! |
GENERAL MODNOTE All, Please watch the personalisations, address the argument. do not discuss this moderation within this thread, PM if you need advice. |
Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron
! |
GENERAL MODNOTE All, Please watch the personalisations, address the argument. do not discuss this moderation within this thread, PM if you need advice. |
azeed wrote:Maybe we'll meet sometime and you can swear at me to my face.
So much mindless pedantry and bigotry - and you're not the only one.
You can't criticise islam without criticising people who identify as muslim.
Maybe you're some kind of nihilist and don't understand what it means to believe in something.
You can't make unreasonable generalisations about muslims or any large group of people. That's the definition of racism.
surreptitious57 wrote:You did call them fuckwits though
so what you said there is not true
azeed wrote:For believers, Islam is a defining idea. You can't separate the person and the idea when that idea is central to their identity and culture. You think you can criticise Islam as if it was a theory written down in a book but Islam doesn't exist in a book. It exists in hearts and minds.
Unfortunately, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation has just about convinced the United Nations that that is in fact the case. Newspeak, of course - but then, there's a lot of it about.Shrunk wrote:So what do you do about the undeniable fact that, for many people, racism is also an "idea is central to their identity and culture", and which "doesn't exist in a book. It exists in hearts and minds."
Well done! You've just committed yourself to the position that criticizing racism is racist.
hackenslash wrote:
I should also point out that I didn't say that all muslims were fuckwits. Those who think they are their fuckwitted
beliefs are. This is not a generalisation about muslims, but a factually correct statement about a particular subset
surreptitious57 wrote:hackenslash wrote:
I should also point out that I didn't say that all muslims were fuckwits. Those who think they are their fuckwitted
beliefs are. This is not a generalisation about muslims, but a factually correct statement about a particular subset
Just to clear this up because of the confusion : anyone who believes in Islam is by definition a Muslim. So to call believers fuckwits explicitly implies all of them and not just a sub set of them. You may not have intended to generalise but that is
what you did with your original comment in post 61. And I love the rather imaginative way in how you moved the goalposts from implying that all Muslims are fuckwits actually means Islam fucks wits. Talking about believers and talking about the
belief system are not the same thing however as you know and so your cleverness in trying to equate the two is just wrong
surreptitious57 wrote:hackenslash wrote:
I should also point out that I didn't say that all muslims were fuckwits. Those who think they are their fuckwitted
beliefs are. This is not a generalisation about muslims, but a factually correct statement about a particular subset
Just to clear this up because of the confusion : anyone who believes in Islam is by definition a Muslim. So to call believers fuckwits explicitly implies all of them and not just a sub set of them. You may not have intended to generalise but that is
what you did with your original comment in post 61. And I love the rather imaginative way in how you moved the goalposts from implying that all Muslims are fuckwits actually means Islam fucks wits. Talking about believers and talking about the
belief system are not the same thing however as you know and so your cleverness in trying to equate the two is just wrong
azeed wrote:Calilasseia wrote:In the meantime ...azeed wrote:You can't separate the person and the idea when that idea is central to their identity and culture.
Congratulations on demonstrating in spades, a classic supernaturalist failure. Quite simply, the above assertion is plain, flat, wrong. The reason it is plain, flat, wrong, is because you are not your ideas. Because, wait for it, it's possible for people to change the ideas they maintain. Indeed, the business of changing ideas is central not only to science, but to the entire conduct of proper discourse, which requires us to discard ideas whenever those ideas fail relevant tests.
But of course, supernaturalists are all too frequently brought up to treat certain ideas as "special" or "sacred", never to be abandoned, and to be protected from any form of scrutiny at all costs. Quite simply, those of us who paid attention, when the principles of proper discourse were outlined in the relevant classes, jettison the notion of privileged status for any idea full stop. To those of us who understand how proper discourse works, as opposed to the bastardised caricature thereof all too often peddled by supernaturalists, the entirely proper scientific principle that is in operation, is that ideas are disposable entities. The decision to dispose of a given idea being taken when the idea in question fails an appropriate test. As a direct corollary of this principle, ideas are a free fire zone, and may be subject to as much of the relevant discoursive artillery as one can deploy. The ideas that survive this treatment, are the ones that have earned our retention.
This of course, leads to a consideration of what constitutes a proper test of an idea, and what constitutes genuine evidence in support thereof. More frequently, those of us applying rigour to the matter, ask ourselves the question "what data, if alighted upon, would make this idea wrong?", then set out to see if such data exists. If that data does exist, it's game over - the idea goes in the bin. If that data does not exist, and instead, we find a large body of data that the idea is in agreement with, then this increases our confidence in the idea, and increases our willingness to retain it.
This is how it's done. Do learn this for the future, so that you don't post embarrassingly fatuous assertions such as the one I've covered above.
The really terrifying thing is that you think you're clever. Narrow-minded pedantry and painfully long-winded explanations are not clever (I get it: you think ideas should be evidence-led).
You may not approve of religious belief but still it exists despite your disapproval and it exists in more shades of grey than you seem to realise. Many muslims are perfectly peaceful, respectable people who would feel extremely offended by some of the comments in this thread.
tsig wrote:azeed wrote: You may not approve of religious belief but still it exists despite your disapproval and it exists in more shades of grey than you seem to realise. Many muslims are perfectly peaceful, respectable people who would feel extremely offended by some of the comments in this thread.
Sounds like you're trying to slip in a threat there.
What are these extremely offended perfectly peaceful, respectable people going to do about being extremely offended?
You are aware that being offended is the price of freedom?
azeed wrote:hackenslash wrote:How can it be bigotry? Islam is not a person, it's an idea. It isn't possible to be bigoted toward an idea. As for ignorance, I don't actually see any problem with the assessment
People have ideas. You are targetting people: every muslim on the planet all looks the same to you.
azeed wrote:Of course that's not racist in any way.
azeed wrote:I can understand how from a western perspective the muslim world often looks like it's stuck in a time warp. There are fundamentalists. There are extremists. So criticise extremism and fundamentalism not Islam and remember that not everyone is an extremist or a fundamentalist.
that religion is backward.
Take up the White Man's burden -
And reap his old reward,
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard -
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah slowly !) towards the light:-
"Why brought ye us from bondage,
"Our loved Egyptian night ?"
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest