Toxic Certainty

[Bilby]

Katy, did the poll actually specifiy bombings in totally unrelated countries?

Leyla, in today’s Courier Mail on the front page is the story of a “Hells Angel bikie” involved in the Melbourne shootings. To present a more balanced and Muslim-friendly story, should he be referred to as a “Christian”?

On page 33 there’s a story about renewed death threats against Salman Rushdie. Pakistan’s religious affairs minister, said: “The West is accusing Muslims of extremism and terrorism. If someone exploded a bomb on his body he would be right to do so, unless the British government apologises and withdraws the “Sir” title.”

He later retracted his statement in parliament, then told reporters he meant to say that knighting Rushdie would foster extremism.

Where is the unfair, biased or inaccurate reporting in today’s paper?

We’ve had some very interesting retractions of late from our own Sydney-based Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, who said, amongst other things, that women were weapons used by Satan to control men. This is the same sheik who compared immodestly-clothed women to uncovered meat, then retracted his statements and said he only meant to refer to prostitutes as meat, which you will agree, is a whole lot better. The real message he wanted to convey, was: If a woman shows herself off, she is to blame. Leyla, what did you, personally, think in response to these comments? Are these really just isolated views? Can you understand Australia’s anger that people like this are allowed to emigrate here?

[Leyla Shen]

Bilby:

Leyla, in today’s Courier Mail on the front page is the story of a “Hells Angel bikie” involved in the Melbourne shootings.

Yes. It happened at 8.15 a.m. Monday, around the corner from where I work.

To present a more balanced and Muslim-friendly story, should he be referred to as a “Christian”?

Sure, if he’s a Christian, or from the Christian race!, why not? And you still have not addressed my questions.

Why should every single Muslim be held responsible for the acts of a few, but not every single Christian likewise? Why should you not be held responsible for George Bush's actions?

On page 33 there’s a story about renewed death threats against Salman Rushdie.

Well, of course, I am opposed to Rushdie on the same grounds as above (manifesting more directly in his opposition to the Racial & Religious Hatred Act 2006).

Pakistan’s religious affairs minister, said: “The West is accusing Muslims of extremism and terrorism. If someone exploded a bomb on his body he would be right to do so, unless the British government apologises and withdraws the “Sir” title.”

So what?? So, Rushdie--and everyone else--has the right to free speech, but not Muslims? Is that it?

He later retracted his statement in parliament, then told reporters he meant to say that knighting Rushdie would foster extremism.

Where is the unfair, biased or inaccurate reporting in today’s paper?

You mean, you still miss the point?

We’ve had some very interesting retractions of late from our own Sydney-based Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, who said, amongst other things, that women were weapons used by Satan to control men. This is the same sheik who compared immodestly-clothed women to uncovered meat, then retracted his statements and said he only meant to refer to prostitutes as meat, which you will agree, is a whole lot better. The real message he wanted to convey, was: If a woman shows herself off, she is to blame. Leyla, what did you, personally, think in response to these comments? Are these really just isolated views? Can you understand Australia’s anger that people like this are allowed to emigrate here?

Obviously, you’ve not read Weininger. Would you have him denied entry to Australia based on a few quotes here and there, too?

[Katy]

Katy, did the poll actually specifiy bombings in totally unrelated countries?

So you're saying it's OK to target civilians so long as a citizen of their country did something bad?

[Katy]

Let me give you an example of a real article that came in at random on stumbleupon but is fairly typical.

They Had No Expression On Their Faces'

Updated: 13:12, Tuesday June 19, 2007
Two dozen emaciated boys have been discovered at a special-needs orphanage in Iraqi capital Baghdad.
Troops helping the orphans
Troops helping the orphans

Disturbing pictures on American channel CBS News showed some youths tied to cribs and covered in their own faeces.

US soldiers saw near-lifeless bodies lying on the floor of the facility. One was covered in flies.

An officer said: "They thought they were all dead so they threw a basketball to try and get some attention and one of the kids lifted his head, tilted over and just went back down."

Another soldier reported: "You could see nearly every bone in their bodies, they were so skinny.
One of the shocking images
One of the shocking images

"They had no energy to move, no expression on their faces."

Despite the neglect, troops found shelves filled with food and new clothes in the facility, according to the report.

It is thought the staff may have been selling the food rather than giving it to the children.

The caretaker of the orphanage and two female employees have disappeared, CBS said.

The children were all moved to another orphanage in the city.

North of Baghdad, America has launched a 10,000-troop offensive.

US Military said the operation is aimed at destroying terrorist group al Qaeda in the country.

Is the story factual? Yeah, probably.
What makes it a biased news article is adding the entirely unnecessary and unrelated bit

North of Baghdad, America has launched a 10,000-troop offensive.

US Military said the operation is aimed at destroying terrorist group al Qaeda in the country.

to the end of what would otherwise be a decent bit of writing. Did the US go to Iraq because of starving babies? No, but we attach a bit about our offensive to this shocking story to connect the ideas in readers' minds. Iraq = bad. Troops = good. The 10,000-troop offensive is good because these 2 or few troops saved starving babies.


Source

[Leyla Shen]

Actually, that is especially representative of typical Western media reporting, but what it does is give bigger hints than usual as to the nature of news reporting. I say it’s a shocking piece of news reporting--but a perfect example of slap-together PR. The next thing (aside from the astute observation you have already made) is, for instance, this sentence:

Despite the neglect, troops found shelves filled with food and new clothes in the facility, according to the report.

Oh, those poor, damaged troops. Despite all that disgusting neglect, they still somehow managed to find shelves filled with food and new clothes? Poor, poor things…

And, what report do they refer to in this sentence, specifically--from whom?

I caught a glimpse on telly just 30 mins ago of some of those teary-eyed troops with laughing and happy orphans. Warms the cockles of one’s kind little heart, don’t it?

[Leyla Shen]

Unkind Cuts

Brian: I’m bloody fumin' mate. I listen to this crap that’s going on with these bloody Muslims. Well stuff it mate. This is our country. This is our country ...

[Jamesh]

Oh, those poor, damaged troops. Despite all that disgusting neglect, they still somehow managed to find shelves filled with food and new clothes? Poor, poor things…

They indicated that the guy running the orphanage was selling the incoming material, rather than using it as he was supposed to on the kids. He apparently ran away as soon as he was discovered.

I'd say you've done a shocking piece of speculation - but a perfect example of your slap-together emotionally determined thinking.

[Jamesh]

To me this is a better example of what Katy is getting at (not that I really agree with her take). They are making excuses for the behaviour. Behaviour that isn't much different to an Islamic stoning.

Texas crowd beats man to death
June 21, 2007 - 6:19AM

A Texas crowd beat a man to death after his friend hit a small girl with his car, police said today.

The incident came just days after six people were killed after an out-of-control drag car ploughed into a crowd of spectators at a children's charity event in Tennessee.

Police in Texas have still not determined how many people ganged up on David Morales, 40, who was killed after he tried to help the friend who was driving the car.

"Mr Morales could have been assaulted by two to 20 folks," said Harold Piatt, commander of the homicide unit with the Austin, Texas police.

"It's that same crowd mindset of being one face in a thousand. Things get out of hand pretty quickly and people don't have the good sense to stop."

The three- or four-year-old girl was struck at 9.30pm on Tuesday in a crowded apartment complex parking lot across the street from a park night where about two or three thousand people were attending a festival.

The driver of the car got out to check on the girl - who was taken to hospital with non-life threatening injuries - and quickly got into a fight with several men in the crowd. He managed to escape relatively unharmed by driving away, but Morales was beaten to death, Piatt said.

[Leyla Shen]

I'd say you've done a shocking piece of speculation - but a perfect example of your slap-together emotionally determined thinking.

You really are that emotionally thick, aren‘t you. It’s not at all slap-together thinking. I didn't write the article. I have taken a specific sentence from a slap-together US PR piece, without alteration, and examined it. You don’t have to like what’s in front of your face, James. But, if you want to be objective, you do have to analyse it without emotion.

Frankly, I’m more interested in what crippled and made those children orphans in the first place than the US army’s thoughts, feelings and speculations on the matter. Why aren’t you? You call that news?

After the Iraqi army discovered the facility US forces helped to evacuate the orphanage and provide medical care to the children, a US military spokesman said.

"The Iraqi army discovered an orphanage where children had been neglected," US military spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Garver told AFP.

"They took control of the children and removed them to a safer area, and US forces provided medicine to them." He added that the children have since been placed in foster care.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070620/wl ... 0620093007

[Edit: restructured for clarity]

[Bilby]

Katy, I saw that news item and it just stated the facts. It was a horrific story and I can’t understand what contortion of reasoning could turn it into an argument for Muslims.

Leyla, I asked what you, personally, thought of the sheik’s comments, which were deeply offensive to women everywhere, and your answer is: “a few quotes here and there”? I don’t understand you at all. Are you a Muslim first and foremost and nothing else matters?

Every single Muslim is not responsible for the acts of a few. But I do think that the news reports that we receive are indicative of the sentiments of Muslims generally. A view you help to reinforce each time you post.

It’s irrational to say that everyone in western countries should be referred to as “Christian”. Most countries are fairly secular, and people generally don’t define themselves by their religion.

If a radical Islamic group is announcing a Fatwa against Salman Rushdie, they will be reported in the papers as an “Islamic group” because this is the most logical way to describe them.

You never say what you really think, Leyla. You might be opposed to what Salman Rushdie wrote, but does that extend to a right to kill him? Do you agree or disagree with the fatwa?

That story on the Iraqi orphans was pitiful. And you call this PR? You obviously didn’t see the news story. The food and clothing was withheld from them by the Iraqi owners. Those laughing and happy orphans were starving to death, Leyla.

[Jamesh]

Leyla, you sure do aid in increasing my certainty that 99% of Muslims aren't worth listening to at all.
Whereas the figure for the Christian crowd is only about 85% :)

Why should you not be held responsible for George Bush's actions?

Isn't that partly what Al Quada is trying to get Muslims to do?

Why should every single Muslim be held responsible for the acts of a few, but not every single Christian likewise?

This is good point, which I'm not going to bother attempting to answer properly as it would take too long. Basically it is because there is a war on, and I'm not just talking Iraq and Iran, but an idealogical war about the right to freedom and the (non) right of masculine rule. The majority of people in the middle of this war between religious extremists are being attacked from both sides (Patriot act, increased attempts for control by Muslim and Christain bodies etc etc). In war time, it is too inefficient to weigh up the pro's and con's of individuals, so we work out our judgemental generalisations on what those who control the people do, and what mobs do.

Both the Muslim and Christian religions as they are now, must die, but the Muslim religion gets the focus now, considering how much pointless destruction it leads to. The Christian nutters are less urgent, attacking them can be done gradually (as per the attacks on Pell for instance). It is simply too difficult to tackle both sides at once, particularly as the extemists on both sides hold the internal military power.

The Muslim religion is totally incompatable with the modern world, so it will slowly die, and many
Muslim leaders recognise this. As far as I can see the actions of Muslim leaders is a kind of last ditch effort to gain power from a losing position by attacking the West (the bulk of terrorist funds comes from wealthy muslims, at least I presume) - they are trying to reinforce the base (hence the trend to Sharia law) in order to have the foundations for their desires for a Muslim imperialistic campaign.

[Leyla Shen]

Leyla, you sure do aid in increasing my certainty that 99% of Muslims aren't worth listening to at all.
Whereas the figure for the Christian crowd is only about 85% :)

And you are diminishing the great fondness I used to have for Scots!

Isn't that partly what Al Quada is trying to get Muslims to do?

If you are interested in the position I'm taking here, go to the beginning of the thread and take another look, without being emotionally defensive. I don't think it's that hard to understand for someone who actually is not mindlessly prejudiced.

Don't have time to respond to the rest of your post at the moment.

[Leyla Shen]

(Bloody hell...)

Leyla, I asked what you, personally, thought of the sheik’s comments, which were deeply offensive to women everywhere, and your answer is: “a few quotes here and there”? I don’t understand you at all. Are you a Muslim first and foremost and nothing else matters?

You have several outstanding questions, Bilby. When you demonstrate enough decency to deliver what you demand, I will respond to your questions. Until then, well...............

[Jamesh]

And you are diminishing the great fondness I used to have for Scots!

I think my non-australian born ancestors were basically Irish, with a bit of German thrown in. I think the German side makes me a bit of a nazi "take no prisoners" type, but compared to the British, the Irish can also be cruel (as per the father in My Left Foot), developed I think from their comparitive poverty to the UK over the centuries.

[Bilby]

Layla, I have never shied away from saying what I think. I have tried to answer your questions as truthfully as I can. Sometimes you don’t frame your questions all that clearly. You may need to rephrase a question if you feel I haven’t addressed it properly.

Other people read these posts too, and they’d be curious about your thinking as well. You should have enough faith in yourself to say what you believe.

[Jamesh]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali

Hirsi Ali subsequently took up a position at the American Enterprise Institute,[34], published her autobiography, Infidel, and is currently working on another book, Shortcut to Enlightenment, a philosophical fantasy about a visit by Muhammad to the New York Public Library, in which he examines the ideas of various Enlightenment philosophers, compares them to the state of Islam today, and then comes to a number of important conclusions.

Perhaps Leyla needs to read this book, when it becomes available. I just can't understand why an intelligent woman like Leyla, doesn't have similar opinions to Hirsi Ali.

Here Leyla, try the Infidel instead.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/074329503X

[Dan Rowden]

Jimbo: a question- do you think Leyla is arguing for Islam, per se.

[Laird]

How much are we responsible for our own level of toxic certainty?

We are all scientists in some sense: forming theories about the world that we test for validity (if I keep on pestering mum, she'll buy me the new Nintendo. "Mum, can I have a new Nintendo?"). Sometimes we form theories whose basis we aren't aware of completely. Sometimes that basis is flimsy - a single experience or at least a limited set of experiences. We are responsible for our toxic certainty to the extent that as mature, adult human beings we are capable of examining the bases of our beliefs and determining how flimsy or supportable they really are.

Is toxic certainty necessarily a bad thing?

Toxicity is poisonous, so by definition "toxic" certainty is a bad thing. Perhaps though what you really meant to ask was "Is it bad to form beliefs that we act upon". I would say that it's not bad - in fact it's an unavoidable consequence of having a human mind.

Aren’t our value judgements important too? If our value judgements are at odds with discrimination, which should give way to the other?

What exactly is this dichotomy that you propose between "value judgements" and "discriminations"? I don't see how they're different. Discriminations are based on value judgements (my value judgement is that black man cannot be trusted because my discrimination tells me that black men in this part of town are generally violent).

I think that perhaps what you're really asking is: is it reasonable to discriminate for reasons of safety and wholesomeness? I further believe (based on your subsequent posts) that you consider that it is reasonable to perform such discrimination, which I agree with. It might be the difference between life and death when walking through dangerous territory.

Now, though, to the Muslim-specific parts of this thread. There is something that has gone dreadfully unsaid, although Leyla has attempted to point to it a few times (Leyla, speak up and speak to the point!). That thing is this: just what is it that you mean by Muslim, Bilby?? It is a bit like the argument that the rational infinitists have with the concept of "self" - they argue that because we can't point to any one particular thing, we can't meaningfully speak of a "self" - that it's an incoherent concept. Now I happen to disagree with them, but I can see the parallels with the concept of a Muslim. Is a Muslim someone who was born of Muslim parents? Or perhaps someone who accepts that the teachings of the Koran are the ultimate word of God (Allah)? Or is a Muslim rather someone who lives in a largely Islamic culture? Is Islam a set of laws that are adhered to, or a set of beliefs that guide one's behaviour? Is a Muslim someone who prays three times a day and who performs a lifetime pilgrimage to Mecca? Is a Westerner who decides to adopt the teachings of the Koran a Muslim? What about if that Westerner merely decides to adopt Islamic customs but not the religion? Is a Muslim simply someone who listens to and agrees with the sermons of Sheik al-Hilali?

I could go one but you probably see what I'm getting at - what might at first seem to be a fairly black-and-white concept very quickly becomes a mirage. That's not to say - as I alluded to earlier - that it's totally an illusion. There's definitely something that we mean when we talk about Muslims, but it's not so concrete as we sometimes might want to believe. So what the hell, then, is my point? That it's not so important who people claim to be, as what they believe and how they act. A person might claim to be a Muslim, or might even be a Muslim by the various potential definitions given above, but might yet believe in equal treatment for women and for reformation of their putative religion's formative beliefs.

You do "Muslims" an injustice when you class them all under under the same umbrella, just as you do "humans" an injustice when you class them all under the same umbrella without considering group and individual differences within that category of life.

I don't know enough about the Muslim world to pontificate expertly on what's going on, but I deeply suspect that the progressive elements of that religious/cultural mindset are engaged in a troublesome battle against the more fundamentalist elements of that mindset, and that you could play a significant role in progressing that debate by supporting individual behaviours and beliefs, rather than by attacking the "whole" (amorphous) mindset.

So what do I mean in concrete terms? I mean that you should decry the rape of white women by Eastern men who believe that these women are some sort of Satanic influence on their lives. I mean that you should decry the burning of the national flag by people who have decided to live in our country. I mean that you should protest at comments by those in apparent authority that scantily dressed women invite rape. I also mean that you should support Muslim women who join national councils and try to advance objective, progressive, feminist thought. That you should support the aims of everyday Muslims who decide that there should be a balance between Islam and Occer beliefs. Who knows - perhaps the dream of a truly multicultural society can be ours? What the hell - it's worth a shot, isn't it?

[edited to clarify the value judgements / discrimination example, and to remove a redundant question]

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

(Bloody hell...)

Leyla, I asked what you, personally, thought of the sheik’s comments, which were deeply offensive to women everywhere, and your answer is: “a few quotes here and there”? I don’t understand you at all. Are you a Muslim first and foremost and nothing else matters?

You have several outstanding questions, Bilby. When you demonstrate enough decency to deliver what you demand, I will respond to your questions. Until then, well...............

To me, it seems that Bilby is presenting eir arguments and questions in a reasonable manner. Bilby is not dismissing all Muslims with a sweeping statement (evidenced by the statement that not all Muslims should be held responsible for the actions of a few), but at this point seems to be trying to get a clear view of what you (the individual that understands eir name to be Leyla) think. I can't see what you think either, although it appears to me that you are in general agitated over the discussion. Perhaps you could shelve the venom just long enough to clearly state what you mean?

It seems to me that you are looking at the comments and questions with the attitude of if anyone does not already agree with you, they just are not rational. This circumvents the purpose of debating an issue - to uncover what truth both sides see. Perhaps you could demonstrate to Bilby, to me, and to anyone else who can't see what you are asking for, the sort of language you are hoping to receive by using that language when presenting your side of the debate?

James,

I'm finding your presentation of your thoughts on this issue very coherent. You are not rambling like you used to, rather you are presenting a series of related points. You logic must be improving.

[Leyla Shen]

What a cesspool of insanity--I mean fucking seriously!

I’ll start here, and deal with the rest of this crap in a similar fashion as time permits:

Laird: There is something that has gone dreadfully unsaid, although Leyla has attempted to point to it a few times (Leyla, speak up and speak to the point!) That thing is this: just what is it that you mean by Muslim, Bilby??

Really? How sure of that are you--20%? 10%….? (And all you had to do here, Laird, was read a few posts back.)

I wrote:

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?

[Laird]

(And all you had to do here, Laird, was read a few posts back.)

I'm prepared to concede that you addressed the point more concisely than I presented. I was going based off memory, not immediate experience of your posts. But in any case it hasn't been addressed. And that is what we need to press Bilby on: what exactly is your definition of a Muslim, Bilby??

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Laird? Why are you prepared to concede that Leyla's 4 lines were more concise than your 2 lines?

[Laird]

Laird? Why are you prepared to concede that Leyla's 4 lines were more concise than your 2 lines?

Because I make (reasonable) concessions to people that I like, and I like (reasonable) Leyla. Perhaps if I make this small concession then it will help her to see that we are allies on this topic, and not foes. (of course what I really meant by "concisely" was "comprehensively", but I was drunk, so I have a ready-made excuse for not expressing myself as precisely as I should have...)

[Dan Rowden]

Well, here I go, despite myself:

That story on the Iraqi orphans was pitiful. And you call this PR?

Who called it PR?

You obviously didn’t see the news story. The food and clothing was withheld from them by the Iraqi owners. Those laughing and happy orphans were starving to death, Leyla.

And the point of the story is what, exactly? Please explain its significance to me other than as a propaganda stunt, because I don't see it. Kids subjected to abuse in some shitty little orphanage. I've never heard of such a thing! What an outrage! Could only ever happen in a Muslim country!

I agree with Leyla, this thread is full of insanity. Can someone please put their brain into gear and understand that it's entirely possible to build a case against Muslims without resorting to hopelessly unsound thinking. And Bilby, you claim to have answered questions. I don't get how you think you have answered any of mine.

[Jamesh]

Jimbo: a question- do you think Leyla is arguing for Islam, per se.

I guess not. I really don't care what she is arguing actually. I don't think she is very contextually clear in her writing, and I am not going to bother wasting my time interpreting her words for the intended context. She seems to be arguing in the typical roundabout fashion that women use.

Nor do I give a damn if it is just arguing against stereotypes. I find stereotyping useful, at least at the macro level, and have no intention of changing.

I deeply detest Muslim idealogy, and won’t accept any defence of the actions it causes its people to undertake. Why, because I will not accept any Muslim infiltration of political power in my country, and any defence of Muslims, by feminine appeals to the political correctness of anti-stereotyping leads to concessions from politicians. I won’t have a bar of it.