Toxic Certainty

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

David,

Do you include this thread in her being "not easily given to pettiness" ?

[Leyla Shen]

As a mental health counselor, professional ethics would dictate that my response be "Well, why do you think that might be?"

[laughs] You mean, you--like me--might feel somewhat compelled to say something else and do not do so because it would not be professional? Surely there has to be more that binds you to this than the fact that it’s a code of professional ethics.

As an applied behavioral scientist, I would evaluate the context of the question (and if I did not know you even as well as I do, I would have to evaluate you for what direction to take) to determine whether to ask you for your supposition or to give you some usual answers for most people, and evaluate for the most effective way to present those ideas to you.

Alright, so your recommendation that I seek therapy for my short temper was based more on the idea that you are familiar with who I am and do not actually feel I need therapy (since--if I did, and being a member of the Muslim race--I would be just as brave and deserving of your compassion as Bilby for my stance on the issue)?

As a philosopher, I would just give you my opinion, which would include some wild guesses that might not be so appropriate as an ABS.

OK -- maybe the recommendation that I seek therapy was one of those wild, ABS-inappropriate guesses?

The response as a philosopher who has only met you online would be that I can not imagine people doing this based on the behavior that you have displayed on the forum,

Well, I had intended to indicate that the situation has changed in my later years with the term “most of my life.” It’s different now in that I don’t expect people to confide in me out of nowhere, anymore. I am the same “abusive” person face-to-face as on the forum, and people still speak to me. I no longer, through silence, complicity encourage the sob stories, though.

…but you do seem to be a much kinder, more approachable person via pm.

I think, in our 5 or so-ish exchanges, you are imagining that. :) I am the same person.

As for the rest of your philosophical response:

I suspect that in person, you give the impression of being kind, accepting, and somehow familiar to people, which will lower their defenses and allow them to say things that they normally do not say to others. You probably also either consciously or subconsciously mirror vocal tones, demeanor, and posture of the person you are speaking to. These techniques commonly allow others to feel more comfortable, and feel like they have known you all their lives. You mentioned the abusive nature of your ex, and it is usual (although not universal) that one who suffers from child abuse will go into an abusive relationship. I moreso suspect child abuse in your case because a common defense mechanism of victims of child abuse is to make the person they are speaking with feel very comfortable and relaxed, especially in person. It is something that abused children often have to figure out literally in order to survive. This becomes a double edged sword though in that although this is a valuable skill in many situations, it can help disguise an abusive potential mate or friend. Abusive people often have difficulty getting along with most people, but one who has developed these skills can become the person they have gotten along best with their entire lives, and especially fall in love with this person for that. Unfortunately the ability to soothe these beasts diminishes with familiarity, leaving the person with the naturally developed skill with a WTF? response.

…are you trying to tell me that the meaning of life comes down to whether or not a person was abused as a child? I think this is still the realm of therapy, myself.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

[laughs] You mean, you--like me--might feel somewhat compelled to say something else and do not do so because it would not be professional? Surely there has to be more that binds you to this than the fact that it’s a code of professional ethics.

No. Despite that I have a masters in mental health counseling, I did not go for my license because I do not agree with the professional code of ethics. I remained an applied behavioral scientist because I believe that I can do more good for people under those guidelines than those of a mental health counselor, and my personal ethics dictate that I not agree to abide by a code of ethics that I believe are unethical. I do not know what the British code of ethics for a mental health counselor are, but Philip's description of what he does is against American professional ethics. I gave up a more assured income, including the ability to accept insurance, by not going for my license, but sometimes being ethical is not the easy way out. Actually, some of the biggest burns people get, including the worst I've gotten burned, are from following good ethics.

My recommendation that you might consider therapy for your short temper was not disingenuous, as it could be helpful - yet I do not actually expect you to go that route. The purpose was to shock you into considering both your temper and the effects of your suggestion of therapy to Bilby.

You are just as deserving of my compassion as Bilby, but you have not displayed bravery in the face of prejudice in this post. That does not mean that I judge you to be unbrave - you are in other areas- just that you have not displayed it here and now on this matter. What you have displayed instead is an emotional response to someone admitting prejudice against a group that you happen to be a member of. That is actually a common response - people react negatively to being pre-judged negatively. Unfortunately it is not the wise response, nor the most educational in getting a person over their prejudice. As I said, it only takes a positive regard for one person of the group one was previously prejudiced against in order to soften the persons position - but as Bilby pointed out, a hot-tempered response only serves to reinforce negative views. That is one of the sad dynamics about prejudice is that negative feedback is a circular, building loop. People have to consciously step out of the loop to stop the hatred from boiling over. Emotional reactions are not conscious steps to wise goals.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

…but you do seem to be a much kinder, more approachable person via pm.

I think, in our 5 or so-ish exchanges, you are imagining that. :) I am the same person.

"Seem" merely means my perception - imagined or otherwise.

…are you trying to tell me that the meaning of life comes down to whether or not a person was abused as a child? I think this is still the realm of therapy, myself.

No - but the developments that occur in the formative years are not to be overlooked as causative factors of who we become. After we have comprehended all of our causes, we can consciously keep, discard, or change our causes to become more self-caused to be the person we consciously choose to be. Yes, philosophically this could be viewed as paradoxical in that there is no free will, yet we have an extent of self-cause - but that is only one of causalities feedback loops, which is the foundation of consciousness.

[Leyla Shen]

No. Despite that I have a masters in mental health counseling, I did not go for my license because I do not agree with the professional code of ethics. I remained an applied behavioral scientist because I believe that I can do more good for people under those guidelines than those of a mental health counselor, and my personal ethics dictate that I not agree to abide by a code of ethics that I believe are unethical. I do not know what the British code of ethics for a mental health counselor are, but Philip's…

Who’s Philip? It wouldn't happen to be Bilby, would it? (Nah, that would just be beyond belief! Can you imagine telling a mental health counsellor to seek therapy?! Of course they'd be offended!)

…description of what he does is against American professional ethics. I gave up a more assured income, including the ability to accept insurance, by not going for my license, but sometimes being ethical is not the easy way out. Actually, some of the biggest burns people get, including the worst I've gotten burned, are from following good ethics.

My recommendation that you might consider therapy for your short temper was not disingenuous, as it could be helpful - yet I do not actually expect you to go that route. The purpose was to shock you into considering both your temper and the effects of your suggestion of therapy to Bilby.

Oh, Elizabeth. You really thought that something like that could shock me? I am neither shocked, nor offended, actually. It was a bit of a non-event for me, really. I saw it as an emotional reaction by you. Apparently, you have a very low opinion of therapy, in general. But, I must admit, I’m still in the dark as to why you think the effects of my statement would be more detrimental to Bilby than the significance of her unwillingness to differentiation between race and religion and the impact that has on her prejudiced fear. She openly declared not being interested in considering such a thing! I find that extraordinary, for a rational person, that is. Notably, however, you are allowed to attempt to shock me into thought in such a manner, but I am not allowed to even suggest it without being accused of emotionalism? I can only conclude, then, that it is because I am a member of the Muslim race and you are not.

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

I haven’t really needed to. 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! It's paranoia. Nothing more, nothing less.

That does not mean that I judge you to be unbrave - you are in other areas- just that you have not displayed it here and now on this matter.

Well, OK. But, on the same grounds, I think you should not object to the Woman philosophy without regard to those who are afraid of the Woman race since you might simply be accused of emotionalism, despite making some valid points that have been flat-out disregarded. Have you never implied, if not out rightly stated, or thought such people need help in the form of therapy?

What you have displayed instead is an emotional response to someone admitting prejudice against a group that you happen to be a member of. That is actually a common response - people react negatively to being pre-judged negatively.

Luckily, I am not common then! I react appropriately to people being willfully stupid. Often, that involves a similar disregard for their feelings as they demonstrate toward the prejudiced.

Unfortunately it is not the wise response, nor the most educational in getting a person over their prejudice. As I said, it only takes a positive regard for one person of the group one was previously prejudiced against in order to soften the persons position - but as Bilby pointed out, a hot-tempered response only serves to reinforce negative views.

Bilby ignored my non-"hot-tempered" response altogether. Why are her feelings all my responsibility? I’m not a therapist! Perhaps my problem is that I do not, in fact, view this place as a mental institution, when I should for the most part.

That is one of the sad dynamics about prejudice is that negative feedback is a circular, building loop. People have to consciously step out of the loop to stop the hatred from boiling over. Emotional reactions are not conscious steps to wise goals.

That’s right. So, what’s fear?

I’m not interested in whether Muslims are a nationality or a race. I just wish they weren’t over here.

I can’t force Bilby to think. I can give her a push--but as long as she considers that there is such a thing as the Muslim race, I am logically doomed to fail if I do not succeed here no matter what I say. You’re kidding yourself if you think otherwise. It’s amazing how truly farcical this is!

Your stance, quite frankly, is incredible. There’s a lot less thought that’s gone into this than the Woman philosophy, yet here we are on the Woman forum itself and you are castigating me for demanding clarity on such an idiotic statement as above. Let’s rephrase it, shall we:

I’m not interested in whether all women are male or female, I just wish they were conscious.

Would you have objected, then? Or, are you somewhat now personally involved with Bilby--like, taken her under your loving wing, or something?

No - but the developments that occur in the formative years are not to be overlooked as causative factors of who we become.

The difference between one who successfully engages in what could be considered as self-analysis and one who requires a third party is the capacity to think--and there is never any guarantee that the one requiring a third party will ever arrive at any worthwhile level of self-analysis. That is all.

After we have comprehended all of our causes, we can consciously keep, discard, or change our causes to become more self-caused to be the person we consciously choose to be.

What? You can change your causes?? What the heck does a cause become in this context, then? Sounds like an inherently existing self, to me. Or, is that like what happens when another/other cause/s cause/s you to be different than the perceived sum of earlier causes?

Yes, philosophically this could be viewed as paradoxical in that there is no free will, yet we have an extent of self-cause -

God, here we go again: I don’t believe in paradox!

…but that is only one of causalities feedback loops, which is the foundation of consciousness.

Now that’s just flat out contradiction, Elizabeth.

[Edit: added an essential "un" to "willingness"]

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

No. Despite that I have a masters in mental health counseling, I did not go for my license because I do not agree with the professional code of ethics. I remained an applied behavioral scientist because I believe that I can do more good for people under those guidelines than those of a mental health counselor, and my personal ethics dictate that I not agree to abide by a code of ethics that I believe are unethical. I do not know what the British code of ethics for a mental health counselor are, but Philip's…

Who’s Philip? It wouldn't happen to be Bilby, would it?

Philip Mistlberger - interviewed on The Reasoning Show

My recommendation that you might consider therapy for your short temper was not disingenuous, as it could be helpful - yet I do not actually expect you to go that route. The purpose was to shock you into considering both your temper and the effects of your suggestion of therapy to Bilby.

Oh, Elizabeth. You really thought that something like that could shock me?

I didn't mean like being hit with a defibrillator, I meant more like a static electric shock.

I am neither shocked, nor offended, actually. It was a bit of a non-event for me, really.

If it were truly a non-event, you would not have commented on it.

I must admit, I’m still in the dark as to why you think the effects of my statement would be more detrimental to Bilby than the significance of her unwillingness to differentiation between race and religion and the impact that has on her prejudiced fear.

I'm not sure where you got that comparison. Bilby admitted to prejudice, and seems to want to get over that and grow into logical and reasonable judgment. Your statement looked more like an emotional reaction than a logical addressing of Bilby's problem.

I must admit, I’m still in the dark as to why you think the effects of my statement would be more detrimental to Bilby than the significance of her unwillingness to differentiation between race and religion and the impact that has on her prejudiced fear. She openly declared not being interested in considering such a thing!

Again, I'm not sure where you got that. Bilby said e wasn't interested in if Muslims were a nationality or a race, and your accusation is that Bilby isn't differentiating between religion and race. There is also a difference between religion and nationality, even though the people of some nations may not have a choice of what religion to be a member of.

I find that extraordinary, for a rational person, that is. Notably, however, you are allowed to attempt to shock me into thought in such a manner, but I am not allowed to even suggest it without being accused of emotionalism? I can only conclude, then, that it is because I am a member of the Muslim race and you are not.

(...)

I don’t actually consider myself to be a member of the Muslim race

Hmmm...

I admit I’m a racist. I’m fearful of Muslims,...

I'm from the Muslim race.

BOO!

Hmmm...

Islam isn't a race.

And why on Earth shouldn’t it be? I mean, the Jewish people (setting such a wonderful benchmark) get to call themselves a race. Even their atheists are still “Jews from Israel.”

Mmm hmmm... Can we go for a little consistency to make an argument logical, please? Arguing from sarcasm (if that was what you were doing) is not often a clear way to make a point.

I didn’t deliberately set out to be biased for or against one person or another. To a large extent, I can’t help how I perceive things. I base my judgements on what actually happens, and if certain behaviour recurs time and time again, I can’t help my personal response to that.

Leyla, being rude to me instead of a reasoned response further supports the notion of irrationality in Muslim people.

I see consistency in Bilby's statements.

I think you should not object to the Woman philosophy without regard to those who are afraid of the Woman race

I recognize that you are trying to make a point by calling Woman a race, but I find it a pointless point.

since you might simply be accused of emotionalism, despite making some valid points that have been flat-out disregarded. Have you never implied, if not out rightly stated, or thought such people need help in the form of therapy?

Some such people - yes, but prejudice against gender is just as much in need of correction as prejudice against race. Therapy may or may not be the way to handle that, depending on the person.

What you have displayed instead is an emotional response to someone admitting prejudice against a group that you happen to be a member of. That is actually a common response - people react negatively to being pre-judged negatively.

Luckily, I am not common then! I react appropriately to people being willfully stupid.

I disagree. In this instance, Bilby was open to discussion about a topic that desperately needs to be discussed by many people. Instead of an open, logical discussion, you contributed to Bilby's prejudice with rude behavior rather than logical discourse. You had the prime opportunity to represent Muslims and prove that at least some Muslims could be logical. That is why I took more of a side-step to this than I would have liked to. I wanted to give you plenty of room to make a logical argument. Instead, you contributed to Bilby's prejudice by representing the Muslims with rude emotionalism.

Often, that involves a similar disregard for their feelings as they demonstrate toward the prejudiced.

Occasionally that might be a useful tool, but only if and after attempts at reason have failed.

Bilby ignored my non-"hot-tempered" response altogether.

What non-"hot-tempered" response got ignored?

Why are her feelings all my responsibility?

They are not all your responsibility, but I pointed out your opportunity to spread wisdom that you completely botched.

I’m not a therapist!

Thank goodness.

Perhaps my problem is that I do not, in fact, view this place as a mental institution, when I should for the most part.

This is a place for cultivating wisdom.

That is one of the sad dynamics about prejudice is that negative feedback is a circular, building loop. People have to consciously step out of the loop to stop the hatred from boiling over. Emotional reactions are not conscious steps to wise goals.

That’s right. So, what’s fear?

Fear is the result of understanding that it is possible for things to turn out badly combined with a lack of understanding of how to cause things to turn out well.

I’m not interested in whether Muslims are a nationality or a race. I just wish they weren’t over here.

I can’t force Bilby to think.

No, but you can logically present the truth.

I can give her a push--but as long as she considers that there is such a thing as the Muslim race, I am logically doomed to fail if I do not succeed here no matter what I say.

I do not follow what you are saying here.

You’re kidding yourself if you think otherwise. It’s amazing how truly farcical this is!

More emotionalism

Your stance, quite frankly, is incredible. There’s a lot less thought that’s gone into this than the Woman philosophy, yet here we are on the Woman forum itself and you are castigating me for demanding clarity on such an idiotic statement as above.

Emotionalism and non-sequitar.

Let’s rephrase it, shall we:

I’m not interested in whether all women are male or female, I just wish they were conscious.

Would you have objected, then?

No.

Or, are you somewhat now personally involved with Bilby--like, taken her under your loving wing, or something?

I do not know Bilby personally; i am only responding to the thoughts represented on the screen.

No - but the developments that occur in the formative years are not to be overlooked as causative factors of who we become.

The difference between one who successfully engages in what could be considered as self-analysis and one who requires a third party is the capacity to think--and there is never any guarantee that the one requiring a third party will ever arrive at any worthwhile level of self-analysis. That is all.

Okay.

After we have comprehended all of our causes, we can consciously keep, discard, or change our causes to become more self-caused to be the person we consciously choose to be.

What? You can change your causes??

You can not change your past causes, but you can cause change to your future through your decisions. Your decisions are caused, but through the illusion of free will you become one of your own causative agents.

What the heck does a cause become in this context, then? Sounds like an inherently existing self, to me.

No, it is not an inherently existing self because the "you" that becomes one of your own causative agents is only the effect of previous causes, which at various interceding points up to including the whole "self" were extrinsically caused.

Or, is that like what happens when another/other cause/s cause/s you to be different than the perceived sum of earlier causes?

That sounds closer.

Yes, philosophically this could be viewed as paradoxical in that there is no free will, yet we have an extent of self-cause -

God, here we go again: I don’t believe in paradox!

Yes, here we go again... From dictionary.com, a paradox is "a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth." Paradox does not mean that both can not be true, only that it is not immediately apparent to the majority how both can be true. Surely you don't believe that the average person "gets it" do you?

…but that is only one of causalities feedback loops, which is the foundation of consciousness.

Now that’s just flat out contradiction, Elizabeth.

That statement shows that you have some averageness in you after all.

[Kelly Jones]

“toxic certainty”, which I take to mean our imbedded discriminations about people.....

The article raises the issue of whether we’re too judgemental with toxic certainty.

But other people would probably prefer to suspend judgement until they were aware of all the facts.

The problem is, no matter how pure the motivation, and how free the mind is from delusion, no consciousness can have "all the facts".

All the facts means, all the causes connected to a thing. Since the Infinite has infinite causes, and infinite causal processes, to know all the facts is the same as knowing all the ways the Infinite could possibly be divided, at one simultaneous instant. But if we take one example, say, an orange, then we need its identity first, before all the ways an orange can be divided up, can form. So it is logically impossible for all divisions to occur at the same instant.

Since we can't have all the facts, there's no point in suspending judgment. We can only go off experiences, and accept that our judgments about what causes people to do what they do, are uncertain.

Getting to the root of this topic:

I think by "toxic", perhaps Bilby means, "having no good effects". This is a different question entirely. It's based on values. There are no values which are fundamentally better or worse.

Though only truth, and therefore logic, can reveal cause and effect. So one might argue that a toxic certainty is when truth is definitely not valued.

-

[Kelly Jones]

Petty Penny wrote to David:

Do you include this thread in her being "not easily given to pettiness" ?

It's all relative. It's hard for you to give Leyla to pettiness. But David can do it easily.

-

[Leyla Shen]

I think by "toxic", perhaps Bilby means, "having no good effects".

No, Bilby actually doesn’t know what she means at all--and there should be no confusion regarding that glaringly obvious fact:

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?

Bilby: To be honest, Leyla, I just don't know enough about the state of Israel to make a comment here. I’m just not that politically astute.

I think my value judgements are sound, and they're fairly universal. 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.

The italicised text above is kind of just haphazardly thrown into the mix, apparently to further substantiate the primary value that religion should not justify violence; am I to understand from this, then, that violence is OK against one religion by another as long as they hold acceptable attitudes towards women and rape (or whatever other value you decide to pull out of your arse) and that Muslims as a "race" (!) should be accordingly banished from the land forthwith?

The proposed but unsupported value here is that religion should not justify violence, yet there is absolutely no effort or attempt or even slightest interest on her part to discover such instances outside of the west and outside of the "Muslim race."

[Kelly Jones]

Sometimes people behave confusedly and back-down from their statements when they're afraid, rather than because the statements are foolish.

-

[Bilby]

Kelly, when I said “all the facts” before, I meant in relation to the young mother who abandoned her baby. All the media here were instantly prejudiced against her, and I was shocked as well, but wondered what would cause someone to do something that extreme.

So when you say, “Since we can't have all the facts, there's no point in suspending judgment” I’d probably say that I would want to suspend judgement until I knew more about her situation. Was she very young, like 15 or something? Maybe she came from a very religious family and was afraid. There must have been very good reasons for her to do what she did.

I don’t agree with your comment that: “There are no values which are fundamentally better or worse.”

We have to have some agreement on good values, otherwise you get the circular type of debate you see here. We have to have a starting point where we agree, as a society, what kind of behaviour is acceptable and what isn’t.

I can’t prove to you, philosophically, that a society that treats its women fairly is better than some other society. But most people would just accept this as common sense.

[Leyla Shen]

We have to have some agreement on good values, otherwise you get the circular type of debate you see here.

What circular debate--the one you invented with the term “Muslim race”?

I can’t prove to you, philosophically, that a society that treats its women fairly is better than some other society. But most people would just accept this as common sense.

That’s right. What you have is nothing more than a puff of empty air. Not even close to a value that any integrity might be demanded of you, personally, from it.

Insofar as my part continues in this farcical muse, I might be interested in entertaining your “common sense” ideas by asking you to provide an example of personal experience of such a society for consideration wherein the men are treated (as evidenced by living standards) better than women so much so that what occurs to women is strictly a matter of sex and nothing else. I would guess, though, such an example--being so very common sense--would not come easily to mind.

[Kelly Jones]

Kelly, when I said “all the facts” before, I meant in relation to the young mother who abandoned her baby. All the media here were instantly prejudiced against her, and I was shocked as well, but wondered what would cause someone to do something that extreme. So when you say, “Since we can't have all the facts, there's no point in suspending judgment” I’d probably say that I would want to suspend judgement until I knew more about her situation. Was she very young, like 15 or something? Maybe she came from a very religious family and was afraid. There must have been very good reasons for her to do what she did.

As Dan has said in the past, there are no reasons, there are just causes.

And we cannot know all those causes for sure. "Causes" is enough.

I don’t agree with your comment that: “There are no values which are fundamentally better or worse.”

If you value discussing ideas rationally, then you'll need to come up with some logical causes, or, in layman's terms, some substance....backup....explanation.

We have to have some agreement on good values, otherwise you get the circular type of debate you see here. We have to have a starting point where we agree, as a society, what kind of behaviour is acceptable and what isn’t.

Agreement on values is part of co-operation, sure, but a wise group of people wouldn't fall into the trap of believing values were fundamentally good or bad.

Values are causes, so they are not intrinsically existing.

It is not like "good cause" stands alone, separate to the Universe, isolated and untouchable.

Also, good and bad are projected by an observer, so the goodness or badness of a value is relative to that observer, and everything that caused the observer to decide that a value was good or bad. In other words, non-intrinsic.

I can’t prove to you, philosophically, that a society that treats its women fairly is better than some other society. But most people would just accept this as common sense.

Well, if you cannot find any rational justification for your truths, except, "Everyone Else", you'd better chuck them out the window along with your belief that Everyone Else actually exists in any other but a fictional form.

-

[Bilby]

Leyla, I am trying to connect with you and your posts, but you're not making it easy. There are people here who have enough regard for you to believe that you are capable of delivering a more rational response. Elizabeth has put in a lot of effort in trying to reach you. I feel that of all people here, you could offer a valuable insight into Muslim culture, but we’re no closer to gaining any understanding because you’re not really offering anything. I feel that you are selling yourself short with your responses. I sense that you’re an intelligent lady so it’s a shame to pass up an opportunity to put your case forward.

Muslim women could be the cure to the problem. All that anti-women sentiment has to come from somewhere. I remember reading a problems page where a lady wrote in saying that she had a son to an abusive partner. She treated the baby well, fed and clothed him properly, but she wouldn’t cuddle him. I suppose she saw too much of her partner in the baby. She wrote that she would give him his bottle, then look at him from across the room, and he would just look back at her. It was a pretty sad letter. You’d have to wonder what kind of man the baby would eventually turn into. I’m wondering whether fear is so entrenched into Muslim culture that maternal love can’t find its free rein.

Kelly, I just don’t understand your comment: “but a wise group of people wouldn't fall into the trap of believing values were fundamentally good or bad.” There would be no civilisation at all if we didn’t have entrenched values. I’m not really talking from a philosophical point here, I’m talking about a practical need for people to be able to live with one another.

[Kelly Jones]

Bilby,

It is impossible to remove values from philosophy (absolute logical truths and reasoning about them). You state that humans need to share "entrenched" values, for there to be civilisation. This is an absolutist statement that actually states that none of the values of civilisation are: reasoning, discussion, and enlightenment.

So, one would have to question your idea of civilisation. It sounds like a paddock full of unthinking or frightened idiots, easily exploitable by "aliens".

-

[Dan Rowden]

Leyla, I am trying to connect with you and your posts, but you're not making it easy.

Maybe she doesn't even know where to begin disavowing you of your prejudiced ideas.

There are people here who have enough regard for you to believe that you are capable of delivering a more rational response.

I understand her point(s). They seem rational enough to me.

Elizabeth has put in a lot of effort in trying to reach you. I feel that of all people here, you could offer a valuable insight into Muslim culture, but we’re no closer to gaining any understanding because you’re not really offering anything. I feel that you are selling yourself short with your responses. I sense that you’re an intelligent lady so it’s a shame to pass up an opportunity to put your case forward.

I don't know how Leyla would respond, explicitly, to this, but I don't think it's up to her to fix your ignorance. She's really just trying to show you that you are being ignorant. But even ignorance isn't the real problem here. It's irrationality in and of itself. Prejudice is merely an expression of it. Having a problem with an entire group of people because one nominal representative of that group wronged you is desperately irrational (unless you can show that their behaviour was indeed representative. I mean, we see this particular form of irrationality in all sorts of spheres of life. One of the most common is: all men are bastards, or all women are bitches - based on the bad time you had with a spouse. It's not the specific prejudice that you need to deal with, it's the capacity you have to express this sort of irrationality at all. It can manifest anytime, anywhere if not dealt with at the root.

Muslim women could be the cure to the problem.

Well, they could, sure, but they're mostly too busy being part of it for that.

All that anti-women sentiment has to come from somewhere.

Yes, it's called: evolution. But you need to be more specific about what this problem is rather than just nebulously point "thataway" and pretend you're saying something. What is the specific nature of this anti-women "problem"? Why is it a problem? Why is it more or a problem than the anti-women gymnastics of Anglo-American culture? Or don't you even see that? In short, is your prejudice against Muslim people and their religious "culture" based on anything more than pop culture posturings (i.e. what people manage to glean from some bimbo on the news in between checking out her tits which have more significant to the producers than the content of her autocue.) You see, it's one thing to "bravely" announce one's prejudices; it's another to look at whether said prejudice makes us foolish - not so much because it is a prejudice, but because it is grounded in ignorance and misinformation. Prejudice - a judgement made beforehand or based on limited data - is not so bad if it is open to modification by information.

I remember reading a problems page where a lady wrote in saying that she had a son to an abusive partner.

Um, that sort of raises multiple questions for me, not the least of which is WTF? :)

She treated the baby well, fed and clothed him properly, but she wouldn’t cuddle him. I suppose she saw too much of her partner in the baby. She wrote that she would give him his bottle, then look at him from across the room, and he would just look back at her. It was a pretty sad letter. You’d have to wonder what kind of man the baby would eventually turn into.

Impossible to say - could be a lothario, could be a genius. There's not enough information in that anecdote to even begin to suppose anything much....

I’m wondering whether fear is so entrenched into Muslim culture that maternal love can’t find its free rein.

What? I think you might want to rethink your idea that Leyla is being irrational in her responses to you. Or, perhaps you should rethink your capacity to recognise a rational point of view. I mean, within parameters I can actually understand prejudicial feelings against certain Muslims, but that last sentence is an absolute head spinner.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Dan,

Your response shows that you do not understand the nature of prejudice, much less the cure. Bilby already understood that prejudice was illogical, and sought a rational cure for it. If Leyla's belabored point was that prejudice is illogical, emotionally pointing that out was as useless as a doctor responding to a patient who has gone in with a rash by yelling at the patient "Ew! That's disgusting! I don't want to touch it!"

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.

Maybe she doesn't even know where to begin disavowing you of your prejudiced ideas.

Since Bilby already explained what the prejudicial beliefs are, the best place to start could have been Leyla pointing out that she was Muslim, stated what of the prejudicial beliefs did not apply, and proven that they did not apply by not displaying those behaviors. Another place to start would be asking Bilby what caused the prejudicial beliefs. Either way, a rational exploration of the truth of the matter is what was called for.

The approach Bilby used to ask about prejudice against Muslims was actually far less inflammatory than the approach you use to defend your prejudice against women, yet you see nothing wrong with Leyla's response, but when you get that response from females, you call it an illustration of the irrationality of women.

Prejudice - a judgement made beforehand or based on limited data - is not so bad if it is open to modification by information.

That's what Bilby was looking to do by making this post - yet Bilby was given information that supported rather than refuted the prejudice against Muslims.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I remember reading a problems page where a lady wrote in saying that she had a son to an abusive partner.

That's actually quite common for abusive partners to have children.

She treated the baby well, fed and clothed him properly, but she wouldn’t cuddle him. I suppose she saw too much of her partner in the baby.

That happens a lot. It also happens when a person becomes pregnant through rape.

I’m wondering whether fear is so entrenched into Muslim culture that maternal love can’t find its free rein.

That's possible in some circumstances, but I also understand that Muslim women are usually respected and treated quite well by their male family members. Abuse happens in every culture, but I can see where it would be much harder to remove one's self from an abusive situation in the Muslim culture. The burkhas, the requirement that women be escorted by men whenever they leave the home, the disciplining of the women, etc. is actually designed with the intent of protecting women and being good to them. They then look at western women with the different cultural treatment, see the dysfunction in western culture, do not see the abusive nature that we see of their traditions because some Muslim women are happy with the way they are treated, and conclude that it is the west that is messed up, not them. They truly believe they are doing the right thing. Those who go on Jihad actually believe they are doing a good thing and rescuing those in the west from evil influences.

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. I compliment you for not getting into an emotional retaliation against Leyla's hurt response to your openness.

[Leyla Shen]

Your response shows that you do not understand the nature of prejudice, much less the cure. Bilby already understood that prejudice was illogical, and sought a rational cure for it. If Leyla's belabored point was that prejudice is illogical, emotionally pointing that out was as useless as a doctor responding to a patient who has gone in with a rash by yelling at the patient "Ew! That's disgusting! I don't want to touch it!"

It’s like not applying the recommended medication to a wound and then complaining to the doctor that the infection still festers and you fear, in fact, that you might spread it to other people so the solution is to stay indoors in order to prevent that.

That my position is constantly represented as being emotional by you and Bilby is testimony only to your own emotionalism. You should not assume that because you respond a certain way to certain rhetorical stimuli, everybody else responds in the same fashion. In fact, it is very clear in this thread alone that they do not. The only one who does is, interestingly enough, Bilby.

I have made my points very clear. If Bilby wants to cure herself of her irrationality, she’s going to have to start thinking--and so are you. If, on the other hand, she wants someone else to do it for her, then--like I said--she should seek therapy.

The buck has to stop with reason. Otherwise, you get one of your much beloved “feedback loops,” that go nowhere but back to where they came from. If she can’t even demonstrate enough character to differentiate between things like race and religion, therapy and philosophy, she does not dwell anywhere even remotely near genius; neither do you.

I will not be elected a member of any group which exists only in the minds of those who are afraid and stupid. If she wants a decent dialogue with me, she’s going to have to step up to the plate. Otherwise, she’s always got you. You deal with it. I have already, as a member of the “Muslim race,” quite clearly shown I don’t agree with her. She will need to actually address the questions I have put forward to her--but she will have to see them first and, despite the help you “think” you’re giving her by making it my responsibility, you’re yet admitting you can’t help her. Funny how that works, eh? “Behavioural Scientist," eh? You and Bilby should immediately pack up and go to Israel and tell those stupid Jews who are so afraid of the “Muslim race” to go and talk to the wounded and dying Palestinians about their prejudices instead of screaming, “Ew! That’s disgusting! I don’t want to touch it!” and blowing the place up into smithereens.

I don't compliment you or her a single bit because I am prejudiced in favour of reason, not emotion.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Leyla,

It amazes me that you can not see what is being perceived as emotionalism in your writing, despite that you recently admitted to being harsh with pretty much everybody. It disappoints me that you can not see the reason that I presented. It surprises me that David brown-nosed you in this, of all threads, shortly after pointing out that you get irrational whenever Islam is brought up. What is apparent to me is that your defensiveness is too thick to reason through on this topic at this time, so I will drop it with you.

[Leyla Shen]

It amazes me that you can not see what is being perceived as emotionalism in your writing,

I am not concerned with your amazement (or anyone elses’ for that matter), Elizabeth. If you cannot see reason when it hits you in the face, that’s--well, the very problem.

…despite that you recently admitted to being harsh with pretty much everybody. It disappoints me that you can not see the reason that I presented.

Admitted? Actually, what I said was that I was no different with Kevin than I am when anyone says anything stupid. That my actions may seem to cause emotionalism is not evidence they are borne by it.

Truth is often harsh to liars.

It surprises me that David brown-nosed you in this, of all threads, shortly after pointing out that you get irrational whenever Islam is brought up.

David will have to answer that one, if he cares to. I am not concerned by it.

Naturally, you took a philosophical response from David to a question posed by me which you have, to this moment, still not given a coherent philosophical reply to. Philosophical because it involved that non-emotive objectivity that you so severely lack--evidenced by your inability even to see it when its there. I expected this very response to be fizzing away in your little head over it. I can guarantee I’m not alone, too.

What is apparent to me is that your defensiveness is too thick to reason through on this topic at this time, so I will drop it with you.

In what way are my points defensive and yours not?

You are “dropping it” with me because of your own lack of reason, not mine; you cannot respond to single point I have made because it would compromise your own emotional attachments, which is exactly why you only see emotionalism. Why do you choose, for example, this subject to highlight the emotionalism you perceive and not, say, something like what I’ve said to keenobserver recently? I’ll tell you why: because my “emotionalism” serves your emotionalism when it comes to that subject matter, but not this one.

Integrity is the unwavering and bright light of truth; there are no corners from which any spook can arise to frighten you unless you turn it off…

[Leyla Shen]

I would have thought, Elizabeth, that you--having required medication in order to stabilise a mental condition--might have a greater insight into the faculty of mind. You do not, however. It seems you think that you can shove of your own mental condition--such as child abuse--onto others as a universal, philosophic panacea and be taken seriously by those of us not requiring medication.

How are you different philosophically to your apparent nemesis, Freud?

[Dan Rowden]

Dan,

Your response shows that you do not understand the nature of prejudice, much less the cure.

Hmm, if you say so.

Bilby already understood that prejudice was illogical, and sought a rational cure for it.

And therapy cannot provide it.

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.

It can have certain phobic overtones and in particular cases may even be explicitly phobic in nature (in such cases therapy can help), but generally it is simply an expression of a composition fallacy. The only "cure" for that is to value reason more highly and be willing to diminish the ego's engagement with it. Bilby needs to look into her own thinking to make headway with that. None of us even really need to know more about Islam to do this.

[Katy]

And therapy cannot provide it.

Well it can, it just isn't required and costs a lot of money for something you could do on your own.

[Bilby]

Elizabeth, you said that: “Bilby already understood that prejudice was illogical, and sought a rational cure for it”.

This isn’t correct. I don’t believe that my prejudice is illogical, and I’m not seeking a cure for it. I believe that my discrimination against Muslims is logical, and is based on my perceptions gathered over the last few decades. What I was asking in the original post was: If our value judgements are at odds with discrimination, which should give way to the other? I am not arguing for mindless racism or bigotry. I am making a stance for prejudice, in the case where your moral values would otherwise be compromised.

The interesting this is that no-one has yet said that my perception of Muslims is wrong. People have said that my prejudice is wrong, but no-one has actually told me why specifically I shouldn’t be prejudiced against Muslims. I perceive the Muslim culture as being predominantly misogynist, and I fear them because of their tacit acceptance of acts of terrorism in western countries. So either my perceptions are correct, or they aren’t. If my perceptions are wrong, then my prejudice is irrational. But what if my perceptions are correct? If these characteristics do accurately describe Muslims, and if I’m a racist because of this, how can my racism be wrong? How could prejudice be illogical in this case?

My moral values are fairly universal in that I know that terrorism is wrong. If a nation can’t achieve outright victory on their home turf, it doesn’t therefore follow that terrorism against innocent people on the other side of the world can be justified. If one quarter of Muslims believe otherwise, then my fears are rational.

No-one here has argued against my view of entrenched Muslim misogyny. It is almost universally accepted that women are on an equal footing with men, and laws world-wide reflect this, with the exception of Muslim countries. So if my perceptions are correct, then my prejudice against Muslims is rational, to the extent that it would be morally culpable of me to think otherwise.