Toxic Certainty

[Leyla Shen]

Dan wrote:

You don't think people's criteria for gathering evidence and rationality etc etc are important matters; matters beyond the label of mere politics?

Yes, they are very important, Dan. But as I said much earlier on, and I still maintain, this thread should be (if anywhere at all) in Worldly Matters. You can see it coming, you know? It's likely to give the utterly incompetent the idea they're somewhere near genius.

They need their boundaries clearly marked is the message.

[Leyla Shen]

PS (notwithstanding my last post [and the delay in dumping this thread] and, thereby, in treating this subject in the worldy manner in which it deserves to be treated):

Kelly wrote to Dan:

I would like to know if your political position is coherent.

I would like to know why you don't question the coherence of Kevin's political position, and I will subject you to this same standard after I have reviewed a few things...

[Dan Rowden]

Excuse me? What did I start, Kelly? You don't think people's criteria for gathering evidence and rationality etc etc are important matters; matters beyond the label of mere politics? In your desire to find fault with me you are looking desperate and disoriented. You don't seem to be able to even see what I'm arguing. Try again.

I would like to know if your political position is coherent.

Have you looked at the Raman thread recently ?-

I am not taking a political position in this thread. And yes, I saw your post in the Raman thread and I'll get to that in due course.

[Leyla Shen]

Katy wrote:

Huh? I must have missed something, but I am fairly certain that Leyla would not say that most muslims are like a rapist.

Nah, Katy, you didn’t miss anything (particularly that her sentence was, as can be expected by precedent, rather ambiguous). It doesn’t matter what I say, since I have been stereotyped as a member of the "Muslim race":

Elizabeth: You are just as deserving of my compassion as Bilby, but you have not displayed bravery in the face of prejudice in this post.

Leyla: I don’t actually consider myself to be a member of the Muslim race--there is no such thing, save in the minds of the demented!

And, later, Elizabeth: For example, as far as I know, Leyla is the only Muslim woman I know at all (and I do not believe that I know Leyla particularly well). I had not stereotyped all Muslim women to be like Leyla - but once the parallels were mentioned, I did recognize the similarity between Leyla's behavior and the televised Muslim response to the pope's statement that Islam was a violent religion by violently protesting his statement.

If I were a Muslim, I would have to hold the same religious values as Muslims. No-one seems to have provided me with exactly what their minds are telling them these religious values are. For instance, am I required to be praying 5 times a day, facing Mecca on my hands and knees before I can claim to be a Muslim or a non-Muslim? I mean, what are the criteria, apart from “terrorist,” “misogynist,” and “child abuser” I ask you?

[Leyla Shen]

PS: and furthermore, on those grounds, why aren't Elizabeth's parents considered Muslims?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

If I were a Muslim, I would have to hold the same religious values as Muslims.

As I pointed out before, you have claimed both sides of this issue. Terminology notwithstanding, you got the general idea of what Bilby was getting at, and claimed to be of the Muslim race. You even argued that Muslims could be a race like Jewish people, and you have previously claimed to have an Islamic bloodline, and your signature once read something to the effect of "there is no God but the God of Islam." People may be ignorant of the proper terminology in this case, but the way to correct ignorance is to clearly state the truth (I recall someone, I believe at CA, stating that Oriental is a rug, not a race - that was effective terminology correction). Sarcasm is counter-educational in the face of confusion.

It doesn’t matter what I say, since I have been stereotyped as a member of the "Muslim race":

You have made multiple ambiguous claims which seemed to make you a representative of Muslims. It is my tendency to give more credence to the words of a member of a group about the position of that group than i give to someone outside that group making claims about that group. In other words, to me your words mattered more, not less.

PS: and furthermore, on those grounds, why aren't Elizabeth's parents considered Muslims?

Because they claimed to be Christian, my mother was of British descent, and my father was of unknown lineage (he was adopted) but appeared Germanic (which was quite ironic actually because he, having fought in WW II, was prejudiced against Germans).

Bilby,

The news should be factual, but in fact, it often is not. There is much sloppy reporting out there. One thing i would like to fix in this world is journalistic integrity - perhaps through stiffer penalties for inaccurate reporting.

[Katy]

I think you just gotta say the shahadat and then you're muslim forever. Sorry, no converting for you. You're stuck. Forever. Of course, given that, I, and I assume you, are both muslims. Just very bad muslims. Of course, it was the imam's wife in a very conservative mosque in Japan (she and her husband travelled from Saudi as "missionaries") who told me this, so I mostly just ignore it. :)

[Kelly Jones]

K: I would like to know if your political position is coherent.

D: I am not taking a political position in this thread.

Do you mean, your points are not oriented to politics in this thread, but to wisdom (but they are in others)?

You do seem to spend a lot of time talking about the importance of trying to fix American political corruption, and about examples of it. But not about exactly how to fix it, or the single aim. I'm really not sure what your aim is.

Are you trying to point out a serious popular delusion that is blocking people from understanding the nature of Reality? If so, why waste time on how it manifests politically, since that is very far away from the core intellectual flaw?

-

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Kelly, this thread is about prejudice - which is not exclusive to America. How you connect American politics to this thread is too loose of a connection for me to see, and I don't see what you are talking about as far as Dan making a political statement in this thread. He has had some valid criticisms of American politics in other threads - but could you explain how you are connecting all of this in this thread?

[Bilby]

Leyla, in response to your earlier comment, I’m not a Christian, I’m atheist. Violence against innocent people shouldn’t be condoned at all, whether it’s by Christians, Jews or Muslims. I’m not aware that Christians or Jews, generally, commit acts of terrorism against innocent people, outside of the arena of war. This largely seems the province of the Muslim.

Australians and Americans are quite capable of producing psychopaths, if you’re talking about “Christian” violence. A psychopath is a person who lacks empathy and has little personal control, and often resorts to violence. They are unable to live in harmony with others. A psychopath has no conscience and believes in his right to take what he wants. In western countries it is recognised that psychopaths have a clinical disorder. If an extreme right-wing “Christian” blows up an abortion clinic, they are psychopathic, not Christian, and they are in fact delusional if they believe they possess Christian qualities. And this is why reporters don’t describe them as Christians, because it just wouldn’t be accurate, and not because they’re biased towards Christians.

I have read the same newspaper articles as everyone else here, so I can’t understand the selective filtering that is going on. Most of the (respected) newspaper stories that have influenced my views on Muslims deal with crimes and the resulting court cases where a punishment is imposed. I really don’t know how creative a journalist can get with information like that. It’s just basic facts.

[Dan Rowden]

K: I would like to know if your political position is coherent.

D: I am not taking a political position in this thread.

Do you mean, your points are not oriented to politics in this thread, but to wisdom (but they are in others)?

There's a few different orientations in this thread. Mine is to the nature of illogic in certain forms of prejudice. Specifically I'm pointing to the role of composition fallacy in prejudice. The "Muslim thing" is simply the context in which this is being played out.

You do seem to spend a lot of time talking about the importance of trying to fix American political corruption, and about examples of it.

Not in this thread I haven't. And it is necessary - for people who don't see it - to point to real world examples of composition fallacy for them to indeed hopefully see it.

But not about exactly how to fix it, or the single aim. I'm really not sure what your aim is.

I'll explain this in the Raman thread. It is simply a distraction in this one.

Are you trying to point out a serious popular delusion that is blocking people from understanding the nature of Reality? If so, why waste time on how it manifests politically, since that is very far away from the core intellectual flaw?

I'll leave this to the Raman thread too.

[Kelly Jones]

Dan,

Is not the aim that drives your concern about American politics exactly the same as the aim that drives your concern about composition fallacy?

Doesn't "composition fallacy" boil down to "irrational beliefs about the Universe" ?


-

[Dan Rowden]

Yes, the aims are essentially the same. But, as I said, I'll expand more on this in the Raman thread discussion where it will be more directly pertinent.

[Jamesh]

I would suggest you retain your existing views on this topic, bilby.

[Dan Rowden]

I agree; a little mindless prejudice never hurt anyone! Let's have another beer and talk about turning the middle east into glass! Haha! We'll show them how much better we are! Haha!!

Sorry, but your post deserved that, Jimbo.

[Leyla Shen]

Bilby wrote:

Leyla, in response to your earlier comment, I’m not a Christian, I’m atheist.

Violence against innocent people shouldn’t be condoned at all, whether it’s by Christians, Jews or Muslims.

I’m not aware that Christians or Jews, generally, commit acts of terrorism against innocent people, outside of the arena of war.

If an extreme right-wing “Christian” blows up an abortion clinic, they are psychopathic, not Christian, and they are in fact delusional if they believe they possess Christian qualities. [Whaaat is a "Christian" ???]

[repeat] Leyla, in response to your earlier comment, I’m not a Christian, I’m atheist. [You’re no fucking atheist!]

OK, I get it. This is a set up, right? “Bilby” is just one of your crash-test dummies--ya. You know, to test my attachment to heritage and race and so forth, just to be sure. I mean, I get that these nuts exist (James is a fair, if pathetically useless, example), but I also get a certain intuition about this place and this whole thing, ya know? A certain…“je ne sais quoi.”

More later!

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Dan,

Would you mind explaining how "the Muslim thing" in this thread is an example of fallacy of composition, but the Woman thing is not?

[Katy]

Dan,

Would you mind explaining how "the Muslim thing" in this thread is an example of fallacy of composition, but the Woman thing is not?

You might should start another thread - he did say earlier he was done with this one.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Katy, my interpretation of his earlier comment was that he believed that he would be wasting his time trying to reason with someone who thought the news was accurate and factual. The thread topic is 'toxic certainty" and Dan was responding to that topic by pointing out the fallacy of composition. He also stated he was not discussing politics in this thread, as it is off topic. Clarifying his interpretation of the fallacy of composition is on topic.

[Cory Duchesne]

I agree; a little mindless prejudice never hurt anyone! Let's have another beer and talk about turning the middle east into glass! Haha! We'll show them how much better we are! Haha!!

Dan,

Would you mind explaining how "the Muslim thing" in this thread is an example of fallacy of composition, but the Woman thing is not?

That's a good question. To suggest that a particular race (a particular gene pool) might innately be a bit more volitile, irrational, fanatical or whatever, doesnt seem at odds with the suggestion that, due to genetics, a gender may be innately more volitile, fanatical, emotional, etc. I know Weinegger and Kierkegaard had discrepencies with what they seen as the propensities of Jews and women, and Darwin and his ilk were no strangers for suggesting that certain races, much like certain individuals, are weaker than others.

I'm not so sure that anyone is in the position to confidently dismiss such suspicions - - especially individuals who spend a significant proportion of their waking lives preaching the inferiority of women.

[Bilby]

My original intention for this thread was a philosophical discourse on whether or not prejudice is sometimes warranted. I didn’t set out to upset Leyla. I should have made it clearer that I was referring mainly to Muslim men, because I believe Muslim women and children are probably just as much victims as anyone else.

We are receiving terrible news stories daily about Muslims, and I really don’t believe that the news is biased or skewed in the majority of these cases. It’s just facts, and to believe that most of these reports are inaccurate stretches credibility.

The problem here is that from an early age we’re indoctrinated to believe that racism is wrong. We have to be able to adapt our thinking. I believe mindless racism is wrong, if it’s just based on superficial differences, like skin colour. I disagree with prejudice against the African-American, for example, because I really see no difference between them and a white American. They seem to be able to achieve just as much given a level playing field and they share our values. They’re just as decent as anyone else.

I’m basically saying that my prejudice against Muslims is morally correct, and to think otherwise would be compromising my moral values. Our society believes in peaceful co-existence and the equality of women and children. Over the decades, my perceptions are that a significant enough proportion of Muslims do not share these values. I believe that aggression and misogyny are over-represented in Muslims, more so than any other race or creed. I don’t mind if someone disagrees, but I want you to do it intelligently. Saying the news is wrong is just a cop-out.

[Dan Rowden]

Dan,

Would you mind explaining how "the Muslim thing" in this thread is an example of fallacy of composition, but the Woman thing is not?

Ok, I'll do that in a new thread - it'll need it.

[Leyla Shen]

Bilby wrote:

I didn’t set out to upset Leyla. I should have made it clearer that I was referring mainly to Muslim men, because I believe Muslim women and children are probably just as much victims as anyone else.

Believe me, you don’t “upset” me any more than most of the human population on this planet. You’ll just have to trust me on that, and luckily that you can since I am a woman, eh?

Your position is very clear to me, Bilby -- despite how things appear to you.

I would like to know what is morally correct about the condition you grant to black Americans and yet deny to Muslim men:

I believe mindless racism is wrong, if it’s just based on superficial differences, like skin colour. I disagree with prejudice against the African-American, for example, because I really see no difference between them and a white American. They seem to be able to achieve just as much given a level playing field and they share our values.

So, what you’re saying is that since there have been news reports about Muslim males raping women, that all Muslim males are misogynists because they also (according to a poll) think there is some justification for suicide bombing?

This connection, you are saying, is not mindless racism, yet the same rationale doesn’t hold true for KKK activities, bombing of abortion clinics, etc, because these people aren’t really Christians, they’re “Christians”? In the same way, hypothetically speaking of course, if we were to apply the same rationale and discrimination you allow here as a self-proclaimed atheist for and between Christians and “Christians,” what--in your oh-so-very morally correct view--would constitute a difference between Muslims and “Muslims”?

Specifically, in what way does considering suicide bombings as not being outside of the arena of war (which you do the minute you attempt to use it as a supporting argument) constitute an element of mindful racism based on attitudes towards women as reflected in news reports, whereas KKK activities and blowing up abortion clinics, activities actually outside of the arena of war, constitute a misrepresentation of Christian values?

[Katy]

I could just as easily, if not more easily, argue that misogyny is inherent in African-American culture. I mean, have you looked at music videos recently? What do you see? Black women wearing almost-nothing getting smacked around, beat up, and glorifying rape. And men wearing "bling" calling every woman a "ho" This is what blacks are really like because this is what the media says. Nevermind that none of the blacks I know are like this.

Frankly, I'd rather wear a burkah for the rest of my life than be subjected to this shit.


What else was it? Muislims are more violent? OK, well, of 1.7 million interracial crimes 90% aer black vs white. In fact blacks commit any violent crimes at 4-8x the rate of whites. And overall commit murder

Oh wait, but I just made a better argument than you ever did because I brought up a statistic, which you don't even have.

*waves her hands in the air* There is more TV coverage of black criminals than whites! therefore blacks are criminals!

[Katy]

And regarding that "support for terror" - this is in the Christian Science Monitor - in otherwords, a source that is usually anti-Islamic.

CSMonitor

WASHINGTON - Those who think that Muslim countries and pro-terrorist attitudes go hand-in-hand might be shocked by new polling research: Americans are more approving of terrorist attacks against civilians than any major Muslim country except for Nigeria.

The survey, conducted in December 2006 by the University of Maryland's prestigious Program on International Public Attitudes, shows that only 46 percent of Americans think that "bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians" are "never justified," while 24 percent believe these attacks are "often or sometimes justified."

Contrast those numbers with 2006 polling results from the world's most-populous Muslim countries – Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nigeria. Terror Free Tomorrow, the organization I lead, found that 74 percent of respondents in Indonesia agreed that terrorist attacks are "never justified"; in Pakistan, that figure was 86 percent; in Bangladesh, 81 percent.