Dehumanizing Elements?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Context and Question:
If the following statements appear in any ideology directed at an out-group would you rate them as dehumanizing?
The below examples of statements are not intended to be from any specific ideology but is rather applicable in general.

• Lo! the Worst [ShRR; sharra] of Beasts [l-dawābi] in God's sight are the ungrateful [kafarū: infidels] who will not believe;
  
  Or deemest thou that most of them [infidels] hear or understand? They [infidels] are but as the cattle, nay, but they [infidels] are farther astray [DLL; dalal]!
  
  Lo! those [infidels] who oppose [HDD: yuḥāddūna] God and His messenger, they [infidels] will be among the lowest [DhLL: l-adhalīna]. [of creatures]
  
  Lo! those [infidels] who disbelieve [KFR: kafarū], among the People of xxx and the idolaters [l-mush'rikīna], will abide in fire of hell. They [infidels] are the worst [ShRR; sharru] of created beings. [BRA: l-bariyati]. [note contrast xx:xx believers are the best]
  
  And ye know of those of you who broke [3DW; itada] the laws, how We said unto them : Be ye apes, despised [KhSA; khāsiīna] and hated!
  
  Shall I tell thee of a worse (case) than theirs [infidels] for retribution with God? Worse (is the case of him) [infidel] whom God hath cursed [L3N; laʿanahu], him [Kafir] on whom His wrath [GhaDiBa; on Jews] hath fallen! Worse is he [infidel] of whose sort God hath turned some to apes and swine, and who serveth [waAAabada] idols [l-ṭāghūta]. Such [infidels] are in worse plight and further astray from the plain road.
  
  So when they [infidels] took pride in that which they [infidels] had been forbidden, We said unto them [infidel]: Be ye apes despised [KhSA; Khāsi'ina] and loathed!

Your answer and views?

[Skip]

arsenic, chlorine, silicon, helium

[Veritas Aequitas]

Dehumanizing Elements in the Quran?
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25122

The above is one of the set of evil laden in the Quran within the overall 'us versus them' that condemned the 'outgroup' in a dehumanizing manner.
I have provided a small sample of verses.

Dehumanization or an act thereof can describe a behavior or process that undermines individuality of and in others. Behaviorally, dehumanization describes a disposition towards others that debases the others' individuality as either an "individual" species or an "individual" object, e.g. someone who acts inhumanely towards humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehumanization

Non-state actors—terrorists in particular—have also resorted to dehumanization to further their cause and assuage pangs of guilt. The 1960s terrorist group Weather Underground had advocated violence against any authority figure, and used the "police are pigs" idea to convince members that they were not harming human beings, but simply killing wild animals. Likewise, rhetoric statements such as "terrorists are just scum", is an act of dehumanization.

Thus the dehumanizatoin of non-believers by God has beholden SOME believers to deem non-believers as animals, thus can be killed cheaply.

[Age]

Context and Question:
If the following statements appear in any ideology directed at an out-group would you rate them as dehumanizing?
The below examples of statements are not intended to be from any specific ideology but is rather applicable in general.

• Lo! the Worst [ShRR; sharra] of Beasts [l-dawābi] in God's sight are the ungrateful [kafarū: infidels] who will not believe;
  
  Or deemest thou that most of them [infidels] hear or understand? They [infidels] are but as the cattle, nay, but they [infidels] are farther astray [DLL; dalal]!
  
  Lo! those [infidels] who oppose [HDD: yuḥāddūna] God and His messenger, they [infidels] will be among the lowest [DhLL: l-adhalīna]. [of creatures]
  
  Lo! those [infidels] who disbelieve [KFR: kafarū], among the People of xxx and the idolaters [l-mush'rikīna], will abide in fire of hell. They [infidels] are the worst [ShRR; sharru] of created beings. [BRA: l-bariyati]. [note contrast xx:xx believers are the best]
  
  And ye know of those of you who broke [3DW; itada] the laws, how We said unto them : Be ye apes, despised [KhSA; khāsiīna] and hated!
  
  Shall I tell thee of a worse (case) than theirs [infidels] for retribution with God? Worse (is the case of him) [infidel] whom God hath cursed [L3N; laʿanahu], him [Kafir] on whom His wrath [GhaDiBa; on Jews] hath fallen! Worse is he [infidel] of whose sort God hath turned some to apes and swine, and who serveth [waAAabada] idols [l-ṭāghūta]. Such [infidels] are in worse plight and further astray from the plain road.
  
  So when they [infidels] took pride in that which they [infidels] had been forbidden, We said unto them [infidel]: Be ye apes despised [KhSA; Khāsi'ina] and loathed!

Your answer and views?

No.

If YOU see dehumanizing in them, then that means you have no idea what being a human beings means and what and who those texts are actually directed at. YOU do NOT have access to the one/s who wrote them originally so YOU have NO idea what context and/or what meaning is in and behind the texts.

What you see is YOUR interpretation of those writings. YOU, unfortunately, do NOT look at what the actual truth could be.

[Skip]

humans are nasty.
Humans have always been nasty.
Humans enjoy pointing out how nasty the other humans are.
It gets them into no end of fights, and fights provide them an opportunity to demonstrate just how nasty they can be.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Context and Question:
If the following statements appear in any ideology directed at an out-group would you rate them as dehumanizing?
The below examples of statements are not intended to be from any specific ideology but is rather applicable in general.

• Lo! the Worst [ShRR; sharra] of Beasts [l-dawābi] in God's sight are the ungrateful [kafarū: infidels] who will not believe;
  
  Or deemest thou that most of them [infidels] hear or understand? They [infidels] are but as the cattle, nay, but they [infidels] are farther astray [DLL; dalal]!
  
  Lo! those [infidels] who oppose [HDD: yuḥāddūna] God and His messenger, they [infidels] will be among the lowest [DhLL: l-adhalīna]. [of creatures]
  
  Lo! those [infidels] who disbelieve [KFR: kafarū], among the People of xxx and the idolaters [l-mush'rikīna], will abide in fire of hell. They [infidels] are the worst [ShRR; sharru] of created beings. [BRA: l-bariyati]. [note contrast xx:xx believers are the best]
  
  And ye know of those of you who broke [3DW; itada] the laws, how We said unto them : Be ye apes, despised [KhSA; khāsiīna] and hated!
  
  Shall I tell thee of a worse (case) than theirs [infidels] for retribution with God? Worse (is the case of him) [infidel] whom God hath cursed [L3N; laʿanahu], him [Kafir] on whom His wrath [GhaDiBa; on Jews] hath fallen! Worse is he [infidel] of whose sort God hath turned some to apes and swine, and who serveth [waAAabada] idols [l-ṭāghūta]. Such [infidels] are in worse plight and further astray from the plain road.
  
  So when they [infidels] took pride in that which they [infidels] had been forbidden, We said unto them [infidel]: Be ye apes despised [KhSA; Khāsi'ina] and loathed!

Your answer and views?

No.

If YOU see dehumanizing in them, then that means you have no idea what being a human beings means and what and who those texts are actually directed at. YOU do NOT have access to the one/s who wrote them originally so YOU have NO idea what context and/or what meaning is in and behind the texts.

What you see is YOUR interpretation of those writings. YOU, unfortunately, do NOT look at what the actual truth could be.

You are not sufficiently smart nor intelligent re the above views.

Note the holy texts of theistic religions are supposedly sent by a God [an impossibility] to a messenger/prophet transmitted orally and written by humans long after the death of the messenger/prophet.

Do any theists has access to God or the person who received the message from God or those humans who wrote their holy texts?

Do you understand what is the meaning of 'exegesis' and hermeneutics?
Do you understand critical thinking?

What I have done is applying the most efficient tools of philosophy to understand the whole scheme of the religious ideology?

In contrast, theists and believers [like yourself?] are merely relying on faith blindly to insist on the truths and interpret the texts driven by Confirmation Bias.

You are blabbering again and have not counter with rational arguments why my views are wrong.

If I want I can do the same to you, i.e.

If YOU see DON'T dehumanizing in them, then that means you have no idea what being a human beings means and what and who those texts are actually directed at. YOU do NOT have access to the one/s who wrote them originally so YOU have NO idea what context and/or what meaning is in and behind the texts.
Your are very ignorant of Philosophy thus do not have philosophy skills to understand [not necessary agree] all the above.

But the sort of approach is very immature.

In the above I have presented a definition of 'dehumanization.'
If you don't agree, then counter it.

[Age]

Context and Question:
If the following statements appear in any ideology directed at an out-group would you rate them as dehumanizing?
The below examples of statements are not intended to be from any specific ideology but is rather applicable in general.

• Lo! the Worst [ShRR; sharra] of Beasts [l-dawābi] in God's sight are the ungrateful [kafarū: infidels] who will not believe;
  
  Or deemest thou that most of them [infidels] hear or understand? They [infidels] are but as the cattle, nay, but they [infidels] are farther astray [DLL; dalal]!
  
  Lo! those [infidels] who oppose [HDD: yuḥāddūna] God and His messenger, they [infidels] will be among the lowest [DhLL: l-adhalīna]. [of creatures]
  
  Lo! those [infidels] who disbelieve [KFR: kafarū], among the People of xxx and the idolaters [l-mush'rikīna], will abide in fire of hell. They [infidels] are the worst [ShRR; sharru] of created beings. [BRA: l-bariyati]. [note contrast xx:xx believers are the best]
  
  And ye know of those of you who broke [3DW; itada] the laws, how We said unto them : Be ye apes, despised [KhSA; khāsiīna] and hated!
  
  Shall I tell thee of a worse (case) than theirs [infidels] for retribution with God? Worse (is the case of him) [infidel] whom God hath cursed [L3N; laʿanahu], him [Kafir] on whom His wrath [GhaDiBa; on Jews] hath fallen! Worse is he [infidel] of whose sort God hath turned some to apes and swine, and who serveth [waAAabada] idols [l-ṭāghūta]. Such [infidels] are in worse plight and further astray from the plain road.
  
  So when they [infidels] took pride in that which they [infidels] had been forbidden, We said unto them [infidel]: Be ye apes despised [KhSA; Khāsi'ina] and loathed!

Your answer and views?

No.

If YOU see dehumanizing in them, then that means you have no idea what being a human beings means and what and who those texts are actually directed at. YOU do NOT have access to the one/s who wrote them originally so YOU have NO idea what context and/or what meaning is in and behind the texts.

What you see is YOUR interpretation of those writings. YOU, unfortunately, do NOT look at what the actual truth could be.

You are not sufficiently smart nor intelligent re the above views.

Note the holy texts of theistic religions are supposedly sent by a God [an impossibility] to a messenger/prophet transmitted orally and written by humans long after the death of the messenger/prophet.

Do any theists has access to God or the person who received the message from God or those humans who wrote their holy texts?

Do you understand what is the meaning of 'exegesis' and hermeneutics?
Do you understand critical thinking?

What I have done is applying the most efficient tools of philosophy to understand the whole scheme of the religious ideology?

In contrast, theists and believers [like yourself?] are merely relying on faith blindly to insist on the truths and interpret the texts driven by Confirmation Bias.

You are blabbering again and have not counter with rational arguments why my views are wrong.

If I want I can do the same to you, i.e.

If YOU see DON'T dehumanizing in them, then that means you have no idea what being a human beings means and what and who those texts are actually directed at. YOU do NOT have access to the one/s who wrote them originally so YOU have NO idea what context and/or what meaning is in and behind the texts.
Your are very ignorant of Philosophy thus do not have philosophy skills to understand [not necessary agree] all the above.

But the sort of approach is very immature.

In the above I have presented a definition of 'dehumanization.'
If you don't agree, then counter it.

The difference between 'you' and 'I' is, you are purporting to KNOW what the meaning is behind a set of writings. Whereas all I am doing is saying you do NOT know what the actual meaning is. You only have an interpretation of what the meaning could well be. By stating this I have already countered your so called "arguments" fully and accurately.

I do NOT understand what is the meaning you give to 'exegesis' and hermeneutics?

What is the meaning you give to those words? Is your meaning the actual one and only definition, or, are the meanings you give to words just your interpretation of what the meaning could be?

Assuming that 'I' am some thing or some one is a very stupid thing to do. What would be much more of an intelligent thing to do is just wait till you KNOW what and who 'I' am first. I do NOT have a view that could be confirmed by biases, besides the very fact that you have an interpretation of what someone else's writings mean. If you can counter that argument, then go right ahead. You are the one proposing something that obviously you are trying your hardest to support your distorted beliefs. Therefore, as I have already explained first it is you looking for and seeking out confirmation, from your already gained biases views.

[accelafine]

No.

If YOU see dehumanizing in them, then that means you have no idea what being a human beings means and what and who those texts are actually directed at. YOU do NOT have access to the one/s who wrote them originally so YOU have NO idea what context and/or what meaning is in and behind the texts.

What you see is YOUR interpretation of those writings. YOU, unfortunately, do NOT look at what the actual truth could be.

You are not sufficiently smart nor intelligent re the above views.

Note the holy texts of theistic religions are supposedly sent by a God [an impossibility] to a messenger/prophet transmitted orally and written by humans long after the death of the messenger/prophet.

Do any theists has access to God or the person who received the message from God or those humans who wrote their holy texts?

Do you understand what is the meaning of 'exegesis' and hermeneutics?
Do you understand critical thinking?

What I have done is applying the most efficient tools of philosophy to understand the whole scheme of the religious ideology?

In contrast, theists and believers [like yourself?] are merely relying on faith blindly to insist on the truths and interpret the texts driven by Confirmation Bias.

You are blabbering again and have not counter with rational arguments why my views are wrong.

If I want I can do the same to you, i.e.

If YOU see DON'T dehumanizing in them, then that means you have no idea what being a human beings means and what and who those texts are actually directed at. YOU do NOT have access to the one/s who wrote them originally so YOU have NO idea what context and/or what meaning is in and behind the texts.
Your are very ignorant of Philosophy thus do not have philosophy skills to understand [not necessary agree] all the above.

But the sort of approach is very immature.

In the above I have presented a definition of 'dehumanization.'
If you don't agree, then counter it.

The difference between 'you' and 'I' is, you are purporting to KNOW what the meaning is behind a set of writings. Whereas all I am doing is saying you do NOT know what the actual meaning is. You only have an interpretation of what the meaning could well be. By stating this I have already countered your so called "arguments" fully and accurately.

I do NOT understand what is the meaning you give to 'exegesis' and hermeneutics?

What is the meaning you give to those words? Is your meaning the actual one and only definition, or, are the meanings you give to words just your interpretation of what the meaning could be?

Assuming that 'I' am some thing or some one is a very stupid thing to do. What would be much more of an intelligent thing to do is just wait till you KNOW what and who 'I' am first. I do NOT have a view that could be confirmed by biases, besides the very fact that you have an interpretation of what someone else's writings mean. If you can counter that argument, then go right ahead. You are the one proposing something that obviously you are trying your hardest to support your distorted beliefs. Therefore, as I have already explained first it is you looking for and seeking out confirmation, from your already gained biases views.