2 ms·

You just state it’s destructive for ideological reasons because of religious law, that’s not a good argument and it ignores contrary evidence. Why is taking a p

You just state it’s destructive for ideological reasons because of religious law, that’s not a good argument and it ignores contrary evidence. Why is taking a percentage of someone’s company better? If anything that’s more exploitive. On women’s rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-Nisa,_34 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-Nisa,_34 You’re the one cherry picking here and rationalizing anything that doesn’t fit into a narrative you’ve already decided is true. There won’t be any ability for us to agree, because you can’t update based on new evidence. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CqyJzDZWvGhhFJ7dY/belief-in-belief https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CqyJzDZWvGhhFJ7dY/belief-in-... You can pretend Charlie Hebdo and any other negative action that’s clearly driven by ideologically motivated Islam is not “true Islam”, but then you’re just creating some special reference class that ignores the bad stuff. I’m not trying to get into a fight. It’s rare for religious people to break free from their religion, but it’s possible. I succeeded when I was young and seeing counter arguments is part of it.

gher-shyu3i 6y ago
> Why is taking a percentage of someone’s company better? If anything that’s more exploitive. Where did I ever claim that? Islam doesn't dictate that at all. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-Nisa,_34 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-Nisa,_34 Yep, the one that guarantees women the rights to inheritance, not to mention that many other texts in Islam that order men to be lean and kind to women and not to exploit them (compare to what we see in the West today where women are sold as a commodity). > but then you’re just creating some special reference class that ignores the bad stuff. I'm not, because for any action that someone who ascribes to the religion does, we're able to go back to the texts and decide whether or not that was truly Islamic. There is no cherry picking or filtering. It's quite simple really. This isn't a "no true Scottsman" fallacy, it's going back to the Law books (Quran, Hadith, etc.) and checking whether what was done was legal or not.
- fossuser 6y ago
  You mentioned accelerators - usually they operate by investing for a percentage of the company. > “ Yep, the one that guarantees women the rights to inheritance” From the link: “As for women of whom you fear rebellion, convince them, and leave them apart in beds, and beat them.” > “It's quite simple really. This isn't a "no true Scottsman" fallacy, it's going back to the Law books” See the quote from the “law book” above.
  - gher-shyu3i 6y ago
    > You mentioned accelerators - usually they operate by investing for a percentage of the company. Yes. The trade off is that if the company fails, the accelerator loses the money they put into it, and the founder loses the time and effort. It's proper risk sharing. Now compare to a loan, where the founder not only owes the loan, but also the interest on top. > you fear rebellion The Arabic word is "nushooz". Look up what it means. Also, look up what "beating" means.
    - fossuser 6y ago
      > It's proper risk sharing. If someone defaults on their loan the bank gets nothing. If someone takes a loan and builds a successful business, the bank only gets the small agreed to percent return. What you consider 'proper' is arbitrary and entirely determined by religious law. > "Also, look up what "beating" means." I know what beating means, this kind of denial of obviously bad stuff is one reason among many of why I find religion so distasteful. That entire section is written about how women are supposed to be obedient to men, the entire context is sexist. See: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/34XxbRFe54FycoCDw/the-bottom-line https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/34XxbRFe54FycoCDw/the-bottom... With religion you start with an answer and make up reasons to get to your pre-determined answer. Outside of religion you start with evidence and struggle towards the truth.
      - gher-shyu3i 6y ago
        > If someone defaults on their loan the bank gets nothing Not before the bank coming after the assets of said person to try to grab as much as it can, destroying them in the process. Secondly, usurious money lending is obviously a very lucrative business by the fact that banks make billions in revenue. However, it is also extremely destructive purely by the fact that there exists trillions of dollars of debt (mortgages, auto, student, etc.), not to mention that the government itself is in debt and has to print money, devaluing the hard work of its citizens who worked and saved money, only to have it be worth less. Yet we cry because "the rich get richer", I wonder why? We've already seen the effects on governments time and time again, most recently Greece and Lebanon. There is really no other way but to admit that it is a dangerous and predatory practice that benefits a relative few at the top of the economic ladder, at the expense of everyone else. > this kind of denial It's not denial because it is explicitly mentioned in Hadiths. We say things outright, and don't dance around the issue. Just one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farewell_Sermon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farewell_Sermon > You too have right over them, and that they should not allow anyone to sit on your bed whom you do not like. But if they do that, you can chastise them but not severely You can see how it refers to infidelity. Both the husband and wife have rights from each other, and for each other. "Sexism" is quite meaningless in this context. We're not leftists/feminists/latest fad of the day, and we're proud of it. Each sex has their rights and duties, and claiming "sexism" shows weakness in argument. You can read about many important women in Islamic history who rightfully left their mark. > With religion you start with an answer and make up reasons to get to your pre-determined answer. Depends on the religion. It's a blatant fallacy to group all religions together, very unintellectual to say the least.

gher-shyu3i 6y ago

> Why is taking a percentage of someone’s company better? If anything that’s more exploitive. Where did I ever claim that? Islam doesn't dictate that at all. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-Nisa,_34 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-Nisa,_34 Yep, the one that guarantees women the rights to inheritance, not to mention that many other texts in Islam that order men to be lean and kind to women and not to exploit them (compare to what we see in the West today where women are sold as a commodity). > but then you’re just creating some special reference class that ignores the bad stuff. I'm not, because for any action that someone who ascribes to the religion does, we're able to go back to the texts and decide whether or not that was truly Islamic. There is no cherry picking or filtering. It's quite simple really. This isn't a "no true Scottsman" fallacy, it's going back to the Law books (Quran, Hadith, etc.) and checking whether what was done was legal or not.

fossuser 6y ago
You mentioned accelerators - usually they operate by investing for a percentage of the company. > “ Yep, the one that guarantees women the rights to inheritance” From the link: “As for women of whom you fear rebellion, convince them, and leave them apart in beds, and beat them.” > “It's quite simple really. This isn't a "no true Scottsman" fallacy, it's going back to the Law books” See the quote from the “law book” above.
- gher-shyu3i 6y ago
  > You mentioned accelerators - usually they operate by investing for a percentage of the company. Yes. The trade off is that if the company fails, the accelerator loses the money they put into it, and the founder loses the time and effort. It's proper risk sharing. Now compare to a loan, where the founder not only owes the loan, but also the interest on top. > you fear rebellion The Arabic word is "nushooz". Look up what it means. Also, look up what "beating" means.
  - fossuser 6y ago
    > It's proper risk sharing. If someone defaults on their loan the bank gets nothing. If someone takes a loan and builds a successful business, the bank only gets the small agreed to percent return. What you consider 'proper' is arbitrary and entirely determined by religious law. > "Also, look up what "beating" means." I know what beating means, this kind of denial of obviously bad stuff is one reason among many of why I find religion so distasteful. That entire section is written about how women are supposed to be obedient to men, the entire context is sexist. See: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/34XxbRFe54FycoCDw/the-bottom-line https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/34XxbRFe54FycoCDw/the-bottom... With religion you start with an answer and make up reasons to get to your pre-determined answer. Outside of religion you start with evidence and struggle towards the truth.
    - gher-shyu3i 6y ago
      > If someone defaults on their loan the bank gets nothing Not before the bank coming after the assets of said person to try to grab as much as it can, destroying them in the process. Secondly, usurious money lending is obviously a very lucrative business by the fact that banks make billions in revenue. However, it is also extremely destructive purely by the fact that there exists trillions of dollars of debt (mortgages, auto, student, etc.), not to mention that the government itself is in debt and has to print money, devaluing the hard work of its citizens who worked and saved money, only to have it be worth less. Yet we cry because "the rich get richer", I wonder why? We've already seen the effects on governments time and time again, most recently Greece and Lebanon. There is really no other way but to admit that it is a dangerous and predatory practice that benefits a relative few at the top of the economic ladder, at the expense of everyone else. > this kind of denial It's not denial because it is explicitly mentioned in Hadiths. We say things outright, and don't dance around the issue. Just one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farewell_Sermon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farewell_Sermon > You too have right over them, and that they should not allow anyone to sit on your bed whom you do not like. But if they do that, you can chastise them but not severely You can see how it refers to infidelity. Both the husband and wife have rights from each other, and for each other. "Sexism" is quite meaningless in this context. We're not leftists/feminists/latest fad of the day, and we're proud of it. Each sex has their rights and duties, and claiming "sexism" shows weakness in argument. You can read about many important women in Islamic history who rightfully left their mark. > With religion you start with an answer and make up reasons to get to your pre-determined answer. Depends on the religion. It's a blatant fallacy to group all religions together, very unintellectual to say the least.