Where would you rather live as a muslim: in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin, where this guy shot sikhs, mistaking them for muslims? And does this mean every US Citizen hates muslims? It doesnt. And the same is true for you roleplay.
That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns.
In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil.
Where would you rather live as a muslim: in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin, where this guy shot sikhs, mistaking them for muslims? And does this mean every US Citizen hates muslims? It doesnt. And the same is true for you roleplay.
That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns.
In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil.
The two are not comparable.
There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second.
In other words, too few tolerance is nefast, but tolerating everything is equally harmful in the long run.
No it isn't. What is harmful however, is your view on this matter. Homosexuals don't harm anyone and therefore homosexuality cannot be wrong. There is not a single rational argument against homosexuality, women voting and working, women dressing up a certain way, etc.
If something doesn't harm, it, by definition, cannot be wrong.
Plus, I never even said everything should be tolerated. Everything which does not harm should be tolerated.
So that's your apathetic doxa. "If something doesn't harm, it, by definition, cannot be wrong."
In my last post, I mentionned too much tolerance could be "more harmful on the long term".
What you call "non-violent" stuff can be potentially more harmful on the long term than violent stuffs.
A kid not being kissed by his mother or being raised by 2 homosexuals is far more violent and detrimental for his later psychological life than a couple of slaps in the face. Words as well can be far more abusive than a simple punch in the face.
Indirect violence is currently the dominating form of violence in our society. And it's still violence.
If I look at my local area (about 700k people total, not too dense, immigrants are mostly turkish and russian people in well... mostly their own areas) I actually think that the whole "we shoud all be tolerant"-ordeal makes the situation worse.
Being "tolerant" is equal to "well, they're around, I don't like it, but what can I do?" around here. When you ask the same "tolerant" people if they ever bought at a turkish supermarket you get "Why would I buy there?" as an answer. It kind of has become a politically correct form of racism/anti-multiculturalism to say "Oh, no, I tolerate those people".
Acceptance would be a much cooler thing.
Notice how extreme tolerance is only present in rich and individualistic societies.
Whose wealth is supported by the exploitation of the immigrant groups one is supposed to "tolerate"...
Funny how they make this "tolerance" seem like such a favor
Yes, because these immigrants didn't immigrate here on their own free will... They were snatched up and dragged here to work our minimum wage jobs, because there weren't enough people to fill all the jobs.
I'm first generation American and I don't feel exploited, neither do my parents.
What is this myth of freedom? People are forced to do things by economic necessity.
I don't know about you, but keep in mind that ideology has a powerful way of keeping people from realizing that they are being exploited. (edit: also, there's a good chance that your family might not be the sort of immigrant we are talking about. I doubt your parents came here as migrant workers)
On August 12 2012 06:34 SiroKO wrote:
On August 12 2012 06:19 sam!zdat wrote:
On August 12 2012 06:15 SiroKO wrote:
On August 12 2012 06:00 r.Evo wrote:
On August 12 2012 05:42 SiroKO wrote:
On August 12 2012 05:22 Thorakh wrote:
In other words, too few tolerance is nefast, but tolerating everything is equally harmful in the long run.
No it isn't. What is harmful however, is your view on this matter. Homosexuals don't harm anyone and therefore homosexuality cannot be wrong. There is not a single rational argument against homosexuality, women voting and working, women dressing up a certain way, etc.
If something doesn't harm, it, by definition, cannot be wrong.
Plus, I never even said everything should be tolerated. Everything which does not harm should be tolerated.
So that's your apathetic doxa. "If something doesn't harm, it, by definition, cannot be wrong."
In my last post, I mentionned too much tolerance could be "more harmful on the long term".
What you call "non-violent" stuff can be potentially more harmful on the long term than violent stuffs.
A kid not being kissed by his mother or being raised by 2 homosexuals is far more violent and detrimental for his later psychological life than a couple of slaps in the face. Words as well can be far more abusive than a simple punch in the face.
Indirect violence is currently the dominating form of violence in our society. And it's still violence.
If I look at my local area (about 700k people total, not too dense, immigrants are mostly turkish and russian people in well... mostly their own areas) I actually think that the whole "we shoud all be tolerant"-ordeal makes the situation worse.
Being "tolerant" is equal to "well, they're around, I don't like it, but what can I do?" around here. When you ask the same "tolerant" people if they ever bought at a turkish supermarket you get "Why would I buy there?" as an answer. It kind of has become a politically correct form of racism/anti-multiculturalism to say "Oh, no, I tolerate those people".
Acceptance would be a much cooler thing.
Notice how extreme tolerance is only present in rich and individualistic societies.
Whose wealth is supported by the exploitation of the immigrant groups one is supposed to "tolerate"...
Funny how they make this "tolerance" seem like such a favor
The idea that Western nations acquired their wealth through colonization and now immigration is a lie which has been debunked several times. French colonization costed more than it brought us.
What is this absurdity? Maybe that's true for France... You think Britain didn't get rich off its colonies? inevi
Immigration is entirely debatable, lots of reports contradict each other. Besides, you must be aware that the natives who live in the same area than the immigrants are usually not the one exploiting them. These people wouldn't get a single penny out of the situation, but they will suffer from all the negative aspects of it.
It depends on which natives. Local labor loses, capital (which is, increasingly, never local) gains.
In my country at least, anti-immigration is just a sham for the right to hoodwink its base (which is threatened by it). You think we would have illegal immigrants if capital wasn't dying to hire them?
Since you felt justified in making large assumptions about me based on limited information, I'll do the same for you. I'm gonna assume you've lived in the US for your whole life. I'm going to assume you've barely experienced the outside world and have no idea what the cultural climate in other countries is like. I'm going to assume that Colbert and Jon Stewert constitute roughly 75% of your current news intake. You sound like some high school kid who just learned about the industrial revolution and now thinks everything works on exploitation. Yea, those Mexican Immigrants who do landscaping everywhere? News flash, they came here so their kids could get an American education and grow up without drug wars in their streets. They came here because even a minimum wage job can bring in more money for their family back in Mexico than a job there can. My dad's half of my family fled to America to escape religious persecution and inevitable death in Europe, while my mom came here because in Malaysia women had about as much chance of a meaningful education as dirt. They came here from poverty and worked their asses off and now I get have the luxury of bitching at you on TL because of that. If you really think the US runs on exploitation of it's lower class you need to wake up and take a look at some of the rest of the world.
I'm sorry if I offended you. Why don't we both just agree that we know nothing about one another?
Why do you think those things about Mexico are the way they are? Do you know much about the history of the Mexican economy in the 20th century? I don't know a ton but I am trying to learn currently. Why is there a drug war? Why can they make more money here than there? You take these as naturalized premises, but they are in fact systemic effects. The Mexican economy was destroyed by austerity measures and forced neoliberalization imposed by the IMF in the 80s. That's why Mexico has a lot of billionaires and a lot of very poor people, and also why Mexico City went from very peaceful before this to very dangerous after this (they called in Giuliani's crime suppression consultancy firm, because Giuliani made his career doing the same thing in New York, after the bankruptcy of the municipal government and subsequent neoliberalization caused a massive crime wave in the city).
The point is, the US's exploitation is not only centered on people in its own borders (although we do exploit e.g. Mexican labor, and are increasingly exploiting our own people as well), but through its economic imperialism. We have largely outsourced our proletariat, for a number of reasons, one of which is to keep them nicely out of sight. So comparing the US to the rest of the world is a bit naive, because the US is in fact a major factor responsible for the way things are in the rest of the world.
On August 13 2012 03:09 Thorakh wrote: I'd rather have you show me why human (because that's what we're talking about here) males and females are not equal. There is not a single rational reason why women (for example) should not be allowed a job, walk without male supervision on the street, drive a car, you name it.
It's the same for homophobia. There is not a single rational reason why gay = bad.
Yes, I believe moral relativism is bullshit.
One can argue that gay is bad because if everyone was gay, our species would go extinct. That is a rational argument. Opposing to that is the fact that this is never ever going to be the case, so gays don't matter in the reproduction part of our species.
You just refuted your own argument and therefore it's not a valid rational argument.
One could even further refute it by postulating that even if the entire human population was gay, we could still make babies. I can certainly see such a society function without any problems.
It wasn´t only about race, it was about culture as well. Culture can not be inferior, as culture is, as you mentioned a sum of beliefs, values and norms. Yet you will be hard pressed to identify this culture, where a sexist or homophobic notion is shared unanimously. And even if appears to you this way, you wont be able to judge it as you can´t claim to know said culture close enough, if you don´t share it
I didnt say what you said: the point is, there is no such thing as a generic islamic culture. Furthermore i didnt raise the term "arabic culture", i merely referred to it. You cannot divide cultural complexes into segments in order to label one of them as inferior. Liberal arabic movements view themselves as part of that certain culture, that is meant to be labeled as inferior throughout this discussion.
I think you are right. What I mean by "inferior culture" are specific people with an inferior set of beliefs. Indeed not every person who generally identifies himself with culture X also shares the exact copy of that culture's set of values.
That's hypocrisy at it's finest. Please explain to me why a culture can be "objectively inferior" but at the same time it's impossible for you that races are "objectively inferior"? I'm pretty damn sure the only reason you can come up with is because the word "racism" has a bad ring to it while "culturalism" sounds pretty neat so far.
Race does not determine the set of values and behaviour someone has. Furthermore, the difference in races beside appearances are extremely small.
PS: German Shepherd or Poodle, do you think they one of them can be objectively inferior or not? I'll help you out, the correct answer is: "For what?" - it's exactly the same with human race, religion or culture. Each one has flaws, each one has merits. You're proclaiming that your culture in it's entirety is superior to another one and therefor has a god-given right to call out the other culture. I think that's pretty disgusting.
I'm certainly not calling an entire culture inferior. Culture X simply has more negative traits than culture Y and therefore culture X is inferior to culture Y.
Your definition of negative and positive traits is undeniably influenced by whichever cultural hegemony you prescribe to. This argument is getting you no where.
No, it is simply based on "Is there a rational reason for this?" and "Does this culture's set of values and beliefs harm others?".
Your value of rationalism came from somewhere. If you truely think you are objective, you're wrong.
You seem to be making a statement anchored in rationality here. Do you believe the claim you have just made is objectively true? If not, what is it?
On August 13 2012 03:09 Thorakh wrote: I'd rather have you show me why human (because that's what we're talking about here) males and females are not equal. There is not a single rational reason why women (for example) should not be allowed a job, walk without male supervision on the street, drive a car, you name it.
It's the same for homophobia. There is not a single rational reason why gay = bad.
Yes, I believe moral relativism is bullshit.
One can argue that gay is bad because if everyone was gay, our species would go extinct. That is a rational argument. Opposing to that is the fact that this is never ever going to be the case, so gays don't matter in the reproduction part of our species.
Doesn't your third sentence explain why the first is not a rational argument, as is claimed in the second?
Where would you rather live as a muslim: in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin, where this guy shot sikhs, mistaking them for muslims? And does this mean every US Citizen hates muslims? It doesnt. And the same is true for you roleplay.
That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns.
In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil.
The two are not comparable.
There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second.
I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US.
Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness.
Where would you rather live as a muslim: in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin, where this guy shot sikhs, mistaking them for muslims? And does this mean every US Citizen hates muslims? It doesnt. And the same is true for you roleplay.
That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns.
In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil.
The two are not comparable.
There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second.
I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US.
Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness.
You can delve up the same kind of stuff from the bible. The crucial point is, how to interpret the it. There are as well modern and liberal muslims as there are Christians. That you can dig up horrible stuff from the Koran doesn't justify condemning a whole religion or culture as inferior. Both books are supposed to be treated as sources in a historical sense from an other time. Sure, you´ll be able to find anachronistic stuff in a book roughly 1.4k years old. That´s no suprise.
On August 13 2012 03:09 Thorakh wrote: I'd rather have you show me why human (because that's what we're talking about here) males and females are not equal. There is not a single rational reason why women (for example) should not be allowed a job, walk without male supervision on the street, drive a car, you name it.
It's the same for homophobia. There is not a single rational reason why gay = bad.
Yes, I believe moral relativism is bullshit.
One can argue that gay is bad because if everyone was gay, our species would go extinct. That is a rational argument. Opposing to that is the fact that this is never ever going to be the case, so gays don't matter in the reproduction part of our species.
You just refuted your own argument and therefore it's not a valid rational argument.
One could even further refute it by postulating that even if the entire human population was gay, we could still make babies. I can certainly see such a society function without any problems.
It wasn´t only about race, it was about culture as well. Culture can not be inferior, as culture is, as you mentioned a sum of beliefs, values and norms. Yet you will be hard pressed to identify this culture, where a sexist or homophobic notion is shared unanimously. And even if appears to you this way, you wont be able to judge it as you can´t claim to know said culture close enough, if you don´t share it
I didnt say what you said: the point is, there is no such thing as a generic islamic culture. Furthermore i didnt raise the term "arabic culture", i merely referred to it. You cannot divide cultural complexes into segments in order to label one of them as inferior. Liberal arabic movements view themselves as part of that certain culture, that is meant to be labeled as inferior throughout this discussion.
I think you are right. What I mean by "inferior culture" are specific people with an inferior set of beliefs. Indeed not every person who generally identifies himself with culture X also shares the exact copy of that culture's set of values.
That's hypocrisy at it's finest. Please explain to me why a culture can be "objectively inferior" but at the same time it's impossible for you that races are "objectively inferior"? I'm pretty damn sure the only reason you can come up with is because the word "racism" has a bad ring to it while "culturalism" sounds pretty neat so far.
Race does not determine the set of values and behaviour someone has. Furthermore, the difference in races beside appearances are extremely small.
PS: German Shepherd or Poodle, do you think they one of them can be objectively inferior or not? I'll help you out, the correct answer is: "For what?" - it's exactly the same with human race, religion or culture. Each one has flaws, each one has merits. You're proclaiming that your culture in it's entirety is superior to another one and therefor has a god-given right to call out the other culture. I think that's pretty disgusting.
I'm certainly not calling an entire culture inferior. Culture X simply has more negative traits than culture Y and therefore culture X is inferior to culture Y.
Your definition of negative and positive traits is undeniably influenced by whichever cultural hegemony you prescribe to. This argument is getting you no where.
No, it is simply based on "Is there a rational reason for this?" and "Does this culture's set of values and beliefs harm others?".
Your value of rationalism came from somewhere. If you truely think you are objective, you're wrong.
You seem to be making a statement anchored in rationality here. Do you believe the claim you have just made is objectively true? If not, what is it?
I think that humans being a product of nature and nurture is objectively true. I think that there have been enough studies and scientific discoveries in fields such as genetics and human development to label that as objectively true. I think it is true in the same fashion that the Earth revolves around the Sun is objectively true.
Where would you rather live as a muslim: in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin, where this guy shot sikhs, mistaking them for muslims? And does this mean every US Citizen hates muslims? It doesnt. And the same is true for you roleplay.
That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns.
In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil.
The two are not comparable.
There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second.
I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US.
Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness.
You can delve up the same kind of stuff from the bible. The crucial point is, how to interpret the it. There are as well modern and liberal muslims as there are Christians. That you can dig up horrible stuff from the Koran doesn't justify condemning a whole religion or culture as inferior. Both books are supposed to be treated as sources in a historical sense from an other time. Sure, you´ll be able to find anachronistic stuff in a book roughly 1.4k years old. That´s no suprise.
Oh go right ahead, I find the bible equally distasteful. And how on earth can you interpret "Stone the alduterer" as anything but "Stone the adulterer" ?
Trust me, my condemnation does not stem from the sputtering insanities in the Koran, it stems from demonstrable facts and actual deeds.
On August 13 2012 03:09 Thorakh wrote: I'd rather have you show me why human (because that's what we're talking about here) males and females are not equal. There is not a single rational reason why women (for example) should not be allowed a job, walk without male supervision on the street, drive a car, you name it.
It's the same for homophobia. There is not a single rational reason why gay = bad.
Yes, I believe moral relativism is bullshit.
One can argue that gay is bad because if everyone was gay, our species would go extinct. That is a rational argument. Opposing to that is the fact that this is never ever going to be the case, so gays don't matter in the reproduction part of our species.
You just refuted your own argument and therefore it's not a valid rational argument.
One could even further refute it by postulating that even if the entire human population was gay, we could still make babies. I can certainly see such a society function without any problems.
It wasn´t only about race, it was about culture as well. Culture can not be inferior, as culture is, as you mentioned a sum of beliefs, values and norms. Yet you will be hard pressed to identify this culture, where a sexist or homophobic notion is shared unanimously. And even if appears to you this way, you wont be able to judge it as you can´t claim to know said culture close enough, if you don´t share it
I didnt say what you said: the point is, there is no such thing as a generic islamic culture. Furthermore i didnt raise the term "arabic culture", i merely referred to it. You cannot divide cultural complexes into segments in order to label one of them as inferior. Liberal arabic movements view themselves as part of that certain culture, that is meant to be labeled as inferior throughout this discussion.
I think you are right. What I mean by "inferior culture" are specific people with an inferior set of beliefs. Indeed not every person who generally identifies himself with culture X also shares the exact copy of that culture's set of values.
That's hypocrisy at it's finest. Please explain to me why a culture can be "objectively inferior" but at the same time it's impossible for you that races are "objectively inferior"? I'm pretty damn sure the only reason you can come up with is because the word "racism" has a bad ring to it while "culturalism" sounds pretty neat so far.
Race does not determine the set of values and behaviour someone has. Furthermore, the difference in races beside appearances are extremely small.
PS: German Shepherd or Poodle, do you think they one of them can be objectively inferior or not? I'll help you out, the correct answer is: "For what?" - it's exactly the same with human race, religion or culture. Each one has flaws, each one has merits. You're proclaiming that your culture in it's entirety is superior to another one and therefor has a god-given right to call out the other culture. I think that's pretty disgusting.
I'm certainly not calling an entire culture inferior. Culture X simply has more negative traits than culture Y and therefore culture X is inferior to culture Y.
Your definition of negative and positive traits is undeniably influenced by whichever cultural hegemony you prescribe to. This argument is getting you no where.
No, it is simply based on "Is there a rational reason for this?" and "Does this culture's set of values and beliefs harm others?".
Your value of rationalism came from somewhere. If you truely think you are objective, you're wrong.
You seem to be making a statement anchored in rationality here. Do you believe the claim you have just made is objectively true? If not, what is it?
I think that humans being a product of nature and nurture is objectively true. I think that there have been enough studies and scientific discoveries in fields such as genetics and human development to label that as objectively true. I think it is true in the same fashion that the Earth revolves around the Sun is objectively true.
Ok, my mistake. I was under the impression that you were questioning the possibility of rational thought.
Do you equate rationality with objectivity? Is it possible that things could be rational but not necessary "objective" in the sense that we ordinarily mean?
Where would you rather live as a muslim: in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin, where this guy shot sikhs, mistaking them for muslims? And does this mean every US Citizen hates muslims? It doesnt. And the same is true for you roleplay.
That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns.
In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil.
The two are not comparable.
There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second.
I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US.
Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness.
You can delve up the same kind of stuff from the bible. The crucial point is, how to interpret the it. There are as well modern and liberal muslims as there are Christians. That you can dig up horrible stuff from the Koran doesn't justify condemning a whole religion or culture as inferior. Both books are supposed to be treated as sources in a historical sense from an other time. Sure, you´ll be able to find anachronistic stuff in a book roughly 1.4k years old. That´s no suprise.
Oh go right ahead, I find the bible equally distasteful. And how on earth can you interpret "Stone the alduterer" as anything but "Stone the adulterer" ?
Why don't you just ignore that part, and keep the parts where it tells you to love your neighbor and be a good person?
(historically, you should consider why, at that time, the punishment of female adultery with death was an important thing for that culture, and consider why, in our time, we are able to perceive such a thing as unnecessary and immoral to boot)
Where would you rather live as a muslim: in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin, where this guy shot sikhs, mistaking them for muslims? And does this mean every US Citizen hates muslims? It doesnt. And the same is true for you roleplay.
That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns.
In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil.
The two are not comparable.
There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second.
I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US.
Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness.
You can delve up the same kind of stuff from the bible. The crucial point is, how to interpret the it. There are as well modern and liberal muslims as there are Christians. That you can dig up horrible stuff from the Koran doesn't justify condemning a whole religion or culture as inferior. Both books are supposed to be treated as sources in a historical sense from an other time. Sure, you´ll be able to find anachronistic stuff in a book roughly 1.4k years old. That´s no suprise.
Oh go right ahead, I find the bible equally distasteful. And how on earth can you interpret "Stone the alduterer" as anything but "Stone the adulterer" ?
Trust me, my condemnation does not stem from the sputtering insanities in the Koran, it stems from demonstrable facts and actual deeds.
Again it´s a 1.4k years old book. Modern islam will and currently does, emancipate itself from stuff that doesn't fit into modern society. Look beyond the words of an antiquity and discover pretty normal and modern people practicing islam today.
On August 13 2012 03:09 Thorakh wrote: I'd rather have you show me why human (because that's what we're talking about here) males and females are not equal. There is not a single rational reason why women (for example) should not be allowed a job, walk without male supervision on the street, drive a car, you name it.
It's the same for homophobia. There is not a single rational reason why gay = bad.
Yes, I believe moral relativism is bullshit.
One can argue that gay is bad because if everyone was gay, our species would go extinct. That is a rational argument. Opposing to that is the fact that this is never ever going to be the case, so gays don't matter in the reproduction part of our species.
You just refuted your own argument and therefore it's not a valid rational argument.
One could even further refute it by postulating that even if the entire human population was gay, we could still make babies. I can certainly see such a society function without any problems.
It wasn´t only about race, it was about culture as well. Culture can not be inferior, as culture is, as you mentioned a sum of beliefs, values and norms. Yet you will be hard pressed to identify this culture, where a sexist or homophobic notion is shared unanimously. And even if appears to you this way, you wont be able to judge it as you can´t claim to know said culture close enough, if you don´t share it
I didnt say what you said: the point is, there is no such thing as a generic islamic culture. Furthermore i didnt raise the term "arabic culture", i merely referred to it. You cannot divide cultural complexes into segments in order to label one of them as inferior. Liberal arabic movements view themselves as part of that certain culture, that is meant to be labeled as inferior throughout this discussion.
I think you are right. What I mean by "inferior culture" are specific people with an inferior set of beliefs. Indeed not every person who generally identifies himself with culture X also shares the exact copy of that culture's set of values.
That's hypocrisy at it's finest. Please explain to me why a culture can be "objectively inferior" but at the same time it's impossible for you that races are "objectively inferior"? I'm pretty damn sure the only reason you can come up with is because the word "racism" has a bad ring to it while "culturalism" sounds pretty neat so far.
Race does not determine the set of values and behaviour someone has. Furthermore, the difference in races beside appearances are extremely small.
PS: German Shepherd or Poodle, do you think they one of them can be objectively inferior or not? I'll help you out, the correct answer is: "For what?" - it's exactly the same with human race, religion or culture. Each one has flaws, each one has merits. You're proclaiming that your culture in it's entirety is superior to another one and therefor has a god-given right to call out the other culture. I think that's pretty disgusting.
I'm certainly not calling an entire culture inferior. Culture X simply has more negative traits than culture Y and therefore culture X is inferior to culture Y.
Your definition of negative and positive traits is undeniably influenced by whichever cultural hegemony you prescribe to. This argument is getting you no where.
No, it is simply based on "Is there a rational reason for this?" and "Does this culture's set of values and beliefs harm others?".
Your value of rationalism came from somewhere. If you truely think you are objective, you're wrong.
You seem to be making a statement anchored in rationality here. Do you believe the claim you have just made is objectively true? If not, what is it?
I think that humans being a product of nature and nurture is objectively true. I think that there have been enough studies and scientific discoveries in fields such as genetics and human development to label that as objectively true. I think it is true in the same fashion that the Earth revolves around the Sun is objectively true.
Ok, my mistake. I was under the impression that you were questioning the possibility of rational thought.
Do you equate rationality with objectivity? Is it possible that things could be rational but not necessary "objective" in the sense that we ordinarily mean?
I don't equate rationality with objectivity that is what I was saying. Thorakh was defining superior and inferior culture based on his concept of rationality. I was merely saying that his choice to use rationality as the bar for measurement was invariably influenced by his own culture, therefore being subjective
Where would you rather live as a muslim: in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin, where this guy shot sikhs, mistaking them for muslims? And does this mean every US Citizen hates muslims? It doesnt. And the same is true for you roleplay.
That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns.
In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil.
The two are not comparable.
There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second.
I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US.
Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness.
You can delve up the same kind of stuff from the bible. The crucial point is, how to interpret the it. There are as well modern and liberal muslims as there are Christians. That you can dig up horrible stuff from the Koran doesn't justify condemning a whole religion or culture as inferior. Both books are supposed to be treated as sources in a historical sense from an other time. Sure, you´ll be able to find anachronistic stuff in a book roughly 1.4k years old. That´s no suprise.
Oh go right ahead, I find the bible equally distasteful. And how on earth can you interpret "Stone the alduterer" as anything but "Stone the adulterer" ?
Why don't you just ignore that part, and keep the parts where it tells you to love your neighbor and be a good person?
(historically, you should consider why, at that time, the punishment of female adultery with death was an important thing for that culture, and consider why, in our time, we are able to perceive such a thing as unnecessary and immoral to boot)
Because that is borderline intellectual suicide. It cannot, and should not be ignored. It's there. It's like trying to ignore the fact that a suspect shot a guy, because he brought him flowers in the hospital afterwards. And apparently it's the word of god, which makes it kind of non-negotiable.
And how is/was female adultery even an issue? If producing offspring is the primary purpose of the woman, shouldn't she be sleeping around as much as possible to maximize the chances of getting pregnant?
On August 13 2012 03:09 Thorakh wrote: I'd rather have you show me why human (because that's what we're talking about here) males and females are not equal. There is not a single rational reason why women (for example) should not be allowed a job, walk without male supervision on the street, drive a car, you name it.
It's the same for homophobia. There is not a single rational reason why gay = bad.
Yes, I believe moral relativism is bullshit.
One can argue that gay is bad because if everyone was gay, our species would go extinct. That is a rational argument. Opposing to that is the fact that this is never ever going to be the case, so gays don't matter in the reproduction part of our species.
You just refuted your own argument and therefore it's not a valid rational argument.
One could even further refute it by postulating that even if the entire human population was gay, we could still make babies. I can certainly see such a society function without any problems.
It wasn´t only about race, it was about culture as well. Culture can not be inferior, as culture is, as you mentioned a sum of beliefs, values and norms. Yet you will be hard pressed to identify this culture, where a sexist or homophobic notion is shared unanimously. And even if appears to you this way, you wont be able to judge it as you can´t claim to know said culture close enough, if you don´t share it
I didnt say what you said: the point is, there is no such thing as a generic islamic culture. Furthermore i didnt raise the term "arabic culture", i merely referred to it. You cannot divide cultural complexes into segments in order to label one of them as inferior. Liberal arabic movements view themselves as part of that certain culture, that is meant to be labeled as inferior throughout this discussion.
I think you are right. What I mean by "inferior culture" are specific people with an inferior set of beliefs. Indeed not every person who generally identifies himself with culture X also shares the exact copy of that culture's set of values.
That's hypocrisy at it's finest. Please explain to me why a culture can be "objectively inferior" but at the same time it's impossible for you that races are "objectively inferior"? I'm pretty damn sure the only reason you can come up with is because the word "racism" has a bad ring to it while "culturalism" sounds pretty neat so far.
Race does not determine the set of values and behaviour someone has. Furthermore, the difference in races beside appearances are extremely small.
PS: German Shepherd or Poodle, do you think they one of them can be objectively inferior or not? I'll help you out, the correct answer is: "For what?" - it's exactly the same with human race, religion or culture. Each one has flaws, each one has merits. You're proclaiming that your culture in it's entirety is superior to another one and therefor has a god-given right to call out the other culture. I think that's pretty disgusting.
I'm certainly not calling an entire culture inferior. Culture X simply has more negative traits than culture Y and therefore culture X is inferior to culture Y.
Your definition of negative and positive traits is undeniably influenced by whichever cultural hegemony you prescribe to. This argument is getting you no where.
No, it is simply based on "Is there a rational reason for this?" and "Does this culture's set of values and beliefs harm others?".
Your value of rationalism came from somewhere. If you truely think you are objective, you're wrong.
You seem to be making a statement anchored in rationality here. Do you believe the claim you have just made is objectively true? If not, what is it?
I think that humans being a product of nature and nurture is objectively true. I think that there have been enough studies and scientific discoveries in fields such as genetics and human development to label that as objectively true. I think it is true in the same fashion that the Earth revolves around the Sun is objectively true.
Ok, my mistake. I was under the impression that you were questioning the possibility of rational thought.
Do you equate rationality with objectivity? Is it possible that things could be rational but not necessary "objective" in the sense that we ordinarily mean?
I was merely saying that his choice to use rationality as the bar for measurement was invariably influenced by his own culture, therefore being subjective
Can you elaborate on this step of the argument? I don't follow.
If it's "subjective" in the way that you say, would that then render it illegitimate?
What other sorts of measurement (or perhaps a better word, evaluation) would one perform?
Where would you rather live as a muslim: in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin, where this guy shot sikhs, mistaking them for muslims? And does this mean every US Citizen hates muslims? It doesnt. And the same is true for you roleplay.
That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns.
In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil.
The two are not comparable.
There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second.
I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US.
Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness.
You can delve up the same kind of stuff from the bible. The crucial point is, how to interpret the it. There are as well modern and liberal muslims as there are Christians. That you can dig up horrible stuff from the Koran doesn't justify condemning a whole religion or culture as inferior. Both books are supposed to be treated as sources in a historical sense from an other time. Sure, you´ll be able to find anachronistic stuff in a book roughly 1.4k years old. That´s no suprise.
Oh go right ahead, I find the bible equally distasteful. And how on earth can you interpret "Stone the alduterer" as anything but "Stone the adulterer" ?
Trust me, my condemnation does not stem from the sputtering insanities in the Koran, it stems from demonstrable facts and actual deeds.
Again it´s a 1.4k years old book. Modern islam will and currently does, emancipate itself from stuff that doesn't fit into modern society. Look beyond the words of an antiquity and discover pretty normal and modern people practicing islam today.
Did you not read the second paragraph? It clearly states my problem is with the actual culture being practiced today, not the Koran.
Where would you rather live as a muslim: in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin, where this guy shot sikhs, mistaking them for muslims? And does this mean every US Citizen hates muslims? It doesnt. And the same is true for you roleplay.
That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns.
In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil.
The two are not comparable.
There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second.
I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US.
Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness.
You can delve up the same kind of stuff from the bible. The crucial point is, how to interpret the it. There are as well modern and liberal muslims as there are Christians. That you can dig up horrible stuff from the Koran doesn't justify condemning a whole religion or culture as inferior. Both books are supposed to be treated as sources in a historical sense from an other time. Sure, you´ll be able to find anachronistic stuff in a book roughly 1.4k years old. That´s no suprise.
Oh go right ahead, I find the bible equally distasteful. And how on earth can you interpret "Stone the alduterer" as anything but "Stone the adulterer" ?
Why don't you just ignore that part, and keep the parts where it tells you to love your neighbor and be a good person?
(historically, you should consider why, at that time, the punishment of female adultery with death was an important thing for that culture, and consider why, in our time, we are able to perceive such a thing as unnecessary and immoral to boot)
Because that is borderline intellectual suicide. It cannot, and should not be ignored. It's there. It's like trying to ignore the fact that a suspect shot a guy, because he brought him flowers in the hospital afterwards. And apparently it's the word of god, which makes it kind of non-negotiable.
I value the bible highly, but I am not a christian and I do not believe that it is the "word of god." How does that fit into your schema? Your mistake (and the mistake of most christians) it to believe that the bible is a unitary text, which it is not.
If I have performed intellectual suicide, my intellect is doing some very convincing post-mortem twitching.
And how is/was female adultery even an issue? If producing offspring is the primary purpose of the woman, shouldn't she be sleeping around as much as possible to maximize the chances of getting pregnant?
Patriarchy, my friend. You have to know who the father is, or the economic system collapses.
That's hypocrisy at it's finest. Please explain to me why a culture can be "objectively inferior" but at the same time it's impossible for you that races are "objectively inferior"? I'm pretty damn sure the only reason you can come up with is because the word "racism" has a bad ring to it while "culturalism" sounds pretty neat so far.
Race does not determine the set of values and behaviour someone has. Furthermore, the difference in races beside appearances are extremely small.
Race is very much related to the set of values and behaviour someone has. If - for whatever reasons - black people in the US commit more crimes than white people and if - for whatever reasons - police officers tend to shoot black suspects more often than white ones do you really believe that that doesn't affect the values and behaviours of black people? Sure, the color of your skin or your race being irrelevant sounds cool and all but it's far from reality. Everyone gets judged by their appearence, everyone gets feedback on their appearence. That feedback forms values.
You know why? That's because of people like you, who believe there are genuine differences between races other than appearance. Race and culture certainly are connected to each other but they are not inseperable. Absolutely not. It also has to do with the socioeconomic status of someone. People of certain races might be more likely to grow up in a poor ghetto environment.
If you consider that to be something else than race, then fine. This is a bit of topic due to the discussion of race and not culture.
edit, fixed quote, I think.
I already said there were neligible differences in an earlier post.
Allright. If religions can be inferior to others please tell me which of those three is "objectively inferior" to the others and why: Christianity, Islam, Judaism.
I can't because that would require a full-fledged study. Also, I realise that negative traits cannot be easily quantified. That doesn't change the fact that greatly differing cultures can be graded.
EPT
