Ayaan Hirsi Ali - a must see
-
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
I think she overstates things a bit --- to say there is no Islamophobia is wrong. Nevertheless, she is an exceptionally intelligent and courageous person, with a lot of valuable things to say (she is also an atheist, by the way).
John Carson
-
I think she overstates things a bit --- to say there is no Islamophobia is wrong. Nevertheless, she is an exceptionally intelligent and courageous person, with a lot of valuable things to say (she is also an atheist, by the way).
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
to say there is no Islamophobia is wrong
yes, in a sense, but she is trying to draw a distinction between saying you don't like a particular belief system on the one hand, and out and out racism on the other, and that so-called Islamophobia should not be confused with the latter. People that say "I don't like [all] Arabs" in the mistaken belief that they are all Muslims (and fundamentalist at that!) are ignorant racists, but saying you don't like Islam is not at all the same thing. The former is just a bad attitude, plain and simple; the latter is a matter of opinion one is perfectly entitled to. She gets my 5. Fred
-
John Carson wrote:
to say there is no Islamophobia is wrong
yes, in a sense, but she is trying to draw a distinction between saying you don't like a particular belief system on the one hand, and out and out racism on the other, and that so-called Islamophobia should not be confused with the latter. People that say "I don't like [all] Arabs" in the mistaken belief that they are all Muslims (and fundamentalist at that!) are ignorant racists, but saying you don't like Islam is not at all the same thing. The former is just a bad attitude, plain and simple; the latter is a matter of opinion one is perfectly entitled to. She gets my 5. Fred
-
John Carson wrote:
to say there is no Islamophobia is wrong
yes, in a sense, but she is trying to draw a distinction between saying you don't like a particular belief system on the one hand, and out and out racism on the other, and that so-called Islamophobia should not be confused with the latter. People that say "I don't like [all] Arabs" in the mistaken belief that they are all Muslims (and fundamentalist at that!) are ignorant racists, but saying you don't like Islam is not at all the same thing. The former is just a bad attitude, plain and simple; the latter is a matter of opinion one is perfectly entitled to. She gets my 5. Fred
One of her points is that criticising Islam is not Islamophobia per se. She says some criticisms of Islam are simply fair criticisms. She is right about this. However, it is a fact that there are people who have a blanket hostility to all Muslims. They either don't know or don't care that some Muslims are liberal in their attitudes. This is less of a problem than the prejudice coming in the opposite direction, but it is overstating things to say that anti-Muslim prejudice and fear doesn't exist. Fear of people who are different is very prevalent throughout human history and it would be naively optimistic to believe that the West has entirely overcome the problem.
John Carson
-
No, both are discriminiation.
Visit http://www.readytogiveup.com/[^] and do something special today.
I don't know how careful you were in choosing your words, but there is nothing wrong with the act of discrimination (quite the opposite in fact, it's an essential aspect of our lives) - it's how and what we discrminate that matters. Islam is a belief systenm that some people choose (or are brought up to) believe in, and I am "absolutely" within my moral rights to say I don't like it without being accused of anything by anybody. If I was to say "I don't like Arabs" you could rightly accuse me of being a racist.
-
One of her points is that criticising Islam is not Islamophobia per se. She says some criticisms of Islam are simply fair criticisms. She is right about this. However, it is a fact that there are people who have a blanket hostility to all Muslims. They either don't know or don't care that some Muslims are liberal in their attitudes. This is less of a problem than the prejudice coming in the opposite direction, but it is overstating things to say that anti-Muslim prejudice and fear doesn't exist. Fear of people who are different is very prevalent throughout human history and it would be naively optimistic to believe that the West has entirely overcome the problem.
John Carson
Yes, I do accept what you're saying, but still I think it is right to distinguish between race-phobia and belief-phobia, if you will... one's race is a metter of fact, one's beleif a matter of choice (or it should be...); it is always wrong to dislike or fear someone because of their race, but it is not necessarily wrong to disloke of fear someone becaue of their beleifs.
-
Yes, I do accept what you're saying, but still I think it is right to distinguish between race-phobia and belief-phobia, if you will... one's race is a metter of fact, one's beleif a matter of choice (or it should be...); it is always wrong to dislike or fear someone because of their race, but it is not necessarily wrong to disloke of fear someone becaue of their beleifs.
Fred_Smith wrote:
I think it is right to distinguish between race-phobia and belief-phobia, if you will... one's race is a metter of fact, one's beleif a matter of choice (or it should be...); it is always wrong to dislike or fear someone because of their race, but it is not necessarily wrong to disloke of fear someone becaue of their beleifs.
I don't think that whether or not something is a matter of choice is fundamental. If some people were born green and all green people were homicidal, then fear of them would be rational. I think that the basic problem is the same with both religion and race: 1. hostility based on false belief (e.g., that they are all prone to violence), or 2. hostility based on a correct belief that is unreasonably intolerant of difference (e.g., they have different dress customs and this shouldn't be allowed or they have different skin colour and therefore should be treated badly). Now, I would agree that in practice some beliefs are just evil, whereas I don't believe there is any race (green or otherwise) that is just evil. Thus in practice there may be more justification for belief-phobia than for race-phobia. Then again, in practice belief-phobia and race-phobia tend to be confounded, with all people of a particular ethnic group presumed guilty of the worst aspects of a religion.
John Carson
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
I think it is right to distinguish between race-phobia and belief-phobia, if you will... one's race is a metter of fact, one's beleif a matter of choice (or it should be...); it is always wrong to dislike or fear someone because of their race, but it is not necessarily wrong to disloke of fear someone becaue of their beleifs.
I don't think that whether or not something is a matter of choice is fundamental. If some people were born green and all green people were homicidal, then fear of them would be rational. I think that the basic problem is the same with both religion and race: 1. hostility based on false belief (e.g., that they are all prone to violence), or 2. hostility based on a correct belief that is unreasonably intolerant of difference (e.g., they have different dress customs and this shouldn't be allowed or they have different skin colour and therefore should be treated badly). Now, I would agree that in practice some beliefs are just evil, whereas I don't believe there is any race (green or otherwise) that is just evil. Thus in practice there may be more justification for belief-phobia than for race-phobia. Then again, in practice belief-phobia and race-phobia tend to be confounded, with all people of a particular ethnic group presumed guilty of the worst aspects of a religion.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
If some people were born green and all green people were homicidal, then fear of them would be rational.
but as you say later:
John Carson wrote:
I don't believe there is any race (green or otherwise) that is just evil.
Which kind of nullifies the point...
John Carson wrote:
in practice belief-phobia and race-phobia tend to be confounded, with all people of a particular ethnic group presumed guilty of the worst aspects of a religion
Precisely - and exactly why the distinction should be pointed out and clarified.
-
John Carson wrote:
If some people were born green and all green people were homicidal, then fear of them would be rational.
but as you say later:
John Carson wrote:
I don't believe there is any race (green or otherwise) that is just evil.
Which kind of nullifies the point...
John Carson wrote:
in practice belief-phobia and race-phobia tend to be confounded, with all people of a particular ethnic group presumed guilty of the worst aspects of a religion
Precisely - and exactly why the distinction should be pointed out and clarified.
Fred_Smith wrote:
John Carson wrote: If some people were born green and all green people were homicidal, then fear of them would be rational. but as you say later: John Carson wrote: I don't believe there is any race (green or otherwise) that is just evil. Which kind of nullifies the point...
It doesn't nullify the point. My point was that whether people have a choice or are born that way is not a relevant criteria where prejudice is concerned. That point stands, as do my other two points about the common problems of belief-based and race-based prejudice.
Fred_Smith wrote:
Precisely - and exactly why the distinction should be pointed out and clarified.
Except that, even if it were true that all Arabs were Muslims, it would still be necessary to assert that not all Arab Muslims are the same and that some respects in which they differ from people in the West are not matters we need to be concerned about.
John Carson
-
No, both are discriminiation.
Visit http://www.readytogiveup.com/[^] and do something special today.
Discrimination is based on attributes of individuals, rather than their actions. I actively discriminate against crazy people. I want nothing to do with them. :)
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Seen her before, and I'm undecided. She certainly has something to say, and she's driven by a lot of anger - which is on the plus side - but sometimes there's a lot of hypocritical very partial hate shining through.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighist -
Fred_Smith wrote:
I think it is right to distinguish between race-phobia and belief-phobia, if you will... one's race is a metter of fact, one's beleif a matter of choice (or it should be...); it is always wrong to dislike or fear someone because of their race, but it is not necessarily wrong to disloke of fear someone becaue of their beleifs.
I don't think that whether or not something is a matter of choice is fundamental. If some people were born green and all green people were homicidal, then fear of them would be rational. I think that the basic problem is the same with both religion and race: 1. hostility based on false belief (e.g., that they are all prone to violence), or 2. hostility based on a correct belief that is unreasonably intolerant of difference (e.g., they have different dress customs and this shouldn't be allowed or they have different skin colour and therefore should be treated badly). Now, I would agree that in practice some beliefs are just evil, whereas I don't believe there is any race (green or otherwise) that is just evil. Thus in practice there may be more justification for belief-phobia than for race-phobia. Then again, in practice belief-phobia and race-phobia tend to be confounded, with all people of a particular ethnic group presumed guilty of the worst aspects of a religion.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
I don't think that whether or not something is a matter of choice is fundamental. If some people were born green and all green people were homicidal, then fear of them would be rational. I think that the basic problem is the same with both religion and race: 1. hostility based on false belief (e.g., that they are all prone to violence), or 2. hostility based on a correct belief that is unreasonably intolerant of difference (e.g., they have different dress customs and this shouldn't be allowed or they have different skin colour and therefore should be treated badly). Now, I would agree that in practice some beliefs are just evil, whereas I don't believe there is any race (green or otherwise) that is just evil. Thus in practice there may be more justification for belief-phobia than for race-phobia. Then again, in practice belief-phobia and race-phobia tend to be confounded, with all people of a particular ethnic group presumed guilty of the worst aspects of a religion.
All of which establishes precisely how absurdly ludicrous this entire new leftist moral agenda is. When violantly attacked by one group, rather than defendeing ourselves from them, we must instead evaluate our own society's attitudes towards all possible variations of the society we are being attacked from. In other words, before we can defend ourselves against anyone or anything we must first attack our own society to make sure it is a shining beacon of leftest moral perfection. Its rediculous. People should be free to discriminate against anyone they please, anytime they please for what ever personal reasons they might have even if those reasons are not in your little leftist moral handbook.
Pardon Libby!
-
John Carson wrote:
I don't think that whether or not something is a matter of choice is fundamental. If some people were born green and all green people were homicidal, then fear of them would be rational. I think that the basic problem is the same with both religion and race: 1. hostility based on false belief (e.g., that they are all prone to violence), or 2. hostility based on a correct belief that is unreasonably intolerant of difference (e.g., they have different dress customs and this shouldn't be allowed or they have different skin colour and therefore should be treated badly). Now, I would agree that in practice some beliefs are just evil, whereas I don't believe there is any race (green or otherwise) that is just evil. Thus in practice there may be more justification for belief-phobia than for race-phobia. Then again, in practice belief-phobia and race-phobia tend to be confounded, with all people of a particular ethnic group presumed guilty of the worst aspects of a religion.
All of which establishes precisely how absurdly ludicrous this entire new leftist moral agenda is. When violantly attacked by one group, rather than defendeing ourselves from them, we must instead evaluate our own society's attitudes towards all possible variations of the society we are being attacked from. In other words, before we can defend ourselves against anyone or anything we must first attack our own society to make sure it is a shining beacon of leftest moral perfection. Its rediculous. People should be free to discriminate against anyone they please, anytime they please for what ever personal reasons they might have even if those reasons are not in your little leftist moral handbook.
Pardon Libby!
Stan Shannon wrote:
When violantly attacked by one group, rather than defendeing ourselves from them, we must instead evaluate our own society's attitudes towards all possible variations of the society we are being attacked from.
Some of us can walk and chew gum at the same time. Moreover, the effectiveness of our response depends on having an accurate understanding of what we are dealing with. Stupidity and ignorance is never a good idea, even when practiced by Republicans.
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
When violantly attacked by one group, rather than defendeing ourselves from them, we must instead evaluate our own society's attitudes towards all possible variations of the society we are being attacked from.
Some of us can walk and chew gum at the same time. Moreover, the effectiveness of our response depends on having an accurate understanding of what we are dealing with. Stupidity and ignorance is never a good idea, even when practiced by Republicans.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Some of us can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Then why don't you give it a try?
John Carson wrote:
Moreover, the effectiveness of our response depends on having an accurate understanding of what we are dealing with. Stupidity and ignorance is never a good idea, even when practiced by Republicans.
There is absolutely no harm in making the blanket statement "Islam sucks", aside from offending the sensibilities of our own home bred leftist extremists. If Islam doesn't, in fact, suck, than saying that they do should be a very simple challange for them to disprove in a calm, peaceful and rational manner. If they are incapable of doing that, then guess what? They do suck. The challange should not be on me to establish how much I am willing to kow tow to your gum chewing, it should be on them.
Pardon Libby!
-
Seen her before, and I'm undecided. She certainly has something to say, and she's driven by a lot of anger - which is on the plus side - but sometimes there's a lot of hypocritical very partial hate shining through.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighistShe has suffered quite a bit at the hands of those who share the faith she left. Including the mutilation of her genitalia as a child to stop her experiencing sexual pleasure and the murder of her friend. Her anger is quite justified. For a more measured (and scholarly ) apostate, try Ibn Warraq. Oh, and she was driven out the Netherlands partially by those who apparently share her progressive political beliefs, as she made them uncomfortable by applying them to her own culture of origin.
-
John Carson wrote:
Some of us can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Then why don't you give it a try?
John Carson wrote:
Moreover, the effectiveness of our response depends on having an accurate understanding of what we are dealing with. Stupidity and ignorance is never a good idea, even when practiced by Republicans.
There is absolutely no harm in making the blanket statement "Islam sucks", aside from offending the sensibilities of our own home bred leftist extremists. If Islam doesn't, in fact, suck, than saying that they do should be a very simple challange for them to disprove in a calm, peaceful and rational manner. If they are incapable of doing that, then guess what? They do suck. The challange should not be on me to establish how much I am willing to kow tow to your gum chewing, it should be on them.
Pardon Libby!
I'm not having a real opinion about this whole matter, nor am I interested in participating in discussing the current topic. However, I think you are wrong regardless of the topic. It is should be up to the accuser to prove the point. Just like in a working legal system. (I do however, as an atheist, think that islam sucks, so I am not in disagreement with your conclusion, only your means of reaching it)
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
John Carson wrote:
Some of us can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Then why don't you give it a try?
John Carson wrote:
Moreover, the effectiveness of our response depends on having an accurate understanding of what we are dealing with. Stupidity and ignorance is never a good idea, even when practiced by Republicans.
There is absolutely no harm in making the blanket statement "Islam sucks", aside from offending the sensibilities of our own home bred leftist extremists. If Islam doesn't, in fact, suck, than saying that they do should be a very simple challange for them to disprove in a calm, peaceful and rational manner. If they are incapable of doing that, then guess what? They do suck. The challange should not be on me to establish how much I am willing to kow tow to your gum chewing, it should be on them.
Pardon Libby!
Stan Shannon wrote:
There is absolutely no harm in making the blanket statement "Islam sucks", aside from offending the sensibilities of our own home bred leftist extremists. If Islam doesn't, in fact, suck, than saying that they do should be a very simple challange for them to disprove in a calm, peaceful and rational manner. If they are incapable of doing that, then guess what? They do suck.
"Islam sucks" is actually a pretty mild comment. It would doubtless offend Islamic fanatics (if they understood the idiom), but I doubt that your typical "leftist extremist" would be too bothered by it. Personally, I do believe that Islam sucks and, moreover, that it sucks more than some alternative religions. Talk of the accusation being a "very simple challenge for them to disprove" is, however, a visit to fairyland. Nothing in religious debates is simple to prove or disprove to the satisfaction of all participating. Plainly, Islam means different things to different people, making agreement pretty well impossible. The point, however, is not primarily about what is said in casual speech. It is about what we understand about the character of others and how we seek to relate to them. Religious conflict has been proceeding for millenia. Those who hope for a decisive victory for their side in their or their children's lifetimes are deluded --- and there are millions of people who are deluded, on both sides of the debate. Demonising the opposition without qualification satisfies an emotional need, but doesn't make for rational policy. Rational policy says, for example, that if local Muslim clerics are advocating violence, then we throw them in jail. If local women are being mistreated, then we protect them. On the other hand, if Muslims are behaving in a reasonable manner, then we accept and embrace them, and make reasonable accommodations to their needs. We don't gain anything by treating all Muslims as the same and uniting them against us. We should defend our rights to free speech, but not see virtue in making that speech maximally crude and unsophisticated.
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
There is absolutely no harm in making the blanket statement "Islam sucks", aside from offending the sensibilities of our own home bred leftist extremists. If Islam doesn't, in fact, suck, than saying that they do should be a very simple challange for them to disprove in a calm, peaceful and rational manner. If they are incapable of doing that, then guess what? They do suck.
"Islam sucks" is actually a pretty mild comment. It would doubtless offend Islamic fanatics (if they understood the idiom), but I doubt that your typical "leftist extremist" would be too bothered by it. Personally, I do believe that Islam sucks and, moreover, that it sucks more than some alternative religions. Talk of the accusation being a "very simple challenge for them to disprove" is, however, a visit to fairyland. Nothing in religious debates is simple to prove or disprove to the satisfaction of all participating. Plainly, Islam means different things to different people, making agreement pretty well impossible. The point, however, is not primarily about what is said in casual speech. It is about what we understand about the character of others and how we seek to relate to them. Religious conflict has been proceeding for millenia. Those who hope for a decisive victory for their side in their or their children's lifetimes are deluded --- and there are millions of people who are deluded, on both sides of the debate. Demonising the opposition without qualification satisfies an emotional need, but doesn't make for rational policy. Rational policy says, for example, that if local Muslim clerics are advocating violence, then we throw them in jail. If local women are being mistreated, then we protect them. On the other hand, if Muslims are behaving in a reasonable manner, then we accept and embrace them, and make reasonable accommodations to their needs. We don't gain anything by treating all Muslims as the same and uniting them against us. We should defend our rights to free speech, but not see virtue in making that speech maximally crude and unsophisticated.
John Carson
Ok, seriously John, what crack are you smoking? Rational posts won't be tolerated here. 5.
-
John Carson wrote:
Some of us can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Then why don't you give it a try?
John Carson wrote:
Moreover, the effectiveness of our response depends on having an accurate understanding of what we are dealing with. Stupidity and ignorance is never a good idea, even when practiced by Republicans.
There is absolutely no harm in making the blanket statement "Islam sucks", aside from offending the sensibilities of our own home bred leftist extremists. If Islam doesn't, in fact, suck, than saying that they do should be a very simple challange for them to disprove in a calm, peaceful and rational manner. If they are incapable of doing that, then guess what? They do suck. The challange should not be on me to establish how much I am willing to kow tow to your gum chewing, it should be on them.
Pardon Libby!
Stan Shannon wrote:
If Islam doesn't, in fact, suck, than saying that they do should be a very simple challange for them to disprove in a calm, peaceful and rational manner.
There's two problems with that statement. "Islam sucks" is generally not a peaceful and rational statement, so peaceful and rational debate is probably not possible. Second, something "sucking" is a very subjective measure and provides no objective means with which to disprove the thesis. That being so, the idea of disproving it PERIOD is laughable.