the “damsel in distress” cliche, and at the end makes a conclusion in the lines of “Women are disempowered [or killed, shown provocatively etc.] in these game, and this has larger ramifications in the society”.
This just simply does not follow that. If after 85% of one’s video [essay, book] has passed, one still cannot answer the question “So what?” in a conclusion derived coherently from what one has put forward, then one has failed tremendously as a thinker. Moreover, this conclusion is about real people in real world, and must be backed up by hard data, something Ms. Sarkeesian has failed to do entirely. Instead, her video goes something like: “These fictional characters this, therefore real women that”. Absolute garbage.
Greatest propaganda campaign of the decade?: Imagine a political figure or generally a follower of a particular ideology, giving a speech in front of a crowd of people. Say, just as an example, a Fascist speaking to a crowd of Jewish people. Now, being a good Fascist, he (or she) will not hesitate to say something in the lines of: “Jews are responsible for much of the violence in the world! They were responsible for both world wars!” I think we can all agree that the crowd will not show much sympathy for the speaker, first they will loudly object, then they will shout at him, and finally send him home by throwing eggs and tomatoes at his head.
It is fair to assume that our good fascist will run back to his skinhead friends covered in eggs, take some pictures and publish them in the media that happens to agree with him, and claim: “I was right about all the Jews! They are scum of the earth and these pictures prove my point!”
The illogical step is taken when one claims that the reaction of a certain group to one’s claims prove their point. This simply cannot be always true: An argument must be presented with evidence and good assumptions, and must be defended as such.
Now enter Ms. Sarkeesian. Numerous people criticized her videos, especially and specifically on YouTube, the place which she put her videos herself. Many of these videos were harsh, but many had great points and arguments to make [Thunderf00t, KiteTales are two examples out of hundreds]. How many of these videos did she mention, responded to, or discussed directly? The answer is none. How many of her critics did she ever mention, or debate? None. To my knowledge she has never, ever, engaged with any of her critics. Instead, in any speech she has given afterwards, she deliberately brings up abusive or troll comments.
Why is that? Is it because she wishes to pretend as if there is no legitimate criticism of her series? Is it because she wishes to pretend she is right about “sexism in the gaming industry” while she presents a carefully handpicked selection of insulting or troll comments irrelevant to her argument? Perhaps she genuinely believe her own crap. I am not sure.
I am not suggesting Ms. Sarkeesian is a Fascist, but she is great at her propaganda campaign of swaying the SJW crowd and others who know not how to logic or reason to follow her garbage.
The following picture appeared on my Facebook feed some time ago, and is a perfect example of how when it comes to statistics, many go astray.
I originally saw this post on the Facebook page “The LAD Bible”, posted on June of 2014, and now it has almost 350K likes.
Reading the comment section is amusing for someone who understands this mathematical average is complete nonsense. A common theme of the comments are “Math bitch!”, “Science rules!”. Not that I expect much intelligence in the comment section of FB, but still, pretty disheartening.
One of the top comments is “This should be the type of shit they put on exam papers, not bullshit algebra.” It seems to me that our dear commenter is incapable of understanding “this type of shit”, thus calls Algebra “bullshit” and sadly at the end fails in both statistics and mathematics exams. Another commenter suggests “Math.. the silent killer of swag :) ” Indeed, I suspect he means his own “swag”, if he had any.
Simply put, the conclusion is absolute nonsense. “You guys had 3.5 pints each day” is completely false. Instead, “You guys had 3.5 pints on average* each day” is correct. Then we clearly see what went wrong: The average of a set of data does not say anything about its distribution, and therefore is irrelevant here. Without knowing the distribution of drinks in each day between each person calculating its mean is misleading and nonsensical. The group of boys could have drunk on the first day and the last day, and not anything in between. Also, some might have had more drinks than others. In which case the sarcasm of the last sentence simply dies: It very well could have been wild.
* Average = Mean
This is simply a follow up on my previous post regarding the failure of some of the so called progressive and SJWs regarding statistics and logical reasoning. Our good twitter user @shezumi has the following tweet for us:
Again, just like the post I have linked, this is a failure to understand statistics and logic. Let me make it very simple:
(a) “Most white animals are Not rabbits”
(b) “Most rabbits are white”
=> (a) being true does not necessarily prove (b) false.
In the same way, “Most rapists [in US] are white” does not prove “Most Mexicans are rapists” false. You need another set of data for that. The simplest of those is the ratio of say [in this case] Mexican rapists divided by total number of Mexican immigrants.
Again this is not to take the side of Trump, but one wonders if progressive cannot do simple logic, then who is worse?
Bad defense of a particular position is sometimes worse than not defending it at all. Take an example from a Muslim blog, Islamicdefender :
Our defender friend first points out some questions which he believes are notable atheist questions. Now, as an atheist, I don’t think I’ll ask these in particular. But let’s entertain what’s being offered briefly, and then I will have a better look at my own question:
How did different races came from Adam and Eve?
Do we really have different races? This is a question that the following analysis should answer with a big “NO”. Biological life is controlled by the DNA of the respective species, and of the individual members of the species.
Contrary to the theory of Darwinian evolution, each species has its own unique basic DNA type, so that macro-evolution from one species to another is impossible. Otherwise, millions of transitional species with transitional DNA could have existed. Not a single such example was ever observed or detected.
I don’t suppose I should make a comment about this particular answer (not the purpose of my post here, nor my first question from a Muslim), but the underlined idiocy speaks for itself.
Let’s ignore question two, the usual nonsense about “Hell is there so you fear God and do the right thing blah blah”
Why did Allah sent 3 books? Why couldn’t he only send the Qur’an?
I think you’d better say: ” Why did not Allah send his last prophet, Mohammad (S), at first? then I will tell you that, as you know, Allah has gradually developed Islam since the advent of Adam (s). The more the people were growing and the more aspects of their lives needed to be explained and reformed, the Almighty Allah sent his prophets and divine books with them. To prove my claim I would like to refer to this verse from the noble Qur’an as such (According to this verse, the only existing religion is submission to Allah):
إِنَّ الدِّينَ عِنْدَ اللٌّهِ الإِسْلاَمُ وَمَا اخْتَلَفَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ إِلاَّ مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا جَاءَهُمْ الْعِلْمُ بَغْياً بَيْنَهُمْ وَمَنْ يَكْفُرْ بِآيَاتِ اللٌّهِ فَإِنَّ اللٌّهَ سَرِيعُ الْحِسَابِ
“Surely the religion with Allāh is al-Islām. And those who have been given the Book [i.e., the Christians and the Jews] did not show opposition but after knowledge had come to them, out of envy among themselves. And whoever disbelieves in the verses of Allāh, then surely Allāh is quick in reckoning.”
So, it seems logical to have different various religions and divine books, Although one might ask: “why did not Allah created the grown human at first?” which can’t be answered here thoroughly. but God’s will was to educate the human being step by step, in fact he sent the final prophet along with his last divine book when the humanity was ready for it.
This answer is nonsense even on the surface, to a question which I don’t particularly find very important to ask. If Islam had much to offer in terms of improvement on other Abrahamic religions before, one would expect to see Christians and Jews agreeing with Muslims and converting. But no, Muslims have to try to seize other faiths for themselves, while looking down on them as ignorant and pretending as if they have all the answers, and then have some bloody battles to prove who’s right with swords and bombs and the like.
Islam demonstrably has nothing more to offer to humanity than Christianity or Judaism.
My question: I think there is one important question one should ask from any member of an Abrahamic religion, particularly a Muslim.
Muslims claim that their prophet is the last, and their holy book is the final. One would expect the final words of the infinitely wise creator of the universe to have some substance. Say, for example, imagine if this Allah had ever bothered mentioning any part of our understanding of microbiology in that holy book. It could be so effective: Lives would be saved while the so called Allah would prove himself very effectively (albeit not beyond reasonable doubt). Imagine if this so called God had ever bothered to mention physics or how the universe worked, presumably he is the only one that knows for sure.
Maybe if he had said anything about evolution (or biology for that matter) in the Quran, some Muslims wouldn’t be so confused about it so as to write that garbage (mentioned above). But nah, it is far more important to keep saying “Worship me! Me! Me me me!” like a four year old child.
Not only that, but also it appears that this infinite source of knowledge didn’t learn from his past mistakes. Still, after all these years of “gradual training”, he didn’t realize that a book that is open to interpretation is by far the worst tool to communicate with human beings. Lo and behold Muslims are by far the worst of the lot: They kill each other far more frequently that any other religion at this point, and all because they can’t seem to figure what this Allah actually wants from them. One wonders if Allah ever saw what the vagueness of this book would do to his damn followers.
So here is my question: How dare you suggest this book is the final words of the infinitely wise creator of the universe, while even Muslims don’t seem to agree about what the hell it is saying?
One of the unfortunate side-effects of having a Facebook page is getting to see a great deal of spontaneously generated propaganda in memes, pictures and comments posted every day. One can simply forget them for the most part, but sometimes they are made legendary by simply being spread very fast. As if no one can see the stupid within them.
Case and point? The following text  is taken from a note written by a student under her image in her high school yearbook.
I need feminism because I intend on marrying rich and I can’t do that if my wife and I are making .75 cent for every dollar a man makes.
One’s high school yearbook is presumably about what one wants to be remembered as. It could be an amazing range of attributes and states of mind: Funny, witty, happy, serious, kind, gay and so on. It may as well be one’s political agenda: Feminist, Liberal, progressive, Socialist and so forth.
Although, perhaps one would wish “uneducated” to not be one of those attributes. We have to congratulate our feminist student here, from this yearbook she can be remembered as the only student who never learned the average of a sample of data is not its maximum.
Another example is a quote from Annabel Crabb, Australian journalist , circling around on Facebook and Twitter as a semi-meme picture:
I am a feminist because it bothers me that a woman gets killed by her male partner every single week, and somehow that doesn’t qualify as a tools-down national crisis even though if a man got killed by a shark every week we’d probably arrange to have the ocean drained.
Way to get irrelevant things mixed up. I suppose we must award Ms. Crabb with the best red herring of the year: Shark attacks make no difference towards the importance of violence against women. Separate issues must be dealt with separately , and it does not help to mix up serious issues with exaggerated nonsense just to make a point.