Toxic Certainty

[Leyla Shen]

Well, here I go, despite myself:

Thanks, Chief. Almost time to fly from this coop, I reckon.

(One guess who Nurse Rached is…)

See, I predict her response will go something like this:

“No, Mr McMurphy, when the meeting was adjourned, the vote was 9-9." [soothing music....]

[Dan Rowden]

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.

Funny then that I can clearly see where's she coming from. She's not really arguing much at all; she's more expressing natural exasperation at those who will not back their prejudicial statements with anything of actual substance.

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.

Stereotypes are sometimes perfectly reasonable, other times perfectly stupid. I don't have a problem with the former.

I deeply detest Muslim idealogy, and won’t accept any defence of the actions it causes its people to undertake.

That's too broad a statement to mean much, unless you intend it as a general statement about religious culture; if so, then I'm in complete agreement, but add that I put Xianity and other religions in that category.

Why, because I will not accept any Muslim infiltration of political power in my country,

That seems a tad paranoiac to me. Don't believe in democracy, huh?

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.

Well, good for you. All I'll say to that is your justifications at least contain more substance than Bilby's. I don't give a flying fig about Muslims, personally; they are morons to a man. I do care about rationality, however.

[Leyla Shen]

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.

And I, James, deeply detest your hypocritical ideology and won't accept any defence of the actions it causes or any infiltration of it into the political system of my countries.

You will have to use something other than religious grounds to argue against murder on religious grounds.

[Leyla Shen]

All I'll say to that is your justifications at least contain more substance than Bilby's.

I think you give James way too much credit, Dan. Why?

If the question of whether or not Muslim prejudice is justified comes down to saving one's own life, country and political system on the grounds that you are, say, wiser and more rational than a Muslim (and, therefore, the Muslim ideology), what ideology exactly does James' last comment represent apart from, "I'm right because you're religious and I'm not"?

What is not feminine about James' last appeal to...reason?

Edit to add: all I see in James is fear, anger and hatred, period. Course, the thinks these things are masculine and wise, but--I guess that's a whole other thread, ain't it...

[Pye]

Dan writes:

she's more expressing natural exasperation at those who will not back their prejudicial statements with anything of actual substance.

And then Dan writes:

I don't give a flying fig about Muslims, personally; they are morons to a man.

Did you mean to leave yourself wide open like this?

Dan: I do care about rationality, however.

Muslims=morons. Care to connect the dots?

This is an insane thread. But good as a birddog for flushing 'em out.

Death to all metaphysical belief. And death to the ideology of race.

Both are bad dreams from which too few have woken.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

She's not really arguing much at all; she's more expressing natural exasperation

That is exactly our point. On a forum for debating points logically, she is just expressing her emotions. She is not contributing to the debate at all, despite numerous attempts to engage her. In fact, she has done nothing but distract from the debate by emoting all over the thread.

[Leyla Shen]

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...)

By the way, Laird, thanks for your concession but--no thanks. See, it’s a bit like the concession a bunch of interrogators make to a person whose head they’re holding a gun to and saying, “You’re a Muslim, don’t ask us what we mean by that, just tell us why we shouldn’t shoot you for being one…”

[Leyla Shen]

She's not really arguing much at all; she's more expressing natural exasperation

That is exactly our point. On a forum for debating points logically, she is just expressing her emotions. She is not contributing to the debate at all, despite numerous attempts to engage her. In fact, she has done nothing but distract from the debate by emoting all over the thread.

That's a laugh, fairdinkum.

I'm still waiting for many questions to be answered. They're all there. I can't debate a "point" if the point is, "I'm not interested if Muslim means race or nationality."

The basic value, which has been UTTERLY ignored, is the value that religious beliefs do not justify violence. Are you honestly arguing that Bilby or you have even come close to presenting a logical argument for compromising such a moral value based on the truth in news reports which has since been ignored, or are you simply allowed to change the basis for the debate upon a whim?

Get fucking real, dipstick. I can't grow your fucking brain for you.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

The basic value, which has been UTTERLY ignored, is the value that religious beliefs do not justify violence.

On the first page of this thread

When I said value judgements, I meant things like not believing that religion can ever justify violence, or that man shouldn’t devalue women and make light of rape.

Also on page 1

My discrimination of Muslims is also based on their attitudes to women and rape, as well as their belief that terrorism in western countries is a legitimate part of the ongoing war with Israel.

and

The murder of innocent people is wrong, in anyone’s language. Rape is wrong. The subjugation of women is wrong. I’m not interested in whether Muslims are a nationality or a race.

The basic value, which has been UTTERLY ignored, is the value that religious beliefs do not justify violence. Are you honestly arguing that Bilby

Are you arguing that religious beliefs do justify violence Leyla? If you are, I will present how that is not logical - but it seems so illogical to assert that religion justifies violence that I'm not sure that's what you mean to say.

[Leyla Shen]

Here we go again.

Why is it you only see one side of the debate, Elizabeth? (rhetorical)

Are you arguing that religious beliefs do justify violence Leyla?

From page 1:

Bilby: When I said value judgements, I meant things like not believing that religion can ever justify violence,…

Leyla:Actually, I agree with this -- but it is obvious that you actually don't know what you mean in general by value judgements and, in particular, integrity. You see, fear and integrity do not cohabitate. So, I shall ask you this: what do you think of Israel? Do you believe that its existence as the state of Israel, based solely on religion and in contravention of treaties (name the ones you disagree with as well as the grounds upon which you do so), justifies its violence against the Muslim race? Should the Muslim race not object to this belief that religion justifies violence?

I recommend you read the Torah and investigate Jewish acts of violence against Palestinian men, women and children--they're out there. Expand your horizons. I dare you. Then come back and let's discuss why it is you want to single out Muslims who are, by the way, not in the news "every day" for acts of violence, despite what Bilby would like to believe. And, even if they were, what does that prove (I'd like that argument backed up logically and truthfully)?

[Leyla Shen]

You know, it's as if you sorry excuse for a people are trying to tell me your own ignorance has nothing to do with your personal prejudices, but not only is it the case that Muslim stupidity accounts for their prejudice against the West but yours against them as well...there's some reason a Muslim does not have the same "excuse" as anyone else. Well, I'm still waiting to hear what that reason is, exactly.

Or, is that perfectly logical just as it is but because I'm a Muslim I can't understand it?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

In America, every single day has news stories of violence attributed to the Islamic extremist Al-Queda terrorist cells. Much of the west is under the impression that Al-Queda and other Islamic groups are considered Muslim.

I suppose that all religious groups have violent people in them because all religious groups are made of people, all people have the capacity for violence and a wide dispersement of people give in to violence of various degrees. Some religions have more of a tendency to violence than others. I have yet to hear of a Wiccan in the news for a violent act, but I expect that some members have committed some form of violence. Some religions have more of a tendency to one kind of violence than another. For example, if a women's clinic doctor gets shot or the clinic gets bombed, I'm thinking it's probably a Christian that did it. Other Christians would say that those people are not really Christians, much like Muslims are saying that Al-Queda isn't really Muslim. If someone blew up part of a military base, I am not thinking that it was likely to be a Christian, or a Wiccan, or even a Satanist, actually.

I'm not sure what sort of violent acts are most attributed to atheists because I have never heard "atheist" as descriptor of someone who committed a violent act. Actually, the only generalization I have heard about atheists is that athiests are usually college educated.

She seems to be arguing in the typical roundabout fashion that women use.

and so far, no one has said anything about this generalization.

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.

What are you arguing Leyla? That it's okay to make generalizations about everything but Muslims?

Then come back and let's discuss why it is you want to single out Muslims

Don't put words in my mouth Leyla - I did not say that. Only including a few quotes of what I've written in this thread, and not the bunches of times that I have pointed out the counter-productivity of stereotypes and the need to remain vigilant to not let them cloud our better judgment:

Here

prejudice against gender is just as much in need of correction as prejudice against race.

Here

Prejudice is a difficult problem to deal with because the emotionalism involved is able to override logic, even when the illogic of prejudice is noted. So far in this definition, prejudice sounds much like a phobia, which is also quite difficult to deal with - but it is more difficult than a phobia because prejudice can be reinforced by negative behavior, the negative behavior is highlighted by the prejudicial mind, and awareness of the prejudice by one of those prejudiced against (which, in person, is picked up on even if it isn't announced with words) tends to provoke irrational/emotional behavior.

Here

The cultures of both sides evolved quite differently, but both with good intent. Both sides actually have both good things and bad shortcomings, but it is the toxic certainty that each side has that they are right and the other is wrong that is preventing the sides from working together to share the good of both sides and eliminate the bad from both sides. By dropping the prejudice and communicating with open hearts and open ears, both sides could benefit from the exchange - but as you see, prejudice is just as hard for the person prejudiced against to get over as the person with the prejudice (with variance in individual cases on each side). We just have to keep working patiently on the problem.

Then come back and let's discuss why it is you want to single out Muslims who are, by the way, not in the news "every day" for acts of violence, despite what Bilby would like to believe. And, even if they were, what does that prove (I'd like that argument backed up logically and truthfully)?

Just so you don't fuss for my not answering what that proves, the question is nonsensical because it is based on an invalid premise.

-edit format

[Leyla Shen]

Let me give it to you again, Elizabeth (note bolded statement/unanswered question):

Bilby: When I said value judgements, I meant things like not believing that religion can ever justify violence,…

Leyla: Actually, I agree with this -- but it is obvious that you actually don't know what you mean in general by value judgements and, in particular, integrity. You see, fear and integrity do not cohabitate. So, I shall ask you this: what do you think of Israel? Do you believe that its existence as the state of Israel, based solely on religion and in contravention of treaties (name the ones you disagree with as well as the grounds upon which you do so), justifies its violence against the Muslim race? Should the Muslim race not object to this belief that religion justifies violence?

I recommend you read the Torah and investigate Jewish acts of violence against Palestinian men, women and children--they're out there. Expand your horizons. I dare you. Then come back and let's discuss why it is you want to single out Muslims who are, by the way, not in the news "every day" for acts of violence, despite what Bilby would like to believe. And, even if they were, what does that prove (I'd like that argument backed up logically and truthfully)?

You know, it's as if you sorry excuse for a people are trying to tell me your own ignorance has nothing to do with your personal prejudices, but not only is it the case that Muslim stupidity accounts for their prejudice against the West but yours against them as well...there's some reason a Muslim does not have the same "excuse" as anyone else. Well, I'm still waiting to hear what that reason is, exactly.

(If you want to argue in defense of Bilby's position without also having directly addressed my questions, then I shall treat you as Bilby. I can find political speeches anywhere thanks, Elizabeth.)

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

(If you want to argue in defense of Bilby's position without also having directly addressed my questions, then I shall treat you as Bilby. I can find political speeches anywhere thanks, Elizabeth.)

No, it's up to Bilby to argue Bilby's position. What I am actually arguing for is a saner, more logical argument.

Bilby: When I said value judgements, I meant things like not believing that religion can ever justify violence,…

Leyla: Actually, I agree with this -- but it is obvious that you actually don't know what you mean in general by value judgements and, in particular, integrity. You see, fear and integrity do not cohabitate. So, I shall ask you this: what do you think of Israel? Do you believe that its existence as the state of Israel, based solely on religion and in contravention of treaties (name the ones you disagree with as well as the grounds upon which you do so), justifies its violence against the Muslim race? Should the Muslim race not object to this belief that religion justifies violence?

I can't answer for Bilby, but I do believe Muslims should object to the belief that religion justifies violence.

There was something else I wanted to say, but i'm too tired to think clearly. Someone smashed a sliding glass door at my house a couple of nights ago, trying to break in, and i have not slept more than a couple of hours since. I probably ought to take a break until i get my sleep schedule under control again.

[Jamesh]

Leyla seems to me just a typical Jew hater. You can see in the way she writes, that she attaches ALL the blame to Jews.
Time for everyone to ignore her.

Then come back and let's discuss why it is you want to single out Muslims who are, by the way, not in the news "every day" for acts of violence, despite what Bilby would like to believe.

Ok, then every second day in Iraq.

What we are really seeing in all these Muslim things is Bad masculinity. That is masculinity that is not tempered by femininity, due to the fact that "leader" males in Muslim countries are essentially competing for power amongst each other.

The western world has been and gone with this childlike activity (except of course for the bible belt or southern USA).

Leyla is an Arab, and Arabs do not have the same level of emotional control. I regard them as being on average about twice as animalistic as westerners. Partly this is due to the need to fight 100 times more for wealth than any westerner, and their hot climate, but mostly this results as an outcome of their blatantly animalistic religion. I just cannot imagine the wealth that these countries could have accumulated from oil, if their countries were not so dominated by idiot egotistical males.

Elizabeth, although I do not like you, you really are underestimated here. I disagree with the QRS and followers far more than you. I don't like you because you have inherited from your mother (at least partly) that sort of sickly maternal influence that concentrates on using personality conflict to enhance your status*. I wonder if this is mostly why Katy reacts so badly to you, perhaps you remind her of her own mother.

*and I admit this is the same way the more feminised West treats, by necessity, third world countries, which includes all Muslim countries, except Dubai. But there is something crazy about Dubai, like who the hell is paying for all this risky development. The risk of Dubai crashing must be extreme - global warming could wipe it all out just due to sea level rises.

[Jamesh]

Edit to add: all I see in James is fear, anger and hatred, period. Course, the thinks these things are masculine and wise, but--I guess that's a whole other thread, ain't it...

In some ways I accept this point. There is something that has been an underlying burden to me, and this burden is:

Technology is really what has made the peoples of the Western world what they are. It is what has changed us from being the equivalent of the Muslim world into what we are now.

What we westerners are now, is people struggling with the degree of freedom we have, and this is where Dan's earlier point about evolution comes in for me. The only way to evolve is to face an environment that causes us to change. All religious people are frightened of this aspect, essentially they are the folk most frightened of "change". At present our leaders are immensely poor in a philosophical sense, as due to our own struggles with controlling desires as a result of freedom making these desires more or less readily obtainable, people retreat into fulfilling these desires, but they are incurring suffering as a result. People therefore vote for those leaders who make utterances that appeal to external controls, like traditions past their use-by-date, that would prevent excesses, except in relation to the gaining of wealth, as business propaganda makes certain that we desire wealth above all else.

Many are falling foul along the way, and this percentage is increasing amongst our young. The Muslim world is witnessing this and rejecting it, which is fair and reasonable in a relatively static world, however it is not fair and reasonable in an evolutionary sense. Both Muslims, Christians, Jews and there followers, the conservative crowd, are attracted to tradition. Tradition however is anti-growth, it attempts to make everything OK by applying what worked in the past to the present. In doing so they prevent our evolution into creatures that can learn to be above animalistic desires.

In my support of those whom reject everything Muslim, my view is to force via peer pressure them into becoming more amenable to change. Unfortunately to break tradition it takes violence in its various forms. One must break the static belly of tradition by forcing spears of change into its gut. When one does so, then unfortunately innocent parts of the whole do get hurt or decimated.

The burden I have is that there is no stopping technology, so the western world can wait for gradual change rather than forcing it. What releases this burden in my mind however, is nuclear weapons. We have seen in North Korea what the ownership of such a powerful tool can do in terms of preventing evolutionary change. With the world of Muslim leaders now being Hitlerish in attitude (first Iraq with Hussein, now Iran), I feel very much justified in promoting change now rather than waiting for the infiltration of technology to induce the required change slowly.

[Bilby]

Elizabeth, it’s good to see you back with your acute sense for what’s going on. And it’s nice to see you here Laird. Thanks too, Jamesh.

Laird, by value judgements I mean things like: Rape and murder are wrong. Subjugation of women and the abuse of children are wrong. My moral code, in other words. So my original question was: If I believe that a race or creed has entrenched beliefs and behaviours that compromise my moral code, which is the greater sin – racial discrimination or relaxing your moral values? That’s basically the question.

I can’t tell you exactly what a Muslim or Jew is, because I don’t know. Is there a definitive meaning? If I adopt the Jewish religion tomorrow, does this fully qualify me as a Jew, despite my completely Anglo-Saxon heritage? What if I change my mind the following day? I believe a Muslim can live anywhere, although traditionally they are based in the Middle East, and so they are either born to, or accept as their religion, Islam. An important point is that a lot of the news reports that have shaped my views involve self-appointed Muslim groups anyway, so you may need to take it up with them whether they adhere to the strict definition of “Muslim”. But the aforegoing is my definition of “Muslim”. I doubt there is a definitive meaning or we would have heard it by now. I suspect this particular point is nit-picking. I also suspect if anyone here really knew the answer they’d be saying so.

I don’t believe that Muslim extremism is an isolated thing. Both Elizabeth and I have asked Leyla to clearly state her position and so far, she’s refuses. I particularly wanted to know her views on the Sheik who made such disparaging remarks on women and rape, but she seems to baulk at committing herself. So in a sense Leyla, being the only mainstream Muslim representative on this board, is helping to bolster my argument that the values of mainstream Muslims aren’t all that different to the values of extreme Muslims. Leyla displays aggression in her posts, but no real passion when it comes to defending Muslims. It’s all a very half-hearted ramble on Jews and the Middle East crisis (which is not what we’re talking about), “Christians”, a few enigmatic musings here and there, but not much else.

[Dan Rowden]

All I'll say to that is your justifications at least contain more substance than Bilby's.

I think you give James way too much credit, Dan. Why?

I was thinking in terms of content over and beyond this thread.

[Dan Rowden]

Dan writes:

she's more expressing natural exasperation at those who will not back their prejudicial statements with anything of actual substance.

And then Dan writes:

I don't give a flying fig about Muslims, personally; they are morons to a man.

Did you mean to leave yourself wide open like this?

Dan: I do care about rationality, however.

Muslims=morons. Care to connect the dots?

I shouldn't have to. You ought to know by now that I regard belief in the Abrahamic God as moronic. They're the only dots I have to connect. If you want me to justify the God-Moron relation, It'll take a whole new thread (or a return to any number of extant ones).

[Dan Rowden]

Leyla is an Arab

Is she?

Leyla, being the only mainstream Muslim representative on this board

Is she?

[Leyla Shen]

Leyla seems to me just a typical Jew hater. You can see in the way she writes, that she attaches ALL the blame to Jews.
Time for everyone to ignore her.

Would that be Arab Jews or European Jews?

So, you cross-eyed, misfired twit--here's the real NEWSFLASH: Jews and Muslims are only a race to religious idiots who believe in the Abrahamic holy texts.

Amazing how people just love to tippy-toe around the subject of Jews.

The rest of your crap comprises of irrelevant, inaccurate off-topic emotionalism.

[Pye]

Bilby writes:

It’s all a very half-hearted ramble on Jews and the Middle East crisis (which is not what we’re talking about)

Truly, Bilby, this is an astonishingly hideous oversimplification of both the issue in this thread, and of history.

Bilby: Elizabeth, it’s good to see you back with your acute sense for what’s going on. And it’s nice to see you here Laird. Thanks too, Jamesh.

(yep, gather the troops, oil 'em up, The Truth Keeps Marching On . . . . )

[Sapius]

Elizabeth, just a passing comment…

I'm not sure what sort of violent acts are most attributed to atheists because I have never heard "atheist" as descriptor of someone who committed a violent act. Actually, the only generalization I have heard about atheists is that athiests are usually college educated.

That is generally true but it depends on your definition of an atheist. If one considers atheists to be only those who have collage education and have logically come to reject a theological God, and openly say so, then I can’t fully agree with that. In fact, all violence committed that do not see the light of news, exceeds far more than what we generally hear. And who are those people but “atheists” in mentality although they are born into some religion or another, otherwise no religion justifies murder for personal gains.

As far as violence based on purely religious based reasons goes, it is actually a smoke screen in my opinion; there is always a group based personal gain involved; be it for ones self, or the ones one thinks will gain from his participation as a group. It is a human tendency to be selfish because the Self always remains a Self-Centered perspective, out of which arises violence in the absence of other means that could help acquire what one thinks is ones right, or is entitled to. I will agree that one of the most essential means that is missing is proper education, but that also has to necessarily involve an individual to think for ones self and speak up, but that is rare, because in the face of the environment that one is born into, a natural tendency of security in the group arises, so that deters one to openly be ones self in the face of being rejected from the group that one helplessly belongs to. At the core, private mentality differs vastly from a group mentality. A very docile or a calm person otherwise, can turn drastically violent in the flow of group mentality, just to maintain or gain a so-called security or right for ones self or for those that he is attached to, through a group instigated action. The group opinion varies drastically from an individual’s personal opinion; one always finds greater strength in a group, be it a stronger or the weaker group, hence goes along.

Past human experience tells us that it is much easier to gain something through petty violence than logical discourse, especially if the other party has much hold on things through political or military power. Such small groups have emerged time and time again over the course of known history, so what is so strange about present groups? A rat resorts to violence when cornered, or thinks is being corned in our case.

Creation of modern Israel is not totally religious based in my opinion, but mostly self-security based, but they have to stick by religious reasons and opt for that particular land because no other country at the time had the guts to give an inch to them from their own lands, after fully knowing that Jews have been thrown out from wherever they settled, even by God from the said Israel. I can’t for a moment thing that the Jews or the rest of the world was not aware of what to expect. For one, the state was comparably well equipped when created, and presently is far better equipped, militarily, with the help of those who didn’t have the heart to give an inch of their otherwise waste-lands. Majority of the Jews would have been a great asset to any country for their brilliance in business sense, but who can tolerate a group that eventually becomes richer than ours. Where did their logic, reasoning or humanity go then? However, business is good, at the expense of other human lives, including those of the Israelites, so why worry.

The above is in no way a justification of an ultimately illogical base for violence, but is simply a philosophical viewpoint of seeing the selfish self-centeredness of humans for what it is; none want to let go of what they think should be theirs. What can one say…

[Pye]

Bilby, have you consulted any Muslim-owned media for your reporting of the world?

Well, no, you probably wouldn't do that. You'd say: these people have a vested interest in this conflict and are likely to skew the reportage in their favour. They could do this by selective reporting, emotional manipulation, careful word choice (conscious or otherwise), perhaps even hate-breeding on levels subtle or otherwise. They may even tamper with the film itself, making one thing look like another thing, on purpose.

As it is, you get your news from the Jewish or Christian owned media. These people have a vested interest in this conflict, too, but you seem to assume they are immune from this sort of manipulation. In fact, what or whom do you assume is capable of reporting the news on this conflict from the purely objective point of view? You seem like you're trying to be an earnest guy - why do you insist on such naivete?

I'm not defending Muslim terrorism, but I am not willing to assume that the west is involved in a return activity that escapes any flavour of this charge. That would be very very naive of me.

And so help me, I'm about to paraphrase bin Laden who apparently submitted his filmed statement to the west after 9/11 wherein he more or less stated that if the west wants to know why it is, and increasingly will be, the target of Muslim terrorist activity, all it need do is look back to its interfering actions of 1948 . . . .

I agree with Leyla, about the tip-toeing, that is.



(Sapius in fine form here as elsewhere, as usual, and publicly so declared ;) )

[Pye]

So, Bilby, just in case (and correct me if I'm wrong): You came here wanting to examine the viability of prejudice regarding Muslims irrespective of the current conflict. What I would want to ask you is what did you study/examine/know about Muslim culture/race/ideology before 9/11?

None of us can claim a clean view of this.

Death to all religious patriarchy. That'd take care of the problem . . . .