User talk:DanielDemaret/Archives/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please do not edit this, since it is only an archive.

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Contents

[edit] Answers

Searching through the help pages will probably get a lot more questions answered than I ever can, but here goes. BTW, you already have a talk page, see? :)

Hi. Thank you for your suggestions about "An autobiography". I just followed an existing link from the Nehru page, decided to fill in the page, since I have read the book, and only then realized that "An autobiography" might be an ambiguous title. Perhaps one should create a new title "Nehru: An Autobiography" ?.

And then change the original page from the "Nehru"-page? Dare I change that?

I suggest you put the Autobiography article on the page with the exact title of the book. You can clarify the article by saying "An Autobiography" is an autobiography about Nehru the first prime minister of India, to establish context

I have a similar problem when I filled in something on the Berlitz family. There is a link to "Maximilien Berlitz", but his name was Miximilian. Can I "move" the link? Or should I delete the entire article, and then create a new one with the correct name? I know a lot more about him, some from his grandson, also he, coincidentally a very splendid and humble man.

I think you need to read Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Whatever you do, don't create duplicate articles, you can add an redirect to one page to point to the other. I'll move the Maximilian page for you.

Hope that helps. Mgm|(talk) 12:13, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] It sure does. Thanks!

[edit] Written

About Descartes method: It was empty

About Almroth Wright: It was empty

About Nehru's An autobiography : It was empty

About Voronai tessalonations: It was empty

Filled in a lot of details here and there, mostly related to linguistics.

[edit] Current Interests

Mostly read up to get overviews of different areas of philosophy. In the very few areas I felt I could contribute, I have. The articles in this area are getting better and better all the time.


More and more, the list over controversial issues seems take my time. DanielDemaret 12:34, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bar

The orange bar appears as soon as someone writes something on your talk page. When you wrote on User talk:MacGyverMagic it appeared on my screen to notify me of your message so I can swiftly reply. Mgm|(talk) 12:50, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

You can sign your name on talk pages by using ~~~~. Secretlondon 10:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] *grin*

Mrow. :D (That's cat for teehee) Kyaa the Catlord 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] holy cows

I take that back too :)Rajab 19:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] limits of free speech - (even in scandinavia)

  • haha* thanks for the comment :) Maybe you're right - what makes me agree with you is your argument about George W. ;) Rajab 19:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fake pig pictures

the evidence that you quoted is quite striking. I think it should probably go into the article... Thanks very much for pointing those out! Rajab 21:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Egyptian newspaper publishing the Muhammad cartoons

Hi Daniel

I didn't manage to get a copy of that file in time. Would you mind mailing me a copy? You can post it at my talk page or send me a mail. Regards. --Valentinian 14:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I've just sent you a new mail. Perhaps TDC was having a bad day. Please let me know if it didn't get there either. --Valentinian 10:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


Hello Daniel,

Thanks for your comment... an image of El Fagr's headline page really needed adding...to the Jyllands Posten cartoon controvery page! Netscott 16:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contagious

Hi Daniel,

Yes, I definitely caught the iconic bug from you. Unfortunately, I've lost my sense of organisation in the process :-) No, I haven't read the illustrious first idea. Yet. I'll chase it down Ciao Varga Mila

[edit] RE: Kindness Campaign

Hi Daniel,

You just need to leave your name in alphabetical order like A, B, C, D...... That's all, and you are a member of the Kindness Campaign. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 15:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thinking..

No, haven't read it. But I take your implicit recommendation of it as a sign of its worth.Varga Mila 00:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] predicting the outbreak of war

I would like to suggest that this subject needs an article of its own, if there is any successful research. I'm not aware of any. If you want to keep it as a subsection of War it needs more references, to make it clear that it isn't original research. The first paragraph especially reads like your own opinion rather than something with a scholarly source. If, on the other hand, you decide the subject merits an article, maybe Predicting war, then you should put a summary in War with a link to the main article. Rick Norwood 22:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Correct. The first paragraph is my "original research". The following 4 were not, most of it is even present in one way or another elsewhere in the same article. However, I do not consider any research, including any of most of what is already written in the rest of the article "successful" :p, so I shall simply delete it. DanielDemaret 07:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Come to think about it, there is very little "successful" research mentioned in wikipedia compared to the successful parts.DanielDemaret 07:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi Daniel, Thanks for your kind remarks... Trying to understand each other will make the world a better place for all. Best... Resid Gulerdem 17:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OOPS!

I missed that i was writing in your user page!

This is what i wrote:

[edit] point taken

Hi. thanks for your message. I got your point.

I wrote that when i was very uppset, and i forgot about having writen that. Thanks for the reminder, ill change the message.

Are you a admin? --Striver 18:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

*Here, you left me your second messsage*

Thank you very much for your comment, i appreicate it. I also valued your responese. Regarding the talk page, it was me that wrote "i hate you". I meant "I hate you all that made me so angry that i decided to leave Wikipedia". Anyway, i have removed it now :)--Striver 19:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, du är svensk också! Cool :) --Striver 19:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Cool :) Svara när du har lust :)--Striver 19:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


Hm... jag behöver tänka på det... jag återkommer. --Striver 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Felixpostcard.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Felixpostcard.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 17:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Will delete. I shall brave the cellar to try and find any picture that I might have taken of Felix von Luckner myself in the 60s.DanielDemaret 18:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Daniel. Thanks for getting back to us about the image. I have deleted the image for you. I think if you uploaded a scan of the complete postcard you would have a pretty good case for using it as fair use. The cropped one would be questionable. If you want to mark any image you have uploaded for deletion you can use the template {{db|your reason for wanting it deleted}}. Please let me know if you have any further questions. --Martyman-(talk) 07:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] About Censorship

It makes perfect sense. Now... should we dare someone to enter this knowledge into the article about the Quran or should we censor ourselves?DanielDemaret 21:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Daniel , I think it souldn,t be any censorship on thought and idea's whatever the subject is , My own opinion about the cartoons is that they are kind of Hate speech and Disrespect ... Personally i don,t let myself depict Jesus as satan cause I respect christians , but that shouldn,t prevent me from critisizing chrstian's beliefs and idea's , I can critisize some idea's and beliefs of mulims but i don,t let myself to insult them in the name of Freedom ... That is the simple viewpoint many arabs wanted to say , but offcourse such event could be used by Extremists --Chaos 14:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to talking to me about it, Chaos. I am glad that we both thing that there should not be any censorship on thought and ideas. This makes it easier to think and to talk. SO you say the pictures are "Hate speech", eh? Does this mean that you think that showing the pictures would make people go out and kill muslims? DanielDemaret 15:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
No need to answer the above question if you dont want. Inciting to hate is enough to make something hate speech, so I was over-doing it there.
There is one thing I would like to ask you that is more important to me. Flemming Rose intent was to attack people who issue death threats, not to attack muslims. This is obvious if you read the danish text. Striver has suggested that his intent does not matter. To me, and definitely to the law in sweden and in denmar about hate speech, it is the only thing that matters. What is your opinion on this?DanielDemaret 17:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Draw Jesus as satan? Go ahead, if you like. I am a christian, and if could draw I would draw it for you. None of the christians in my congration would be offended in the least. To them, insults can only offend if there is an intelligent person intently making a personal and degrading remark. Jesus as Satan is not personal. As for the "intelligent person intent", it would depend on why you drew it. Such a picture in itself would be quite meaningless, and not insulting to anyone (perhaps insulting to satan, if he is not a christian? ) DanielDemaret 18:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


I won,t draw Jesus as Satan in spite that i know u will be tolerant :

simply cause i don,t think that a respectfull expression of Freedom ... If i don,t believe that u r right , i can disagree with u but i have no right to insult u .. it is not human behaviour .

secondly for muslims : jesus belongs to them as jesus belongs to christians and maybe more ... if u read quran , u will find a section forbid teh differntiation of Prophets ... so Muslims are forbidden to insult any Prophet .

thirdly ... i just say that as example ... and when i write i try my best to take off all my beliefs ..so i say muslims not I ... I try to write as neutral non-religious man trying to see things from all sides ... maby the pure neutrality is so difficult but i try my best .

to know mor about me ... I firslt believe in science ... and i think Islam could be suit science too much ... i believe in islam on my own way ... i don,t take teachings from any school and i think internal reformation of islam will be great revolution .. i believe in the absolute shapeless God of islam , i bellieve in Divine Evolution theory >

for the sake of searching of truth ..i can accept to be agnostic .. I think science cannot decide alone whether there is god or not ... Belief or Faith is kind of personal viewpoint . I think that atheism is also kind of religion that could prevents ppl sometimes from seeing the true facts .

--Chaos 19:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of Jesus status there. I have read different translations of the Quran, the Hadith, the catolic and the protestant bibles, not all of the jewish scriptures, not all the Vedas, but all the Mahabharata , and Dhammapada. My religious beliefs are simple to me, but seem complex to others, but I mix my religious beliefs with my philosophical beliefs. After all, the modern invention of the soul is a philosophical invention which the churches borrowed later.

I have been mulling about how you or anyone else could insult me. I can be insulted, but since I know that everyone here in wikipedia have acted in good faith, if you tried to, I would not be insulted since I know you would only do it out of your kindness to try and explain something to me. DanielDemaret 19:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


Insulting for Satan ..Ha Ha Ha ... it seem that u take care of Satan more than Jesus ;) (just a joke) .. anyway u know we used to live in multi-religional non-secular society ... for us respecting eachother's beliefs is the most important morality ... sometimes ppl's here could forgive u for personal insult but they won,t forgive u for insulting their beliefs ... cultural difference , we should be aware of --Chaos 19:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Nah, I dont take care of Satan. I don't know him. But since I don't know him I can not know what he thinks would insult him. I think I know what christians think of Jesus, and it would be hard to insult christians and Jesus since they would just think that you were only being kind and trying to explain something. DanielDemaret 19:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


I am assuming that you are aware that the first time the word "satan" appeared it did not mean what it means today. In Ancient Hebrew texts, it simply means an adversary or accuser. It doesnot mean "evil". The invention of making this into a specially evil persona is relatively modern, just as the idea that Lucifer=Satan is also a modern invention. DanielDemaret 20:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


Is all Christians like that ?? and have they always been like That : Thinking and Explaining ?? I think that is also a generalization doesn,t consider the historical and sociological changes of christian western civilization :)--Chaos 09:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


No, not all Christians. Far from it. But the fathers of the Catholic Church certainly were. "Satan" above was just a semantical note, nothing more. If one wants to draw any scientific conclusion from it, it might just be that I do not see how one can make a proof of the superstitous details of "satan" from the the oldest texts. One would have to go to newer ideas for that.

When it comes to history, a lot has happened during the millenia. Christianity has had some very dark moments, and some very strange popes. Torquemadas personal "Spanish Inquisition" tortured and killed about 2,000 people for heresy and for being homosexual. That is truly horrifying. Things like that can give all religion a bad name :p

You assume that I am Christian. Well, yes I am, for a given definition of christian 'as mathematicians put it'.

Universe This user believes Descartes notion of god as the Universe.

I saw a recent study declaring between 20%-80% of Swedes as religious, depending on how religous they were. I suppose 20% are those that believe in the bible, and it goes up to 80% if you count in anyone that believes in any kind of spiritual idea at all. Most seem to want to believe that there are things that science can not explain - yet, but if you were to look for someone that believed that the world was created in 24 hours x 7 days, then I do not think you would find many even among the priests here. Possibly the small extreme churches, like "Jehova's witnesses". I think I have met one, once. DanielDemaret 10:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I am loosely a catholic, and I like to surprise some christians by saying things like "Darwin is Dogma" according to the pope. It is not exactly true, but not so far from it, and it alliterates well :p. What the pope actually said, is that Christian Dogma and Evolution Theory are totally compatible with each other. So God used evolution and 5 billion years to create the world? Fine, said the pope! In the original "7 days" in Ancient Hebrew, a "day" is a mistranslation. A more correct translation might be "7 units of time", so there is total compatability. Bad translations are a curse, my father always said. DanielDemaret 12:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Analysis

Hi Daniel .... I don't mean the law's meaning of Hate speech , that could bring some misunderstanding ... i understand "Hatespeech" as it is any speech that spreads Hate against any religional , ethnic , thought group ... maybe that is not the law definition is USA but that is what i meant . now what is the most offensive at least for me as modern muslim that they make generalizations (I have expressed that many times in the talk pages first of February) : the cartoons depicted Muhammad , who is central personality in islam as Terrorist (Bomb in a turban .. u can say that painters didn,t intend but that what we see in it) , old-fasioned man his woman is vieled in black (well that is not what i imagine about Muhammad , Women in syria and Egypt puts just headcover not black veil ) , Dictator who orders his soldiers to kill or not to kill , a scholar who invites for committing suicide , ... in simple words they depict muhammad as one of Terrorist or Extreme Islamists ... and by this way of expression they try to say that All Muslims (cause muhammad is prophet of all muslims not islamists only) are terrorists (at least we think that is the internal message ) . the most bad thing in whole story is that media focuses in everyday issues that terrorists are muslims ignoring all other kinds of muslims (liberal , secular , reformalist , sufi , traditional ) .

in the modern media's Agenda , the big danger is Terrorism and the main source of Terrorism is Islam and muslims ... that begins in america firstly after 9/11 , but american society is more diverse and the majority of american muslims in america are educated so the pressure become smaller and smaller by days .

In Europe , they have another problem : many muslims in Europe are refugees and islmic activists running away from the dictatorial regimes in the arabic and middle-eastern countries ... they run away from their countries and they r full of angry and Hate to meet a society (European society) which isn't used to immigarants and those Immigrants has no free mind and expreience to let them understand the secular european muslim .

Here in middle East , firstly the modernism comes suddenly without taking time for reformation of religion or making Secularism (which centries-aged Process) , comes as External Ideas which certainly will face resistance (see Books of Sir Hamilton Jipp) , countries of middle east is governed by the tolitarist regimes , the Arabic Oil which makes the international forces prefer the stability of regimes . the Arabic-Israeli conflict also play central role in every middle-east related issue ... actually u cannot make any reformation or any converting into secularism as long as there is who is considered an Enemy ... so all of that makes the secularism and reformation are so slow processes . actually the Extreme Islam has appeared widely recently in the last two decades as a redult of arabic regime's failure in the development and facing Israel ... many Arabs see Israel as religional state so they also has the right to build religional state and tehy see that this is teh solution of their problem . they complain from western support of Israel and thier political bias .

actually i consider the arab-israeli conflict is central in any of such issues , and i consider the arabic oil is a curse for arabs .

Ohh god .. i have written too much .. but u now i think nothing could be understood by seeing one side ... this issue couldn,t be understood from only religional side .

Now about Flemming Rose ... I don,t like to determine myself what was his intention ... but if i choose to be with good faith with ppl , i think he made big mistake when he publish by choosing depiction of muhammad as first step ... the result was " How Danish Painters see Muslims " (in Denmark) and offcourse they will draw a person with bomb ... if they have written BinLaden rather than Muhammad , nothing of that would have happened in that case .

there is an idea presented by some american and european thinkers : that Islam should be reformated to suit the modernity and Post-modernalism ... but they forget that reformation should happen as natural process and without foreign interference .. Imagine if some muslim entered the churche in the 15th century and invited for christian reformation , i bet no information could happen in this case .

those thinkers simply think that by forcing islam for reformation , they can solve the Problem without trying to solve the central issue that is the reason of all conflicts and all struggles (Arab-Israeli conflict) ... but what i,m afraid from , is this strategy increases the number of Extremists and make the moderate muslims think day by day that the Whole western civiliation is Enemy for them ... and that really could brings more serious danger of wars ... (read also my answer to Azate in the talk page of contoversy and the bias od any Depiction)


Well I write too much ... and i make it so complicated but believe me such issue is already complicated and if we were not aware about all sides , we all are in danger ... I,m happy always to talk with clever wise persons who wants to see issues from all viewpoints .

let's in touch ..take care --Chaos 18:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well written. Good point, and good english too.DanielDemaret 18:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Answer

I,m sure that Rose hasn,t expected all that consequences for puplishing these cartoons ... as he declared he wanted to challenge the isalmic forbids , and as i saw last week in Aljazeera he is influenced by an american writer called Pippes .. when i saw Pippes on the tv he was saying that we shouldn,t allow the " Islamic Imperialism " to control us ... he said that there is islamic imperialism wants to force all the world to obey its law ... well that is strange ..for muslims he consider that American Imperialism is who want to spread its authority and control over all the world not the week muslims . Muslims ask : why should the insulting of Muhammad and depicting him and making generalization about all muslims be considered freedom of Speech , and Talking about Zionism and thier massacres anti-semitism which is punished by law (ok .. some guys say that there is no anti-semitism law in Denmark) , but come on they cannot recognize between Denmark and Sweden . to support their speech they mention many cases :

  • I mention the case of turkish film lately .
  • just yesterday : Mayor of London is punished just for saying "Nazi" to a jewish journalist .

I know exactly that someone who lives in US or in Europe cannot feel the sociological and political tension in middle east .... Iraq Invasion , pressures for political reformation on goverments , ppl cannot choose between the bed tolitarist arabic goverments , and other choice of mess and lack of security that they see in iraq now ... they feel anger from anything , they feel anxious .. and they wanna to express that anger in some way ... and that was the suitable case cause the tolitarist goverments will allow them to express their anger now .

U notice this point ... that is so important ..

When u feel anxious always and week , teh society won,t go to secularism , rather than that it becomes more and more religous ... cause maby god can protect them .

the secularism develops when the man feel strong and he has full control on the nature and on his destiny ... but as he always asks what is teh future that wait me , and he see always teh danger of war ... don,t talk with me about secularism .

Adding to that , adding to the full support of Israel "defence of itself" which is considered " the real Terrorism " by arabs ... American troops has comen to give them the Freedom .. but the big Diappointment was that they see the Abu_guraib pics and the mess in iraq situation ... They read the document of Bush's Intent to bomb Al Jazeera channel , the first channel who let the arabic ppl to express their opinion .

all of that and some american writers wants to fight the " Islamic Imperialism " and he wants to force muslims to be secular ... u see how the media and right american thinkers see the matter .

I wonder why no chance is given for voices like Naom chomski , .... and ppl like him ... I don,t deny that America should use its power but it must use it wisely and in scientific way ... I think american politicians should get many courses of sociology and anthropology .

I have to talk also about the substituting of the Soviet Enemy with a fake enemy called Terrorism ... which allowing the american geverment takes more and more from the freedom of western society ... and that is so dangerous as i see as anarchist ..

We will talk about that later --Chaos 13:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] =Preliminary Questions to your answer

I followed your clear argument, but I have a few questions.

  1. Question 1: Which question did your answer refer to?
  2. Question 2: Your argument seems to be against US imperialism. Danish papers have made many cartoons with your arguments against the US. You are using Danish arguments here. I do not see how your argument is in any way against Denmark. You seem very pro-Denmark here. Are you?


[edit] Clarification on Denmark

  1. Most Western European countries were and still are dead against the US invasion of Iraqi.
  2. Most Western European countries are dead against censorship that makes US papers and TV a laughing stock abroad.
  3. Denmark attacks censorship in US media
  4. Denmark attacks censorship in the arab world
  5. Denmark attacks censorship imposed on Denmark by criminal muslims (a death threat is a crime in Denmark)
  6. Denmark attacks the US if any US agency tries to impose censorship in Denmark.

The only difference between the way Denmark has treated the US and the way Denmark has treated the muslim world is that the US has failed to impose censorship in Denmark since the US has not used any criminal means like death threats to any Danish citizen.DanielDemaret 14:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Direct comments on your answer

Yes, I agree. And so would most here in Scandinavia. We do not want imperialism coming from anywhere, and we do not want it happening to anyone else. I was just a bit taken aback when you used Scandinavian arguments against imperialism. DanielDemaret 14:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


I am not personally against Denmark , I think Danes were the victims of all this story , I just was explaining what has happened .. and I said niether Rose nor the Danish Goverment expected what would happen , They find themselves incorporated in a violent case without they expected that ... maybe their only mistake is misestimating the situation ... but in the current world of Globalization man should be aware of all of these sensitive cases ... anyway this case could be model case as it represents political and religional and cultrural conflicts and political and economical consequinses ... it is really should be model case for studying ... by the way : have u read Guenter Grass opinion about this issue .. I putted it someday in the talkpage of the Controversy page --Chaos 14:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
We seem to have consensus here :) DanielDemaret 14:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I have read Grass opinion on the issue.DanielDemaret 14:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Danish humour

"People hardly ever make use of the freedom they have. For example, the freedom of thought. Instead they demand freedom of speech as a compensation." Søren Kierkegaard DanielDemaret 17:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Disarming. But fabulous : ) Like adversity creating richer writers, perhaps surrounding stupidity fosters greater groups of thinkers ? Varga Mila 03:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] :D

Omg, den var ju helt underbar! --Striver 17:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More humour

'Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.' '..were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.' Ben FranklinDanielDemaret 10:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Science regarding liberty vs censorship

Democratic peace theory needs work, but the lessons to be learned are still interesting.DanielDemaret 21:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Humour

Thank you for the Danish humour note. It was really great! Resid Gulerdem 05:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Kierkegaard on politics and religion

Kierkegaard wrote that if you mix politics and religion, then politics will take over. Nobody will think about the Religion, since Politicians/Priests will tell you what to think about religion. Politics will then suddenly be based on an empty religion.DanielDemaret 10:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The pope : On Idolatry

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GG06Ak01.html

[edit] Rummel : On freedom as a cure-all

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/

[edit] Jesus Talk Vote (again)

Dear Daniel: I think we're approaching a consensus that will stick. Please come and vote. --CTSWyneken 15:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking at the vote close to the bottom. Pehaps the term consensus is too strong. I think when we're done, almost everyone will be able to live with the result. We've set this up as a run off. When the first vote concludes, then we will vote the two remaining. I expect a large majority will accept one or the other. --CTSWyneken 15:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship

Daniel, I evantually will join that policy page. I hope we can make some changes as you said. At this point I am very busy with real life issues and can spend time here occasionally. I have some problems with Wiki standards: porn pics, insults, etc. I am planning to appear on that page in 10-15 days or so and raise my concerns. Thanks you for reminding me... Resid Gulerdem 16:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Submission : The film

Resid, I just saw the film "submission". Please me it is not true. Please tell me that muslim men are not allowed to tell their wives off if they do not obey. I can not believe that they are allowed to hit their wives, so I will not even ask. DanielDemaret 20:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Daniel,
You are smart enough to question what you see and look for the truth. I haven't seen the film but heard something about it from media. Islam is under a heavy and negative propaganda. That film looks to me as part of it...
Let me give just a quick example to you so you can see the point: In the whole life of prophet Mohammed, he never, ever hit a women nor a child... On the other hand, it is narrated that his wife couple of times pushed him from his shoulder when she is a little nerves for something. Muslims are asked to follow Prophet Mohammed, as an example.
Islam regulates the whole life nicely. Yes, a Muslim can say 'bye' to her wife, but as a last resort. Prophet Mohammad said once that: 'the thing God doen't like most, but still did not forbid you from doing as necessary is divorce.' The part that insincere people do not like to hear or tell is this: A Muslim women has rights as a Muslim man when it comes to diverce. She can also say 'bye' to her husband if he is not nice... It is very modern like in our times. Please note that -which is very critical to see the whole picture- just before He came, women were sold like a 'thing' or were killed when they are child in that culture. He changed all these and raised women to a high status in the society. He said: 'The heavens are under the feets of your Moms', or 'The nicest one among you before God is the one who is nice to his wife and his family'. And many others...
Please see the articels about woman in the web site of Fethullah Gulen who is a well known Islamic scholar. I would recommend you to visit his web site often as you feel confused...
I would be happy to discuss this or similar issues further, if you have more questions. Resid Gulerdem 03:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Never hit

Resid, It makes me happy to hear you say that muslim men never tell their wives off for not obeying them, and that muslim men never hit them, even if they women "push them from their shoulders" , whatever that means. :) I have never hit anyone at all in my life, and I have never told anyone off for not obeying me, not even at work to my employees. *deletes "submission" film*. DanielDemaret 06:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC) I can not remember as far as baby-hood, but my parents assure me it was always thus. Smiling, sitting Buddha, they used to call me. DanielDemaret 07:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

WoooW .. what a nice guy ;) He He :) --Chaos 09:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

By saying "pushed HIM from HIS shoulders", I meant one of Prophet Mohammed's wife hit HIM slowly (pushed HIM) couple of times, when SHE is a little angry. Not the opposite! One of the companian of him who was with him all the way down from his childhood (Enes) and served Him told that, 'He never got angry at me for a thing I didn't do or a thing I did' Prophet Mohammad was really a good example. I hope it is clear now... Resid Gulerdem 18:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fethullah Gülen’s

Resid, I read some of Fethullahs articles, even if the only thing that I was confused about was your idiom "push from shoulders", which is very unclear.

Fethullah seems to be a peaceful fellow, and I like that.

Funnily, among other things, Fethullah asks: "How would they react if you said, with the excuse of press freedom, that you would publish something negative about “royal family in the UK” or “the revolutions of the French. . . the land of Robespierre” or “the bandits of Denmark”? You cannot simply say, “This is freedom of the press, I am freely expressing my thoughts.”"

I could answer him, if he had a Wiki. JP already did that many many years ago. No reaction, as far as I could tell. Danes may be Xenophobic, but they do not lack self-criticism. It would be a mistake to assume that. DanielDemaret 07:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, Yes, Mr. Gulen is a great person. And he is not alone on this. Believe or not, he represent the main-stream Islam. The other image of Islam in the media is what I am calling negative propoganda...
Could you see the women issues there?
Regarding the cartoons case, he is so kind, and he even do not want to mention others. Just quicly in some places he says that 'No Muslim can insult Mary or Jesus. If so s/he wont be a Muslim anymore'. Sometimes he doesn't want to mention about those and just mention smaller issues... I am sure as Muslims, an insult to Mary, Jesus would hurt Danish people and all other Christians. I am sure it would hurt you too... Right?
I would recomment you to refer to the web of Gulen to get info about mainstream Islam from that link as necessary. I would be more than happy to answer to your questions too. Resid Gulerdem 18:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I hope my answer above helps you see the difference between a politician tolerating a cartoon about him or a an insult about religiously the most important figure - per your Scandinawian politician example... I wouldn't mind really if it is about me and I would tolerate it as nicely as I can. Resid Gulerdem 18:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic Peace

Hi Daniel ... about the teory of democratic peace ... well i havn't heard it b4 ... but it was intersting to read it ... I can say that i think that more similar two societies are , less probable they go into a war ... but it doesn,t seem to me a deterministic theory ... u can find many historical exceptions in the critics section , it is surely that when rule depends on many opinions , the war chance would be less than totilarist regimes that depends on opinions of few men or one man ... but on other way how can we measure the Democracy ? isn't Democracy in Scanidnivian more than Us Democracy ?? and even the Democracy could be converted to game of power and money ..isn't it .. so we should define and determine how real every case of Democracy is ... a question does worth thinking ...

About the above debate about Violence against Muslim women .. come on man we returned to the Generalizations ... and again we make the word "Islam" responsible for some muslims' mistake ..even if they r uneducated and ignorant and ..and .. . Why don,t u go to Turkey , Syria , egypt and see how Women live ... yes there is Divorce in Islam but it is considered religionally the last choice and the most hated thing , in egypt women can have the right to divorce her husband ... so if Hersi Ali has grown up in undeleveloped enviroment and she wanted to incorporate in Western society by expressing her hate for her Ex-life and the religion of her native country ... that doesn't make Islam violent against Women .

That is Example how critics of Islam right now goes in the wrong direction commpletely ... and that assure my previous assertion that many ppl in europe and america wanna make the Islam itself uncivilized and unmercifull ... for this reason I think it would be great that the International Al-jazeera speaking in English will begin its broadcasting soon .

Peace ( Salam (ar) ; Shalom (he))  :) --Chaos 09:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Democratic Peace Theory needs some work

[edit] On democratic peace theory

Peace onto you, Chaos!

As for the "Democratic Peace Theory", the original theory is quite numerically scientific stringent, but has both been slightly misrepresented in wikipedia, and will probably need more work. I intend to correct a lot of the mistakes made in the article in the future. I wrote an essay where I mentioned this theory, among many other numeric theories of conflict, in 1980 at University, and mentioned even then that it needed to be developed more.

The idea traced back to Immanuel Kant, and this is the idea that most talk about, although it has developed a lot since then.

However, I must stress that RJ Rummel and others stress a number of other criteria than democracy. The authors stress liberty and democracy, and they try to measure both liberty and democracy.

One might claim that they are "fiddling the numbers", but you would almost have to follow the development from the 1970's like I have, that this is not really fair. The authors and their many students have studied with literally thousands of variables over many years, and most have done so in a very rigorous manner.

As for US Democracy and Scandinavian Democracy. Some here in Sweden claim that we have more democracy than the US has, since almost all vote for the swedish government and few for the US government.

The matter is a lot more complicated than that. One problem is the difference in size. Sweden is about the size of a very small US state. If you were to compare the votings in one US state with Sweden, then almost any US Federal state would get more votes. If you were to go even further down, then US democracy at a local level, for example in chosing a local sheriff of state attorney, is a lot more democratic in the US than almost anywhere in the world. So the US is VERY democratic on the very local level, like the local town. If one were to look at the entire US compared to the entire EU, you would have two entities of the same size, and suddenly the picture changes. Is the EU democratic? The average swede does not vote in the EU, since it does not know who those politicians are.

However, I do consider Scandinavian countries more democratic than most other european countries for various reasons. But the comparison with the US is complicated.

A much more important question than democracy is liberty, which is a more important factor for peace according to the so called "democratic peace theory".

Democracy is not enough. Not even total democracy, or even direct democracy, which very few countries have.

Liberty, or freedom, is even more important to the theory, but harder to measure.

With liberty, the theory could be very solid. The definition and measurement of liberty needs a lot of work, however.

Let me re-quote Ben Franklin 'Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.'

We need to arm the lamb if we are to have freedom. And we need freedom to have peace.

Total freedom of thought freedom of speech and freedom of expression are the easy ones. It costs nothing, and many will agree. That is good, but it is a bare minimum for freedom. Just as an example, a poor baby needs free access to food, shelter, warmth and a lot of love and education. Restrict any of these freedoms, and the baby will have a right to be violent.

Now the question becomes, does the US have more freedom than the scandinavian countries. My answer there is that different to the democratic answer. There are some federal states in the US that are quite liberal and free, and some are really terrible. Bush has his votes from the terrible states, and they are better at going to the voting polls. Not only are these states not very liberal, they are incredibly isolated and lack education, often in the middle of the US, and often do not even know anything about Scandinavia or Turkey (apart from the big bird at thanksgiving). They do not know, and they do not care. They are locally very democratic, and they leave foreign affairs to the white house, which is very very far away.

Scandinavia: Laws are, on the average, a lot more liberal than those of the US. Freedom of speech and expression is a lot more important to a Dane than in many US federal states. The average scandinavian knows a lot more about the rest of the world than the average american. I think it is safe to say that almost all young scandinavians speak english fairly well, and many since it is considered lingua franca today. We only "dub" foreign TV-shows for children under 9, and most movies on TV are foreign.

This is not to say that things are perfect here, far from it. But if you want to compare freedom with other countries, scandinavian countries are on the right track .