The Singlemost Important Obstruction to World Peace: Failure to Grasp Three-Plus Identity

I’ve always wanted to write a book title something like ‘the nature of the world according to ablestmage’ and along that facetious vein, I’ve decided to come up with the master list of personal habits each person should personally strive for, toward world peace. These things should not be legislated or required — but rather, each person on their own ought to strive for them, at their own pace.

1. Understand the Three-Plus concept of identity. I believe failure to grasp this concept is the most important obstruction to world peace.

Three-Plus is a concept of identity I have formulated to describe the number of identities each individual has. Each of the Three-Plus are distinct identities, different from each other and understood by varying sources. Each identity within the Three-Plus always exists, and there is no individual who has less than three, ever.

(a) the first identity is the true identity, which is a mystery to everyone else including the individual.

The true identity is the actual number of hairs on one’s body, the actual number of teeth, the actual genetic sequences, etc, at any given moment. The true identity always stays true and is never false, because it is made up of all of the actual details about a person, and may change moment to moment such as “current actual pulse rate” or “current volume of air in the lungs” that could be accurately measured if the technology existed to assist in the awareness of it.

If it were possible to view a data stream of all completely true aspects of a person, every entry would fluctuate (some more entries more rapidly than other entries) depending on things like the actual number of hairs on a person’s body, the actual length of every hair according to all degrees of measurement, the speed of each molecule and cell in the body relative to everything other molecule or cell elsewhere in the universe, etc.

The first identity is a mystery, because it is impossible for the individual to grasp all of these elements of themselves simultaneously.

(b) the second identity is the individual person’s best guess of their own first identity.

The second identity is always cumulatively false, although it may be scattered with numerous true aspects. Each person has a general understanding of “who I am” in regard to themselves. For instance, they may believe, “my ankle hurts when I run,” or, “I remember all of the lyrics to We Built This City,” or, “I have romantic feelings toward Danielle,” and each of those aspects about themselves make up the overall second identity.

Also, that overall second identity is always incomplete, because of the implausibility of fully realizing every element fully, simultaneously. As one grows older, a greater number of variable of oneself may become more fully realized, and the impression of oneself may alter to account for new variables experienced later that provides better inside to the impression of oneself, but it will always remain incomplete with always more to discover about oneself.

Also, the greatest authority over who knows best, or who has the “best total guess” of the true identity of someone is that person themself, who has had the most direct experience with theirself than anyone else. Only the individual can alter the second identity.

(c) the third identity is an external impression of the individual by a different individual.

Perhaps more importantly, the number of third identities that exist are multiplied by one or more, for every other individual who has ever or will ever exist. If someone named Urgu from 404 BC/E at any point wondered about the future of all people who would ever exist, then every person in the future would add “Urgu’s musings about me” to the list of their third identities. If Jamal from down the street thinks Tamira from apartment 404 is cute, then “Jamal’s musings about Tamira” is a third-identity of Tamira.

Also, the authority of the actual understanding of the third identity rests exclusively with the other person and cannot be changed by the person the identity is about. The person the identity is about might be able to influence change of that impression, but the decision to alter the impression rests exclusively with person making the external impression.

Also, the third identity is always cumulatively less accurate than the second identity, because the third identity can only have an outsider’s understanding of the person and never direct experience AS the person.

Notes/Discussion:

>>The second identity will absolutely not and can never even possibly be governed by a third identity.

If there is a suspicion that the second identity is influenced by the third, then the person misunderstands the concept of the second.

You decide how you think. If you take others’ thinking about you into consideration to influence your impression of yourself, you are still the sole and entire authority to decide whether to find that impression valid or invalid.

If you dismiss a third identity’s impression of you, then it is by your authority that it was dismissed, and therefore a matter of the second identity only.

If you accept a third identity impression of you, then it is by your authority that it is accepted, and therefore a second identity matter only.

Your understanding of yourself is yours to make, regardless of whether the information of that impression comes from direct experience or others’ assertions.

>> It is fully possible for the third identity to grasp something that the second does not or may never grasp. For instance, a baby who dies may have never grasped the concept of what hair is, but a third identity can observe whether the baby had any hair.

>> The first identity is the most credible, because all of it is always true and is not influenced by bias. If a datum is possible to be influenced by bias, then it is not an aspect of the first identity. The first identity can contain, however, the unbiased actuality of the biased datum.

>> The first identity is made up of every possible datum about the individual, including the curvature of every angle of every blood cell’s surface; the quantity of waste of every cell in the body and what that waste is composed of and broken down by quantity each; the volume of molecular absorption of each pore of a person’s skin, including how many of which molecule of which substance has been absorbed thereby, as well as the width, depth, curvature, circumference, relative angle, or bacterial contents of each pore; the actual number of neurons in the individual brains, including firing frequency, firing tendency, efficacy of the neuron for its intended purpose, strength of the neuron’s connection to other neurons, efficacy of re-transmitting the identical data through it compared to other neurons; even down to things like how many unique alphanumeric characters the individual has ever typed in the individuals lifetime, what liquid volume of tears shed about losing a loved one, how many times the person has blinked, how many traumatic experiences an individual has endured before a certain age and whether those events were actually traumatic to the individual or actually just imagined implications had the event transpired differently, among others.

>> The first identity also includes the actual number and accuracy of the second person and third person data points made about others, and no datum can be crowded out by any other datum of itself.

>> The second identity is not very credible. Although it is is the best non-first identity at being able to most-credibly describe one’s own first identity to another, it will always be cumulatively inaccurate because (a) it cannot grasp all aspects of itself simultaneously.

>> The third identity is the very least credible and least-even-potentially-credible impression of someone else, because (a) it does not involve (and can’t) actually having experienced that person within that person’s body; (b) of how much data/focus is required to even grasp the third identity’s offerer’s own second identity; and (c) how much data/focus is required to grasp all of the other third identities the third identity’s offerer’s offer about all other individuals.

>> Killing someone for any reason is the highest possible crime to identity, because it discards actual methodical investigation of someone’s identity and always prefers the least credible third-identity view of a person as the foundation for the action. Also, it artificially halts the the liberty of the person to maintain and explore their own second identity, and also renders most of the data points of the first identity to static positions and therefore unexplorable by third identities.

I believe that if this Three-Plus concept of identity could be grasped by all persons, then world peace would be possible.

Interpretation of Taeyeon WHY and Starlight MV Meaning

Taeyeon’s new MVs Starlight and WHY seem to be telling a story, but the narrative isn’t really very clear yet. Here’s my guesses about what the story might be — and these are just my guesses.

If you need a refresher, here are the two music videos in order they were released.

Starlight MV

WHY MV

1. I think it’s pretty clear that Dean and Taeyeon’s characters are ‘together’ romantically, probably in the first stages of the mutual crush since the lyrics of Starlight seem (to me) to describe only the beginning of their relationship where the squishy teddy-bear feelings are overwhelming, where everything else that was ordinary before seems like it can be viewed in a new way.

2. According to the lyrics, Taeyeon was “used to being alone” and I believe what the song is about is her encounter with “love” itself, not specifically Dean. The reason I think Dean isn’t the starlight she mentions, is because of the memorial site and what she does there. A lot of people seem to think it is Dean’s memorial, but I don’t think so. Bear with me here.

3. Taeyeon receives a message from a mysterious M74 on her pink pager device, and speaks on the phone to M74 while Dean is standing next to her. The message she receives is bad news. M74 is probably someone who lives nearby the memorial that has been set up for the former love or others that might have known the former love, such as a nurse who found the old love’s contact info and notified her of the death. In America, nurses and doctors often use pagers.

4. Taeyeon and Dean date for a little while, all the while that Taeyeon is thinking about M74’s pager message and phone conversation in the back of her mind because of some scenes where Taeyeon is alone after meeting Dean, as if she is still thinking about something else, but still happy at the same time. I think she is remembering what it was like to have the starlight feeling again in her life, and how refreshing it is.

5. At the end of the Starlight MV, Taeyeon seems to express visually that “wait for me, I need to do something” and then gradually leaves, but only for this errand. She’s not breaking up with him, she’s just running an errand that involves M74. If you notice at the end of Starlight and the beginning of Why, Taeyeon is shown walking with the same kind of stride, as if Why is continuing the story.

6. In the Why MV, we discover that M74 is a location according to a street sign. I am guessing M74 is the approximate location where the memorial is placed. In America, the kind of memorial on the ground is very common for people who have died in a car accident. The memorial is not where they are buried, but serves as a marker for where the memorialized person actually lost their life, and people who knew the person from the area they died can visit that spot without having to travel to the place they are actually buried in case it is far away.

7. Taeyeon leaves photographs of herself and Dean together as a sign to the dead love that she has moved on and found another starlight. In American cemeteries, if you see a little rock or a small pebble sitting on someone’s tombstone, that is a sign that a loved one who was mourning for the person who died believes their mourning period is over and they are ready to move forward, as a kind of closure. Not that they’ll never miss them again, but that they’re finally at a point where they have realized the loss will not be undone, and they have decided to move forward in their life without them. I think the photographs Taeyeon leaves at the memorial is like the little stone.

8. The lyrics of Why seem (to me) to suggest that Taeyeon has put off saying an official goodbye to the old love for too long, and needs to finally say it, so she can move on.

9. She was nervous about ever having to say goodbye forever, and she tries several different things while she’s on her way there to avoid doing it. The swings, the bubbles, the reading, skateboarding, the dock, are all just distractions from actually saying goodbye, but once she has finally said goodbye to the old starlight, it she wondered why it could have been as hard as she thought it would be — because now she realizes, with Dean, there are other starlights out there.

10. I don’t believe this is Dean’s memorial because Taeyeon doesn’t seem sad about it at all, as if she still has Dean to go back to, and how Dean is the new starlight. The scenes where Taeyeon jumps into the pool is like her uncertainty about “the jump” of saying goodbye forever, but actually feels refreshed once she does it. When she turns around after leaving the memorial, she doesn’t look sad, but optimistic for the future especially one that includes Dean.

11. I think the combination-lock message is from Dean, who gave it to her before she left. The unlocked message repeats what the original pager message said, as if Dean wants to remind her “Please remember me, too” in her quest to settle ties with the old love. The combination on the lock is “apple” and the nickname for New York (from the back Dean’s jacket when they bump into each other) is also called The Big Apple. The pink of the message paper also matches the pink of the building Dean and Taeyeon were standing next to when she got the original message, so since she received “miss me” from M74 originally and went to that location, she now receives “miss me” from Dean in the combination lock and will go back to him now.

Names of all 50 US States if they Tried to Brexit: Kentuquit, Hawaiionara, etc

Considering the recent “exit” of the UK from the EU called the Brexit, I decided to come up with what each of the 50 US states might call their own respective departures if they tried to put it up for vote:

Monikers marked with a * are suggestions others have made =)

Alabama – Ala-bye-ma, Alablitza
Alaska – Alaskedaddle
Arizona – Arizoderchi
Arkansas – Arkansayonara
California – Caleavefornia
Colorado – Coloradieu*
Connecticut – Connexicut*
Delaware – Delaway
Florida – Floriddance, Floretirement
Georgia – G’byegia
Hawaii – Wawaiionara
Idaho – Idago*, Idios
Illinois – Illinothanks
Indiana – Indiaaaashaddap, India
Iowa – Iowanaplaythisgame
Kansas – Kantdothis
Kentucky – Kentuquit
Louisiana – Louisioutta
Maine – Vacaine, Hellocananyonehearmeisthisthingon
Maryland – Maryleft
Massachusetts – Scramachusetts
Michigan – Michigone
Minnesota – Minnesolong, Minneseeya
Mississippi – Mississeeya, Missiddippi, Missiskippi
Missouri – Missout
Montana – Practicallycanadalready, Montadios
Nebraska – Nabraskootch, Nebyeska
Nevada – Leavada
New Hampshire – New Scramshire
New Jersey – New Jegress
New Mexico – New Exitco
New York – Screw Yourk
North Carolina – North Scramonlina
North Dakota – North Dakota-ta*
Ohio – O-bye-o*, Aurevoiro
Oklahoma – Outlahoma
Oregon – Ore-gone*
Pennsylvania – Pennsylvacate
Rhode Island – Onthehorseyourodeisland, Rhode Is
South Carolina – South Scramolina
South Dakota – South Dakota-ta*
Tennessee – Tenesseeyawouldntwannabeeya
Texas – Texit, Tejajasuckers, Tejadios, Textme
Utah – Scootah
Vermont – Vamoont,
Virginia – Virginegress
Washington – Dashington
West Virginia – West Virginegrees
Wisconsin – Wis-gone-sin
Wyoming – Flyoming,

If you have any others to suggest, submit them in comments and I’ll add my favorites to the list =)

Critical Thinking: “Joys of Muslim Women” Forward Debunked Item-By-Item

I recently saw the forward, “Joys of Muslim Women” as a meme/forward making the rounds on Facebook (19,212 shares as of this writing), and I naturally sought out some kind of snopes-gotcha link to counterpost, but turns out all I could really find was far too vague, as if no one wanted to touch it with a 40-foot pole. The snopes article for it, as of June 2016, only says “mixture” and only mixture they’re willing to mention is that it’s misattributed to Nonie Darwish; that she did write other things that attempt to ‘expose’ Muslim practices, but that the list attributed to her isn’t precisely any of the words she wrote — but doesn’t say which parts are actually mixed up.

Well, challenge accepted.

I am an American from non-Muslim lineage (to my knowledge). I am well-versed in the judeochristian text, for comparison. If you’re a Christian reading this to hopefully gain an advantage in spewing your filth at Muslims or their faith in general, I think you’re in for a pretty big surprise concerning your own text. I believe myself to be and identify as being among the “People of the Book” that heed the Abrahamic YHWH as the true God, and I place the transgressionless works (of whom English-speakers call) Jesus Christ in place of my own, as my sole defense regarding the throne judgment review of one’s life which ascertains to what degree of righteousness I possess.

Critical Thinking Applied Here

How would you go about fairly characterizing ANYTHING as being “in the Muslim faith” in the first place? For my purposes, let’s assume that there must be a specific law that can be referenced or cited, that even remotely suggests directly that something “Muslim” is actually even real, AND that is does actually apply to a statistically significant body of believers.

Let’s RULE OUT anything that a Muslim individual has ever done, because people, in general, act in their own interests. It is not logically sound to propose that “since a Muslim individual did it once ever, it is therefore a Muslim practice,” in the same way it isn’t logically sound to propose that, “since a Christian (or American) individual did it once, it is therefore a Christian (or American) practice.”

Let’s RULE OUT the actions of one single tribunal or one single flawed judgment of a single court that only governs a small area, as if it were applicable to all people. In the same way that Americans under the US District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin must abide by the assertions that court makes, that “Americans” are not bound by that same assertion necessarily, since there are millions and millions of other Americans who live and operate outside of that court’s jurisdiction.

Laws and rulings in America get turned over all the time. If you can cite a reference to some 2003 ruling that a smaller court ruled that the defendant’s shooting of someone from Mexico in self defense was justified, it would make no sense to reason it’s perfectly fine to just shoot anyone who is from Mexico. What if there was a higher court’s ruling that reversed that 2003 judgment, and gave the shooter the death penalty? You’d be leaving out that detail.

YOU MUST APPLY THE SAME STANDARD to rulings and laws that you cite from Muslim-dominated countries.

An individual is responsible for his/her own actions, and the actions they take are not representative of a larger body of individuals, even if that individual is literally employed as a representative of the faith. For example, if a protestant Christian man, who is an elder in his church, rapes someone: it is not fair to say that this rape is something that “Christians” do or “in the Christian faith, you can rape.”

Similarly, if a person who identifies as Muslim, and is even established as a kind of expert or official on behalf of the faith, rapes someone: it is by the same standard not logical to presume that crime to be somehow a “Muslim” practice.

If you cannot grasp or disagree with this, then this article is too complex for you to understand.

In order to prove that something is “in the Muslim faith” you’re going to have to cite specifically a directive, law, code, or otherwise institution of legal authorization by which any diligent and thoughtful student, earnest in honesty, that does actually apply to all, or a statistically significant majority of “Muslims” and not strictly limited to just a single township or bizarre sect by which all others may be compared. Also, to establish your case of innocence, you must also prove that there ISN’T an identical or similar statute that can point to your own authorization of the same thing.

If you allow the tenets or cited text of a single, bizarre sect to account for all Muslims, then in order to not be hypocritical, then you must allow for any strange bylaw for any strange Christian-like cult, even if it applies only to that cult’s members, to be considered for all Christians. If you can find a bylaw in the Ku Klux Klan’s or Westboro Baptist’s teaching materials that authorizes hate speech, then you must consider that authorization as applicable to all Americans or all Christians, IF you insist on simultaneously claiming that something is “Muslim” just because you found a single reference to it in some little sect that authorizes it.

If you wish to cite something specific, such as “in the KKK, you’re allowed to,” or “in the bylaws of the Westboro Baptist church, you’re allowed to,” then fine — do so, if you can find a specific reference that applies to that small section of people. However, DO NOT attempt to propose that “since a bylaw of the Westboro Baptist church says so” says something is authorized, that the same authorization must therefore be “Christian” or “American” even if the land in which the Westboro Baptist church operates is within the stereotypical “Christian” governance of the “Christian” America.

Likewise, if you wish to cite something specific, such as “in the town of Basra, Iraq, you’re allowed to,” then fine — do so, if you can find a specific reference that applies to that small section of people. However, DO NOT attempt to propose that “since the city code of Basra, Iraq, says so” that the same authorization must therefore apply to all Iraqis, or all Muslims, even if the land in which Basra, Iraq operates is within the stereotypical governance of a “Muslim” country.

The forward in question does not obey these rules.

This forward does not establish what it means by “Muslim” specifically — if that applies to only residents of a statistically-significant Muslim population (who could, for instance, be Christians living there, as well as people who are just ordinary citizens who have no particular Muslim affiliation other than just living there. It does not establish what it means by “in the Muslim faith” because there is more than one “Muslim faith” in same way that “in the Christian faith” according to protestants can be wildly different to the codes followed by those “in the Christian faith” according to Catholics.

This forward does not establish locale, jurisdiction, dates or times when the ruling came into effect, nor does it offer verse citations, population sizes to which the code is limited, whether the code is by oral tradition or statute, or anything else. It exists purely as speculation or undefended accusation.

Think for a moment if there was a list of horrible things done in the bible, but without listing where in the bible those deeds were mentioned, and then those things were put under a list titled, “things the holy bible approves of” since, if it appeared in there, then it therefore must be approved by people who believe it, right? No. Not at all.

Nailing someone’s head to the ground with a tent spike thru their temple while they lie sleeping, is not at all recommended, but it happens in the bible (Judges 4:21). Calling forth she-bears from the forest to maul children in response to calling you a bald-head, is not at all recommended, but it happens in the bible (2 Kings 2:23-24). YOU MUST APPLY THAT SAME STANDARD to things that happen in the text of the Qu’ran; that doesn’t mean it is necessarily a good idea, recommended, legal, or required. It is POSSIBLE it could be universally applicable, but better research as to whether it is or isn’t would be required, which would necessitate diligent and rigorous study.

A list of “horrible things the bible lets you do” that includes the tent spike and the she-bears as bulleted points, would not offer diligent or rigorous study.

Likewise, the forward in question does not offer diligent or rigorous study.

If you cannot specify which particular citations, mutually agreeable references, scope of application, or proof that there is such a rule, THEN YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS SAYING IT.

Lastly, consider whether I were to just repeat this list of things included in the forward, but title it “things that are false about Muslims” but didn’t provide any evidence. The SAME AMOUNT of evidence is offered to prove that they are true. Therefore, neither of those two lists would be reasonable to presume honest or diligently researched.

The original forward

The following is the full text of the forward as I’ve observed it, which I will attempt to debunk or affirm item by item, with a dash of critical thinking:

Joys of Muslim Women by Nonie Darwish
In the Muslim faith a Muslim man can marry a child as young as 1 year old and have sexual intimacy with this child, consummating the marriage by 9.
The dowry is given to the family in exchange for the woman (who becomes his slave) and for the purchase of the private parts of the woman, to use her as a toy.
Even though a woman is abused she can not obtain a divorce.
To prove rape, the woman must have (4) male witnesses.
Often after a woman has been raped, she is returned to her family and the family must return the dowry. The family has the right to execute her (an honor killing) to restore the honor of the family. Husbands can beat their wives ‘at will’ and he does not have to say why he has beaten her.
The husband is permitted to have (4 wives) and a temporary wife for an hour (prostitute) at his discretion.
The Shariah Muslim law controls the private as well as the public life of the woman.
In the West World (America) Muslim men are starting to demand Shariah Law so the wife can not obtain a divorce and he can have full and complete control of her. It is amazing and alarming how many of our sisters and daughters attending American Universities are now marrying Muslim men and submitting themselves and their children unsuspectingly to the Shariah law.
By passing this on, enlightened American women may avoid becoming a slave under Shariah Law.
Author and lecturer Nonie Darwish says the goal of radical Islamists is to impose Shariah law on the world, ripping Western law and liberty in two.
Darwish was born in Cairo and spent her childhood in Egypt and Gaza before emigrating to America in 1978, When she was eight years old, her father died while leading covert attacks on Israel He was a high-ranking Egyptian military officer stationed with his family in Gaza .
When he died, he was considered a “shahid,” a martyr for jihad. His posthumous status earned Nonie and her family an elevated position in Muslim society.
But Darwish developed a skeptical eye at an early age. She questioned her own Muslim culture and upbringing. She converted to Christianity after hearing a Christian preacher on television.
In her latest book, Darwish warns about creeping Sharia law – what it is, what it means, and how it is manifested in Islamic countries.
For the West, she says radical Islamists are working to impose Sharia on the world. If that happens, Western civilization will be destroyed.
In twenty years there will be enough Muslim voters in the U.S. to elect the President! I think everyone in the U.S. should be required to read this, but with the ACLU, there is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on!
Let’s not allow this to happen in America

Let’s get started.

1

If you skipped any of the critical thinking portion above the above the quoted text, then you must go back and read it. If you refuse, then you have no business reading what follows.

In the Muslim faith a Muslim man can marry a child as young as 1 year old and have sexual intimacy with this child, consummating the marriage by 9.

I can’t find any reference text that can credibly prescribe a specific age for marriage, but neither has Judaism or Christianity.

I can’t find any evidence, anywhere, that suggests anything regarding Islam’s position on person of age 1 or age 9, or any age thereabouts, that (a) proposes the legitimacy of marriage consummation or sensual activities of any kind based on age, and (b) can be credibly applied to all or a statistically-significant majority of Muslims.

There is a very widespread misunderstanding that Muslim women must wait 3 months before being allowed to divorce (thus having been married prior) if they are not having their “monthly courses” but this would also be true for women who have reached menopause, women who are pregnant, women on certain medications, and others who are physiologically incapable due to their own genetics such as birth defect.

Similarly, if a Christian husband according to Ephesians 5:25 is advised to love their wives as Christ loved the church, but does not specify which age the husband is allowed to marry, is it therefore logical to assume that a Christian husband may take a wife of age 1 and consummate that marriage at age 9? No, it isn’t, and you’re therefore not allowed to apply the same illogical position to Muslims, either, just because it doesn’t say they can’t.

2

The dowry is given to the family in exchange for the woman (who becomes his slave) and for the purchase of the private parts of the woman, to use her as a toy.

The only evidence I can find of a “dowry” given to anyone in Islam is paid to the wife alone, and not to the family. The dowry is called a “mahr” and itself is fairly complicated and there are varying opinions (and therefore not in application to all or a statistical-majority of Muslims) on what constitutes an appropriate value/ quantity/e tc of the mahr. Anyone wishing to take a wife must pay this dowry to the wife herself, not to guardians, and must go about the care to research the case-by-case value of the dowry. It is not a transaction in exchange for goods or services, but is paid from husband to wife as an expression of being serious about the relationship.

You might just as likely say that an American or Christian can “get away with only spending $5 on a wedding ring, if the wife accepts it” and is therefore trading permission to marry her for only $5, but that’s not at all a valid interpretation.

3

Even though a woman is abused she can not obtain a divorce.

This was covered to some degree in another article I wrote in 2009, Top 10 Anti-Women Qur’an Quotes, Explained when confronting the idea that abuse is even allowed at all in the first place. The verse of the Qu’ran used to justify beating actually had a kinda funny English translation from my copy, that husbands were first to say something about it, and if not then corrected then to refuse to share a bed with them, and if still not corrected, “and last, spank them lightly; but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means of annoyance.” A footnote from that text indicates that there is widespread agreement that “all authorities are unanimous in deprecating any sort of cruelty, even of the nagging kind…” so abuse in general even of the nagging sort isn’t even allowed to begin with.

There is also the concept of a Khula, which is the right for a wife to divorce a husband by repayment of the dowry or some other arrangement of value. I can’t find much agreement on authority about whether the women is permitted to initiate the divorce (for any reason) and therefore not an assertion that it applies to all or a statistical-majority of Muslims, give assuming that abuse is not even allowed in the first place and is therefore a breaking of the terms of marriage, it would seem the husband would be subject to a judgment by a court for having done so with the plausibility of ending in divorce — but I don’t find any reference to substantiate it as a “Muslim” thing having application to any given Muslim you might meet anywhere.

4

To prove rape, the woman must have (4) male witnesses.

This link and this link and this link seem to offer fairly credible write-ups about the topic, saying that this is untrue, and offers citations from specific sources about why it is untrue. The second link even offers counterevidence that, in the Judeochristian text, the raped must marry the rapist, or both of them must be stoned to death — but these are not practices of Christians or America, so it is not legitimate to say any such accusations from the forwarded text are “Muslim” either.

5a-5b

Often after a woman has been raped, she is returned to her family and the family must return the dowry. The family has the right to execute her (an honor killing) to restore the honor of the family.

This sounds a lot like anecdotal evidence, as if to say, “I saw this happen once” as if it were true everywhere and might be confusing general underground vigilante culture as if they were based in Islam, which is like confusing urban gang member clash violence in America with people also attend curling tournaments in America, since they’re both from the same country and since they’re under the same federal government.

The concept of an honor killing (as vigilante justice for any crime) is also not even a Muslim concept, per se — it has roots all over the world. The person, who has already been established to not be the author claimed, doesn’t even bother to cite when or where this supposed event took place, and what the repercussions were for the family for doing so, if it even did happen. I could just as easily include this item under “things that have never happened” and it would have to be just as true, because just as much evidence is presented to support it.

5c

Husbands can beat their wives ‘at will’ and he does not have to say why he has beaten her.

This outright falsity is already debunked above in #3, regarding no right whatsoever to beat their wives, insomuch as they are not even allowed to engage in any “means of annoyance” for that matter.

6

The husband is permitted to have (4 wives) and a temporary wife for an hour (prostitute) at his discretion.

This is also partly debunked in my 2009 response, Top 10 Anti-Women Qur’an Quotes, Explained, where the actual context for the widely stereotyped passage in the Qu’ran:

Referenced Passage – Sura 4:3. The conditions for this particular passage refer specifically to the care of orphans, in that basically (paraphrased), “if you’re not sure you’ll be able to manage the orphan and his/her property rightfully and appropriately, you may take additional wives.” This is moreso an effort to relieve the burden of properly and respectfully caring for orphans over which the male finds himself guardian (through a relative’s death, etc), emphasizing that the matter is not about lustful endeavors of having more ladies to party with, but that the orphan would be genuinely taken care of, in an honest way.

The concept of a “temporary wife for an hour (prostitute)” is so outlandishly false that it sounds almost like part of a “two Muslims walk into a bar” joke. If you honestly believed this, then I know a guy who has an engine shampoo service you might be interested in. The verses in the Qu’ran that restrict permitted matters of sexual relations are so extensive that you’d have to conduct an extensive family history, interview the prospected temporary wife on her monthly courses, and more, all within that one hour.

7

The Shariah Muslim law controls the private as well as the public life of the woman.

So does the US legal code, Sherlock.

“Shariah Muslim law” was arguably the first of any religious ruling bodies to grant women rights in any capacity at all, whereas the Judeochristian texts offer little, if any, whatsoever. A Muslim country is also not exclusively dominated by Sharia — there are numerous laws that are not covered by Sharia-based legal systems, and are not considered Sharia, but to the outsider like your average American, these could be easily confused.

Think of the difference being similar to municipal law and the Constitution. If there were a municipal law against smoking inside restaurants, it wouldn’t be governed by the Constitution whereas the constitution is silent on the issue of smoking in indoor commercial establishments. It would be “constitutional” only in the sense that there isn’t a constitutionality that it necessarily breaks — likewise, loads of man-made laws in countries governed by Sharia are not Sharia-based laws.

Further, municipal code governs the private life, as well as the public life, of the non-Muslim, American woman also. But, without specifying which parts, does that mean strictly the worst ways you can personally imagine? WHICH laws govern the private life and public life of the Muslim woman?

Well, in the US, you have to wear a seat belt in the comfort of your own personal vehicle when driving on the road. Since Muslim women also must obey this rule, then it could be said that the US legal system governs the private life and public life of Muslim women also. But it also governs the same of men, too. You’re leaving out a lot of details that would make this sentence just super ordinary and obvious.

8

In the West World (America) Muslim men are starting to demand Shariah Law so the wife can not obtain a divorce and he can have full and complete control of her. It is amazing and alarming how many of our sisters and daughters attending American Universities are now marrying Muslim men and submitting themselves and their children unsuspectingly to the Shariah law.

(a) The existence of only two Muslim men to “demand Shariah law” (which operates outside of man-made laws anyway, so wouldn’t even be subject to demand) in order that to be true in the technical sense. How many exactly are doing so would be a key point to offer. If 100 million are demanding there not be any, and only 2 are demanding there should be, then whether 2 demand it is irrelevant.
(b) Sharia law does not allow a husband to have “full and complete control of her” in the first place, as already discussed prior.
(c) Just one of “our sisters and daughters” submitting unsuspectingly (submitting is of the will, not by accident) to Sharia would also be an “amazing and alarming” number, but when has that happened? Shall we just imagine that it did happen, or are you planning to elaborate on when and where that actually has happened?

9a-z

The rest of the forward is a bio about a woman named Nonie Darwish who did not write the forwarded text attributed to her. You can read about her here from Wikipedia, or from her own personal site here at your leisure, instead of blindly trusting some e-mail forward.

The Best Version of “I stand behind you in line at the store..” Facebook copypasta

In the wake of the Orlando shooting in June 2016, a popular copy-paste narrative (a ‘copypasta’) caught on as a way for gun owners to assert themselves, but I rewrote my own version as a response to it.

Original:


I stand behind you in line at the store with a smile on my face…and a gun under my shirt and you are none the wiser, yet you are safer for having me next to you. I won’t shoot you. My gun won’t pull it’s own trigger. It is securely holstered with the trigger covered. It can’t just go off. However, rest assured that if a lunatic walks into the grocery store and pulls out a rifle, I will draw my pistol and protect myself and my family and therefore protect you and your family. I may get shot before I can pull the trigger…but, I won’t die in a helpless blubbering heap on the floor begging for my life or my child’s life. No, if I die it will be in a pile of spent shell casings. I won’t be that victim. I choose not to be. As for you, I don’t ask you to carry a gun. If you are not comfortable, then please don’t. But I would like to keep my right to choose to not be a helpless victim. There is evil in the world and if evil has a gun, I want one too.

My version:

I stand behind you in line at the store with a smile on my face… I can see the outline of the gun under your shirt, and you are none the wiser, yet you believe that I am safer for having you next to me. You probably won’t shoot me, unless the same magical thinking that leads you to believe that I’m safer by your presence also magically leads you to mistake me for the shooter.

Your gun won’t pull it’s own trigger. It is securely holstered with the trigger covered. It can’t just go off. However, the assurance you offer that if a lunatic walks into the grocery store and pulls out a rifle (or whatever) that you’ll will draw your pistol and protect yourself and your family and “therefore protect me and my family” isn’t a vote of confidence in your ability to wield it, especially since even the outlaws do this.

You may get shot before you can pull the trigger to respond; and you say you won’t die in a helpless blubbering heap on the floor begging for your life or your child’s life, but I won’t either, because this imaginary scene of you dying some great American hero only happens in your head.

Rest assured, your wildly implausible death, if it ever does despite being statistically guaranteed to never happen in your entire life, will be in a “pile” (casings do not land in piles, esp from a waved-around handgun) of at least one spent shell casing.

You won’t be that victim, because that victimhood is false. That victimhood, rather, is victory.

You choose to be Rambo for a situation that simply does not occur, and believe yourself to be a Rambo defending everyone else as if you were some kind of hero. But, you are not my hero.

You will believe it until your dying breath, but really, you live in a little world of your own invention, that takes as much consideration of the reality of others as much as the intruder did.

As for me, you don’t ask me to carry a gun, and couldn’t convince me that I should anyway. If I am not comfortable, then I won’t — but it won’t be just because I’m not comfortable.

I believe doing so is wrong. It is your right to be wrong, at your leisure, sure. You say you would like to keep your right to choose to not be a helpless victim. There is evil in the world and if evil has a gun, you want to be just as evil as it is.

I will not be a blubbering heap, either. I will be rest assured, in my dying breath, if, for some bizarre reason this wildly implausible event were to ever occur, that I neither girded myself with, nor acted upon, the identical variable by which the intruder was designated evil. There will be no trial for me, similar to the amount of trial you offered the intruder.

My death will be entirely innocent, and I won’t be subject to national ridicule, obscene legal fees, life-crushing lawsuit awards against me, nor insurmountable loss of personal relationships for:

(a) adding to the casualties count by hitting innocent bystanders by mistaken presumption to be the shooter;

(b) being confused by security (or by other big shots like yourself) for being the shooter by firing openly, because knowledge that the shooter didn’t have an accomplice isn’t obvious and adds to the uncertainty of which shooter is friendly or foe;

(c) asserting the identical and hypocritical degree of blind judgment as the shooter by taking the life of someone you did not know one second prior but are willing to end at a moment’s notice.

You will have to live, but in agony, with that knowledge, for the rest of your life, which may even lead to you taking your own to escape it.

My agony is innocent, and brief.

“But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either.” (Luke 6:27-29)

“Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” (Matthew 16:24-25)

“TAKE UP HIS CROSS.” Not taking up the nails by which he may nail others to crosses, but take up that by which others will nail you to yours. For every hammer that strikes bullet that you fire, that is your hand with the hammer that strikes the nail of another upon their cross. I can think of no greater honor than to be nailed to my cross. I will not gasp out for your help.

You are not the source of my help.

How To Destroy Rape Culture: Step 1: Descriptivism

I believe that the first step toward destroying or dismantling rape culture from its deepest essence, must begin with a revision of the ways we understand data.

Which of the following statements do you believe are true?

1. Words in English have their own meanings, making it possible to use a word incorrectly.
2. Words in English have no meaning until the speaker of the word assigns it a meaning.

If, for some reason, you believe number 1 to be true, you are contributing to the perpetuation of rape culture. Learning to believe number 2 to be true, is the first step toward ending rape culture from its deepest roots of the must underlying, fundamental beliefs, outward for a ripple effect leading to genuine change. Arguably the biggest reason that rape culture is believed to have such a firm grip is that the people who claim to be against rape culture have and defend a philosophy that is completely hypocritical to the cause.

In the linguistics community, people who believe that number 1 as true are linguistic prescriptivists, who propose that a dictionary or reference material on words is where the “rules” for usage come from, but this isn’t true. You may believe you learned this in school — but what you were actually taught was, that in order to pass that particular class, those rules must be obeyed.. but they are not really rules outside of the class.

In the linguistics community, people who believe number 2 as true are linguistic descriptivists, who accurately recognize that words are only given power by their speakers, not dictionaries or grammar books. For you see, dictionaries and grammar books themselves, are descriptive of how speakers have used words in the past.

Statistics is another field in which a prescriptive philosophy of data perpetuates rape culture.

1. If there were 8760 rapes last year, then since dividing 8760 by 365 equals 24, meaning that someone was raped every hour of every day last year, so we should worry about being raped every hour of every day.
2. If there were 8760 rapes last year, that was x less/more rapes than the previous year.

Those who believe number 1 are statistic prescriptivists, that attempt some kind of rape-prophecy for the future based on patterns of the past. If you’re just going to make predictions of the future when the future has not arrived, why don’t you just tell us what the lottery numbers will be tomorrow? Because no one knows the future, and fooling yourself into believing that the past dictates the future means that since rape culture has always existed, then it will always exist. If you believe that rape culture needs to stop in the future, then you must stop believing that the past dictates the future.

Those who believe number 2 are statistic descriptivists, that make observations of the past for comparison with the past, where the future is open. 8760 rapes last year does not mean that “this year, someone will be raped every hour of every day” because that is prescribing, not describing.

For the linguistic angle again, think of the way that a newspaper reports on say, a murder. Is the newspaper “saying” that all future murders must occur in this manner? No. The newspaper is describing one past murder, not limiting or restricting methods of future murders. Is a newspaper reporting sport scores in order to mandate that all future games between those teams must result in that same score? No. The newspaper is describing, not prescribing, how one sporting event’s score turned out.

Likewise, a dictionary is merely a ranking of the ways speakers intended their own words to mean, by consent of the speaker. A dictionary does not prescribe the way words must be used — that is precisely contrary to the very nature of a dictionary. Dictionary researchers observe and research (in a sense, ask consent) of what the speaker actually meant when they used a word.

Think of Twitter’s hashtag search. If you search for a Twitter hashtag, you’ll find a list of the ways that hashtag has been used by others, not limitations on the only ways the hashtag is permitted to be used. A dictionary is just like a hashtag search, if all words ever were hashtags.

Dictionary researchers document the way words are used in every day life by everyone around them — magazines, tv transcripts, subtitles, facebook, twitter, tumblr, movie scripts, books, etc, and observe the way speakers use words, and then rank the individual “meanings” within a single word’s entry in order of “most frequent observation of the word used in this way.”

The idea that a dictionary sets limitations on the way words are only allowed to be used is false for general English. That may be true for Scrabble, but the words you use in real life are not scored on a Scrabble board unless you’re using them to play Scrabble, in the same way that they are not graded in the classroom unless they’re being used in the class. You may have a job that requires you to use words in a certain way (such as the medical field), but that limitation does not exist outside of the job.

By believing that words have power outside of what a speaker intends them to mean, such that a speaker can use incorrectly by accident, you are perpetuating the philosophy that makes rape culture possible. The idea that words can “mean something you didn’t intend to mean” strikes at the heart of why men think that women could even possibly think that “your lips say no but your clothing says yes,” or that “you say you’re opposed to rape, but yet you still go to parties where rapes happen.” The wrongness of these quotes are based on the underlying philosophy that the words you use can be used improperly, and that it is valid to interpret someone’s words against that which they adamantly deny.

The descriptivist asks for consent every time, even during. The prescriptivist believes present or future consent based on past hints.

The descriptivist has present-tense and active proof as a firm foundation for present action. The prescriptivist makes guesses and deals with the fallout later.

Compare these:

1. Words in English have their own meanings, making it possible to use a word incorrectly.
1. If there were 8760 rapes last year, then since dividing 8760 by 365 equals 24, meaning that someone was raped every hour of every day last year, so we should worry about being raped every hour of every day.
1. She hasn’t given me consent, but by the way she moves I can infer that she is offering her consent without me even having to ask.

2. Words in English have no meaning until the speaker of the word assigns it a meaning.
2. If there were 8760 rapes last year, that was x less/more rapes than the previous year.
2. She continues at present to give consent, continually, and there are no doubts of her proper ability to give it, but that could change at any moment and I must cease if that ever becomes true.

Prescriptivism is the philosophy that actions of the past create boundaries for how the future must happen, or will happen, or if do not happen that way are in error.

Descriptivism is the philosophy that actions of the past only describe the past. Present evidence describes the present. The future is not predictable, because we cannot observe it.