Investing in saving your life and the future generations seems trivial?
I am talking about giving them the knowledge of freedom, democracy, human life values.
Or do you want me to put some links of what they teach their children now, i want them to know about civil rigths,english, some history(french revolution), american civil war.etc.
Not because i want to, just because i feel i have to sohumanity can grow on and notbe divided.
Nobel price is very much influenced by politics so yes, i want to see more muslims getting it.

taos: I mean that Muslims usually don't ask why. They do things the way they want to or are told to. You don't need to learn a lot for that, except for the things they have to do, which they do. They usually don't care about nano-technology (just to name something) and all (even less than us) and I can't blame them. Sure, they would research for innovations if need be, but why, with Western Capitalism already doing it for them as well as causing murderous competition, meaning there's no money or anything to be made, so no reason to learn it? If they want, they could change culturally, move to a Western country and such. Really, I don't think their education is a problem.

@taos, i don't think you can simply educate what 'freedom, deomcracy, and human life values' mean, you have to experience it.

@orathaic how did you experienced it if it wasn't from examples in your every day life? Your teachers, tv, books, heroic stories about sacrifices for human kind instead of allah.

I like this guy: cat stevens( hates jews) but he is a great artist
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4awCoBf85Nc

You can't impose cultural changes, and kids are great at ignoring what teachers say. You need to encourage change on a larger scale, i suspect that the EU is requiring 'democratic' change in Turkey (if they ever want to become members) is hte best example... if Turks want to join Europe (as the greeks did, and they've had a similar recent history) then their own people need to decide to change.

Sure education is a good place to start, you might get 1 in 10 students to become interested in social change, and go out into their communities and try to make a difference.

If the government can convince the majority of dog owners to pick up their dog's shit and put it in a bag in just a decade or so, then they can do pretty much anything. It is one of the greatest political achievements of the modern age.

And I don't think that system is too bad. Sure, in a way it's dangerous to not think about what you're told to do in a way, but I think we have proven that thinking about it is much more dangerous.

As for your post that I didn't read before posting my last post taos, they know their civil rights pretty much, as they learn about Islam and there are all their rights and laws already. We can't teach them freedom if we don't know any. Most of us just feel free for some reason. And so do they. Why would you teach them democracy? It's the dictatorship of the majority. At least they can argue freedom with some reason, unlike the west.

Stay objective if you want to learn something instead of telling the forum what your teacher (or whoever, maybe it was you personally) told you, mate. If I were them, I wouldn't want our so-called 'progression' either. If you want equality between you and Muslims, become Muslim. If not, leave them be superior in so many ways, and inferior in about two ways. Don't tell them about your wet dreams as if they are facts.

(I'm trying to point something out, explain something, this is not by definition completely my opinion, FYI)

That is as a follow-up to my previous post, but with a slightly different flavour.

Octavious, I would not have thought of that as the greatest political achievement, but I can't dispute your reasoning. I take it you aren't a dog owner.

Orathaic, a logical statement is based on objective or subjective facts while an illogical statement isn't.

@Emac,
"a logical statement is based on objective or subjective facts"
Could someone give me an example of a subjective fact?

@Emacs, i didn't ask about logical statements, i asked about statements as contrasted with facts.

If you don't like my answer orathaic that is your problem.

Hecks, a subjective fact is one that is limited to the subject experiencing it. If you have a headache I cannot establish this fact and must take your word for it. Your statement about your headache becomes evidence to me of the subjective fact that you have a headache.

Orathaic, you lied to me. You sent me this private message a year ago in July "You're either trolling or racist. Either way i'm muting you."

@Emac,
Interesting. Not sure I'd have defined personal experience as fact, but neither is it opinion, I suppose, so I'll accept it.

It is not my original thought Hecks. I'm reading Being Logical by D.Q. Mc Inerny, and the definition and example come from his writing. As I see a logical statement would say "Hecks said he had a headache" and an illogical statement would say "Hecks has a headache." I cannot establish that you have a headache outside of the fact that you tell me you do. McInerny's idea of logic emphasizes the specificity of words that match ideas. I obviously am an amateur, but I'm trying.

I didn't know that picking up the dogs shit was one of the gratest political achievements.if it is so.....we are screwed. "OF THE MODERN AGE"
It's an achievement but...one of the greatest? I guess you mean as an educational government achievement, so yes.
Modern education and thinking can be spreaded easly in a few decades.just sell them some american tv series and movies very cheap and saturate their minds since chiildwood. Make their youth to wanna be like the retarded young american pie movie ,show them the young people enjoying the life in a capitalist consumers society with no moral parenthood control. They will come running, the intrrnet is already doing part of this job.

"If you don't like my answer orathaic that is your problem."

Lol I love the fact you still apparently think you're thinking logical. You didn't answer his question.

Following your logic, if you ask me what's the difference between a dolphin and a whale and I tell you a dolphin is bigger than a bike, that's your problem. It can't just be considered logic by any definition I'd say.

The question was what's the difference between a statement and a fact according to you. Your answer didn't say what's the difference between a statement and a fact. It was about the difference between a logical statement and an illogical statement. And if orathaic doesn't like the answer it's his problem. See the issue there?

Your answer is useless since we still don't know what a fact is according to you. If you want to have a good discussion with us that's really your problem. I'm sure orathaic doesn't care too much.

I said a logical statement is based on objective or subjective facts. An illogical one isn't. A fact exists on its own and a statement is based on facts. I would type it in crayon to make it easier for you to understand, but I can't find that option.
A dolphin and a whale are both tangible objects. Do you not understand that a statement isn't a tangible object? I'm sorry, but I can't speak to the inadequacy of your level of understand of the basics. Orathiac was trolling me, and I pointed this out by posting his PM to me. Your revealing statement that you are sure that Orathaic doesn't care too much. I wonder how you are sure of that? Are you another ID of Orathaics? Are you his roommate? His significant other? How illogical of you to be sure what another person thinks? I stand by my answer. A statement is based on facts. There can be no logical statement without facts. Who cares about illogic? Askinjg what the difference is a fact and a statement seems an excersie in stupidity and considering the source of the question and the defender of that source I see why the excercise took place.

Orathaic, you said that you muted me when you didn't. I will mute you as a liar and a troll.

What I'm trying to say is that this discussion seems to be going nowhere because you have a few weird definitions for words. As far as I'm concerned, making a statement is just claiming something to be a fact. Then it doesn't have to be a fact. I can state I'm a plane but that doesn't make it a fact I'm a plane. Not even subjectively. I know I'm not a plane, but I can still state I am. In fact, I already proved my definition by stating I'm sure orathaic doesn't care too much. This could still match your description. However, an illogical statement can definitely be based on facts. For example: "Muslims are stupid." It's a really stupid statement, but it's based on the fact that they have less Nobel Prizes than Cambridge.

Your definition doesn't seem to fit mine (and most people's, I think) exactly. That's why orathaic and me asked I think. Now I know where the issue is.

As for me being sure: it's an overstatement, but it's a tiny one. I wonder how you can be sure about a few things as well. I'm pretty sure he doesn't give a damn, because he's too smart to worry about being wrong against you. Sorry mate. You really don't make as much sense as you claim to do. What you're saying now makes some sense on it's own, but it doesn't match the previous pages, or even the OP. You started out with these 2 sentences:

"The dog is sleeping. You can look and see the dog is sleeping."

Bullshit. As long as you can't accept that, everyone is going to have a hard time discussing with you, since you just won't accept facts, ironically enough.

If you just look, you can't know the dog is sleeping. You can assume the dog is sleeping. Nothing more. Therefore you can't say it's a fact unless you check it with MRI or whatever. You can't just look. In practice, something isn't a fact when it just may be true, even when it turns out to be true. You can not call the dog sleeping a fact if you are just watching it doing nothing, therefore you can't call it a fact. Even if it turns out to be true. You can be sure without something being a fact though. Being sure is emotional, and has little to do with the facts backing you up. You can be sure there's a God when there's not proof, for example. You can also be sure there's no God while there's no proof there is no God.

If you can't agree to all of this, we either don't agree to the definition of fact or the definition of statement. That's why I and probably orathaic asked.

As for orathaic beig a troll according to you: I don't think he is. All your PM points out is that he claims to have muted you a year ago in July, which may very well be true. You see, there's this button that says "unmute" when you mute someone. Maybe he muted you and then unmuted you. Enough people change their muting list on a monthly basis I think. He may have muted you for a month, five months or whatever.

Em, thanks steephie. I'm pretty sure i support most of what you just said. And it saves me typing all that.

And he says he has you muted, so, you know, it would be quite a waste if he has indeed.

I have indeed.

I think Emac just wants us to acknowledge and congratulate him on his community college certificate of achievement in semantics and be done with it. I'll start: Congrats.

Do they still issue degrees in semantics? I've always wanted a rhetoric degree. I'd feel oh-so-nineteenth-century.

Sooooo......phhhhttthhhh...is there a way to...er...sum up this 149 count thread? What's the conclusion, Lou?