Mark Hamill wrote: » It doesn't matter if you get to say where the money will go, compulsory payments are taxation. I am not questioning whether it is good or not, I am only disputing (like MrPudding has already) how paying a compulsory payment actually reflects on the character of the muslims obliged to pay it.
Mark Hamill wrote: » 1) Slander only applies to living people, it doesn't apply to beliefs. 2) People should not get offended on behalf of others.
Mark Hamill wrote: » But until you do define the line to take on what's ok, how can you say what's ok? My example is not as extreme as you may think, there is much in all religions that can be easily interpreted by people to leave them opposed to non-believers and alternative religious iconography (commandments 1 and 2, in the Christian bible, for instance) and this can easily lead to offence. You say that it is intent that should inform of us of where the line is, but I say that intent is irrelevant. It is only justification that should inform us. Can a supposed "offender" justify the speech and actions that offends others? Because if they can, it is no longer offensive, it is simply the truth and if you are offended by the truth then that is your own problem. The reality is that offence is something that most people just attach to some position or act another takes simply because they do not like its implications and have no justifiable way themselves to counter it. Its not about the offenders lack of justification for what they say or do, if it was then it would only be about the offenders lack of justification for what they say or do and the offence wouldn't need to be raised.
confusedquark wrote: » Let me ask you a question, how do you think compulsory charity actually reflects on Islam?
confusedquark wrote: » Beliefs are what make living people who they are.
confusedquark wrote: » But "offenders" often make ill-formed comments and gross generalisations that are far from the truth.
confusedquark wrote: » I have to disagree with you on the issue of intent - if a close friend of mine calls me a terrorist because I'm brown and have a beard and he just wants to make a politically incorrect joke which I'll find funny, then that's fine, but if a random stranger says the same thing to me because he doesn't like brown people and wants them all out of "his" country, then that's offensive and bang out of order.
Mark Hamill wrote: » If I call some belief stupid, that is not the same as calling any holder of that belief stupid.
Mark Hamill wrote: » And they are wrong because those statements are ill-formed and gross generalisations that are far from the truth, not because they are offensive. They are equally wrong if no one gets offended.
Mark Hamill wrote: » In one case, someone is making joke to someone they know, not a serious claim they would stand by in an argument. In the other case, someone is making a serious claim that they would stand by in an argument. Only one case will result in someone trying to seriously justify their claim, so again it still comes down to justification - how, or if, it is made.
Mark Hamill wrote: » Its not about the offenders lack of justification for what they say or do, if it was then it would only be about the offenders lack of justification for what they say or do and the offence wouldn't need to be raised.
Mark Hamill wrote: » When helping the poor and needy, I'm sure its great, however the money can also be used to proselyting the Islamic faith (Fi Sabillillah), so it is somewhat self serving.
MrPudding wrote: » Which is fine, but the point remains that the impact you were looking for when you posted the story about Muslims giving more to charity than others is greatly reduced when one considers that it is effectively compulsory. Personally, I think a person that gives 0.5% of their salary with no compulsion other than thinking it is the right thing to do, has done more than a person that gives 5% because they have to. MrP
British Poll On Charity-Giving Shows Atheists least generous and Muslims Mosthttp://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/faith/article3820522.ece Quote: Muslims are among Britain’s most generous givers, topping a poll of religious groups that donate to charity, according to new research. Muslims who donated to charity last year gave an average of almost £371 each, with Jewish givers averaging just over £270 per person. Nearly one in ten of Jewish givers donated more than £1,000. Among Muslim givers, most donated between £300 and £500. Atheists, by contrast, donated an average of £116 when they gave to charity, with Roman Catholics giving slightly more than £178, other Christians slightly less than £178 and Protestants £202
You can work out what a Muslim is obliged to pay in the UK based on average UK salaries and average UK household costs (and this is before a penny is paid on luxuries)And you get 125 pound. If you take this amount from the avg donated by Muslims in the poll you get Muslims as being twice as generous towards charities by choice - and this is even after they have paid their obligations towards charities
Brown Bomber wrote: » Of course, if white people didn't drop so many bombs on brown people, crippling people, orphaning children and making refugees and stopped stealing their resources there wouldn't be as much a need for charity.
confusedquark wrote: » Technically maybe not - but if you tell a person that their belief is stupid, you'd be pushing it for them to not take it personally that you're saying that they are too. Sure you might go on to present them with evidence to support your case - but equally, many "offenders" aren't interested in dialogue and just want to speak their minds without giving a full explanation. Many beliefs aren't necessarily right or wrong - with no comprehensive contradictory evidence. So, if you take something that isn't comprehensively true or false, and based on your own opinion, and call somebody else's belief in it stupid to their face, it's not unreasonable for them to be insulted/offended by it. I'll go back to my "case by case" argument.
confusedquark wrote: » They are wrong AND they are offensive because those statements are ill-formed and gross generalisations.
confusedquark wrote: » I don't quite get where you stand on justification - your previous comment seemed to suggest justification didn't matter:
confusedquark wrote: » But I'll respond to your last post - my point was that the same thing can be said by two different people, but depending on their intention - the comment can be ok or offensive, and therefore intent does matter. Even if somebody tries to justify an ill-formed and grossly generalised comment (which people will have varying abilities/motivation to do), it doesn't change the fact that the initial comment is offensive if it is ill-formed.
confusedquark wrote: » Given that it's left up to individual Muslims to determine where they send the money, and the predominant instruction we go by is "give charity to the poor", I'm sure the vast vast majority of the money goes to the needy. Had it been a case that the instruction behind Zakat also included "and spread the faith" or if the money was collected by Islamic institutions to "spend as they saw fit", then I'd be more concerned about it being self serving.
Brown Bomber wrote: » We've had this conversation before.
Mark Hamill wrote: » But even by your argument here, a person can only be justifiably offended if they can show the offender is wrong for calling them stupid. And if they can show the offender is wrong, then offence is superfluous.
Mark Hamill wrote: » They are equally wrong if no one gets offended though, which is my point. Offence is superfluous to being wrong.
Mark Hamill wrote: » But people get offended by well-formed and well supported comments all the time, therefore offence in and of itself is useless as a marker for the validity of a statement and therefore of no use in discussion and debate.
Mark Hamill wrote: » I am saying that offence is 100% irrelevant in discussion, the only value of any statement is justification. If a statement can't be justified then it has no place in discussion.
Mark Hamill wrote: » Look at the wikipedia section on recipients for zakat. One of the asnaf (official type of recipients) is "Those working in God's way (Fī Sabīlillāh)". Most of the other 7 types are the needy and poor, but it seems that in South East Asia, muslims mainly give to the Fī Sabīlillāh, which includes muslim schools and missionary work. Apparently, zakat can (or could) be used to fund jihad, as well as to "strengthen the faith" of prominent recent converts or pay off possible hostile groups.
Frank Grimes wrote: » What is the point of this comment, or do you even have one?
old_aussie wrote: » Go ahead and and anser for tom, as he has brushed aside my question.
my point is trhat tom says one thing then FAILS to backup his words, that's my point.
old_aussie wrote: » Go ahead and and anser for tom, as he has brushed aside my question. tom states one thing and then ignores my question. see post 54 my point is trhat tom says one thing then FAILS to backup his words, that's my point.
confusedquark wrote: » not every issue of offence is between two people having a civilised discussion.
confusedquark wrote: » Yes, offence is a useless marker for the validity of a statement, because people can be right or wrong in being offended, but once again, not every issue of offence occurs within the context of a discussion or debate.
confusedquark wrote: » It often comes from a rant, which can have varying precipitants and intentions. Which yet again, brings me back to my "case by case" argument, that you need independent people (e.g. the moderators on boards) or people who are willing to be constructive on both sides of the argument to determine what is offensive and what isn't.
confusedquark wrote: » Alas, people blurt out a lot that can't be justified, and people often come to the table without the intention of having a proper discussion - and once again, they can be wrong in doing that, but they can also be offensive in doing that, depending on what is said and how it is said. You have to judge it on a case by case basis
confusedquark wrote: » Small print stuff I'd say.
Mark Hamill wrote: » But many are. So how de we avoid cases where offence is used as a shield against an uncomfortable fact? By pointing out that genuine offence is caused by things that are demonstrably wrong, and if its demonstrably wrong, then thats all you need to counter it.
Mark Hamill wrote: » Every issue of offence can be presented as a discussion or debate. Someone is offended by someone else sunbathing in the nude - this can be presented as a discussion on whether people should be allowed sunbath in the nude.
Mark Hamill wrote: » The mods on boards don't moderate based on offence though, they moderate based on the best way to keep discussions flowing. Much of the time this will line up with removing what most people would consider as offensive, but there are many topics, entire forums even, that would offend certain people yet they aren't removed.And even when they do remove something offensive, the removal is almost always justified with a reason explaining its removable, rather than a simple declaration of offensiveness.
Mark Hamill wrote: » People blurt out a lot of stupid things that aren't offensive, merely silly and wrong. We judge them on their justifications, so I fail to see why we judge another blurted statement different, simply because someone happens to find it offensive.
Mark Hamill wrote: » Based on what though? Advancing a religion is considered a charitable act in Ireland (section 3, 1(c), on page 12), I don't think its much of a stretch to think it would be the same across Asia and the Middle east.
confusedquark wrote: » You avoid cases of offence being used as a shield by judging one's claim of offence on a case by case basis - and not by the blanket denial of the right of being offended for all people for all comments. Yes, you can counter an offensive comment by demonstrating it is wrong, but once again, that's doesn't change the fact that the comment may have been offensive in the first place. If somebody posts a comment on boards that "all Muslims are terrorists", one can demonstrate that it's wrong, but it's still an offensive comment.
confusedquark wrote: » Equally, one could also make the case of seeing a person nude as offensive (regardless of any subsequent discussion or debate), and you would have to judge their case on its merits, and decide whether they are being reasonable in their claim.
confusedquark wrote: » From all that you say, I assume you disagree with the "judging offence" role of moderators on boards?
confusedquark wrote: » Advancing the religion is certainly an aspect of Islam as well, but the specific issue of whether zakat is to be used for that purpose is small print stuff in my opinion, because as I earlier stated, the predominant instruction behind it is to support the needy.
Mark Hamill wrote: » I'm not saying that anyone should be denied the right to be offended
Mark Hamill wrote: » Its redundant to say you are offended a statement that is going to be debated anyway, if its wrong it will be rejected, if its right (accurate) then tough luck.
Mark Hamill wrote: » But we don't restrict nudism on the basis of it possibly being offensive, we do it because on the balance of the freedom of one person to be nude versus the freedom of another not to have to see them if they dont want to, the second persons freedom wins out (not that this changes if we go from a public space to a semi-private space like a nudist beach).
Mark Hamill wrote: » Not quite, because as I said, mods don't judge based on offence, they judge based on whatever is conductive to discussion. This lines up with offence quite regularly and in a general way, most forms of trolling are offensive in various ways. However not all forms of trolling are inherently offensive, soap boxing for instance (if the repeated statement is not insulting).
Mark Hamill wrote: » And many theists (particularly religious leaders) see the non religious (or differently religious) as in need of conversion, hence one of the officially accepted recipients of zakat is those who advance the religion. It might be small print, but since when has small print been used for something less important than the large print?
confusedquark wrote: » Just because a statement is made in a debate, it doesn't absolve it from being potentially offensive. Is it wrong of me to say that "all Muslims are terrorists" is an offensive comment, even if it's made in the context of a debate?
confusedquark wrote: » I didn't mean that "judging offence" is the only role of the mods and the only thing they look for. Of their many roles in ensuring what is conductive to discussion, one role is to judge if comments are offensive. I assume you disagree with the need for that specific role?
confusedquark wrote: » By small print I meant it's one of the lesser reasons for which zakat is given, and the large print is not the needy in terms of spirituality, but the needy in terms of poverty, to whom a larger chunk of zakat goes.
Mark Hamill wrote: » I didn't said statements are absolved from offence in debates
Mark Hamill wrote: » just that the pointing out of offence is redundant if the statements are going to be examined anyway.
Mark Hamill wrote: » I see it as a role that is covered by the other ways they judge comments.
Mark Hamill wrote: » Do you have any numbers for this though? I.e. the ratio of money each of the 8 types of recipient of zakat actually gets? The only source I've seen (the wikipedia one I quoted before) indicates that at least in some places in the world, those who advance islam get more than the rest.
confusedquark wrote: » Redundant if you're focusing on it purely from a debating perspective, but you have to consider the bigger picture.
