Anti-Muslim Terrorist Attack in... NZ?

[cullennz]

Its a general observation. There are levels of bigotry and racism;

The "hard racist/bigot". They are the haters, they aggressively support white supremacists and say that people who support the victims or who would allow brown people to live and work in the country are race traitors. They blame immigrants for their own victimization, and are the most likely to become terrorists.

The "open racist/bigot". They don't like "others" (defined as anyone who is "other" w.r.t. themselves). When when asked they will say so. They think there nothing wrong with racist and religious jokes and memes. "....the Jews will not replace us"

The "soft racist/bigot". These are the "fine people on both sides" lot. Intellectual cowards who will never come out and say exactly what they think, because they don't want to actually be pegged as racists even if that is what they, and everyone else knows, they are.

The "covert racist/bigot". These are the dog-whistlers. They try to pretend they are not racists or bigots, and will do and say things that you cannot quite pin down as racism or bigotry, such as being critical of the way one group acts in support of another, victimised group. These are by far the most prevalent ones. Most of them don't even realise that what they are doing is racist or bigoted. I've even caught myself saying things that would put me in this group, particularly when I get into a discussion about the existence gods and deities.

Satisfied?

I think they meant by "Please show where anyone has said such despicable things"

"Please show where anyone has said such despicable things" on this forum

Rather than posting a bunch of your personal broad classifications

But then I could be wrong

 

[Steve]

Its a general observation. There are levels of bigotry and racism;

The "hard racist/bigot". They are the haters, they aggressively support white supremacists and say that people who support the victims or who would allow brown people to live and work in the country are race traitors. They blame immigrants for their own victimization, and are the most likely to become terrorists.

The "open racist/bigot". They don't like "others" (defined as anyone who is "other" w.r.t. themselves). When when asked they will say so. They think there nothing wrong with racist and religious jokes and memes. "....the Jews will not replace us"

The "soft racist/bigot". These are the "fine people on both sides" lot. Intellectual cowards who will never come out and say exactly what they think, because they don't want to actually be pegged as racists even if that is what they, and everyone else knows, they are.

The "covert racist/bigot". These are the dog-whistlers. They try to pretend they are not racists or bigots, and will do and say things that you cannot quite pin down as racism or bigotry, such as being critical of the way one group acts in support of another, victimised group. These are by far the most prevalent ones. Most of them don't even realise that what they are doing is racist or bigoted. I've even caught myself saying things that would put me in this group, particularly when I get into a discussion about the existence gods and deities.

Satisfied?

I for one am not satisfied. Where in this list of descriptions is there a place for people who are actually not bigots or racists? Accepting your category of "covert racist/bigot" your categories apply to everyone and so become meaningless.

Not to you specifically smartcookie, but to everyone here making insinuations of racism:

I have worked hard over my many years of adult life to overcome my own bigotry. When I was growing up during the 60's in a predominantly white society bigotry was common and encountered every day without giving it any thought. Words such as nig-nog, golliwog, and raghead were applied to ethnics. Homo and faggot were applied to gay men. Retard and similar were used for mentally challenged. All these people were viewed as being somehow on the fringes of society

With this ingrained into a person early in life it takes a significant effort to become aware of how those are affected by the words and the attitudes and to change ones own views for the better. I think I have made significant progress in overcoming the bigoted views of my early life. I will, like others, slip up occasionally but then I will strive to correct myself.

Because of this I am rightly offended when anyone, such as a couple of posters here, insinuates that I am consciously racist. Perhaps a little background will help those accusers realize why they are wrong.

The city where I have lived for almost 30 years has a minority "white" or as they classify it "caucasian" population according to the 2016 census. 33% of our population is of South Asian heritage and the balance are largely Chinese an Filipino. Surrey is proud to boast the largest Sikh population of any city outside India.

In the course of just going about my regular business in Surrey I am just as likely to be conversing with persons who have darker skin than myself. This is so common that a person's ethnicity mostly just becomes insignificant background info.

I love living in Surrey and take pleasure in the fact that people of different origins can live together so well. Of course racism is not unheard of, but it is uncommon enough that it will always make the local news and papers. Community groups will instantly raise the issue to further public awareness in order to do what they can to decrease future racism.

I suspect that if I was actually racist the large number of non-"white" residents here would have years ago sent me running to a whiter community.

Similarly, with LGBTQ people. I had very little knowing interaction with the community as a young man. Then I met my future wife. She had several close friends in the community and I quickly learned that my attitude needed to change. These days it is not uncommon to be at a party where my wife, myself and the children of a couple of our friends are the only "straight" people present. And that situation is just fine.

With persons with mental and physical handicaps I had my eyes opened about 25 years ago when my wife and I became foster parents. Many children in the foster care system present challenges that are just not encountered elsewhere. As part of that learning process a lot of the behaviors encountered in those challenging children made more sense and the methods used to teach them produced some remarkable results. Encountering a mentally challenged adult or child in public is not the intimidating situation I once thought.

I am not posting this to show how wonderful, or politically correct, or tolerant I am. I am really just this dude who is trying to understand the world a bit better and maybe make it a bit more pleasant. I still have a ways to go and will likely occasionally do some things that I will not be proud of till the day I die (which is really not that far away).

So enough with the implied bigotry. If I say something that may not be worded in the best way possible tell me and I may try to correct it. Otherwise, address my points and not my perceived personality.

Now, FWIW I do not have the same tolerance toward religion. I will treat all religions with similar distain. In the case of the NZ mosque shootings I am fully supportive of the individuals who have lost loved ones, and those still fighting in the hospital. This is because they are people who did not deserve this, The fact that they are muslims adds nothing.

 

[banquetbear]

You have no idea what political and social causes I am involved with.

...of course I do. Lets join the fight for social justice together and rid the world of the patriarchy.

As for the rest of your post I agree that NZ has reacted very well in the face of this tragedy. My opinions re women choosing head scarves as a symbol is not a major issue and I really do not understand the excessive emotional responses and personal attacks I am seeing here.

You sure seem to have strong opinions about an issue that you don't feel strongly about. And the post that you are responding too contained zero personal attacks, was a thoughtful, logical deconstruction of your original post, and your lack of rebuttal and your hyperbolic response leads me to believe you don't really disagree with what I said.

As for "excessive emotional responses": well 50 people are dead. Slaughtered by a white supremacist. In our backyard. It happened a little over a week ago, our nation is still in mourning, still dealing with the grief and the horror. A little latitude would be expected, but to be honest "Skeptics" are absolutely terrible at both giving latitude or expressing empathy, so the way this thread has developed is entirely unsurprising to me. That you are surprised by the "excessive emotional responses" though is a bit odd. Perhaps you should review the responses to your posts in this context.

 

[smartcooky]

I for one am not satisfied. Where in this list of descriptions is there a place for people who are actually not bigots or racists? Accepting your category of "covert racist/bigot" your categories apply to everyone and so become meaningless.

Not meaningless. IMO, everyone is, to some degree, a racist, even if it is as seemingly insignificant as feeling a little uncomfortable in the presence of people of a different skin colour. It is an opinion that is widely shared by other people.

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-40124781

Not to you specifically smartcookie, but to everyone here making insinuations of racism:

I have worked hard over my many years of adult life to overcome my own bigotry. When I was growing up during the 60's in a predominantly white society bigotry was common and encountered every day without giving it any thought. Words such as nig-nog, golliwog, and raghead were applied to ethnics. Homo and faggot were applied to gay men. Retard and similar were used for mentally challenged. All these people were viewed as being somehow on the fringes of society

With this ingrained into a person early in life it takes a significant effort to become aware of how those are affected by the words and the attitudes and to change ones own views for the better. I think I have made significant progress in overcoming the bigoted views of my early life. I will, like others, slip up occasionally but then I will strive to correct myself.

Because of this I am rightly offended when anyone, such as a couple of posters here, insinuates that I am consciously racist. Perhaps a little background will help those accusers realize why they are wrong.

The city where I have lived for almost 30 years has a minority "white" or as they classify it "caucasian" population according to the 2016 census. 33% of our population is of South Asian heritage and the balance are largely Chinese an Filipino. Surrey is proud to boast the largest Sikh population of any city outside India.

In the course of just going about my regular business in Surrey I am just as likely to be conversing with persons who have darker skin than myself. This is so common that a person's ethnicity mostly just becomes insignificant background info.

I love living in Surrey and take pleasure in the fact that people of different origins can live together so well. Of course racism is not unheard of, but it is uncommon enough that it will always make the local news and papers. Community groups will instantly raise the issue to further public awareness in order to do what they can to decrease future racism.

I suspect that if I was actually racist the large number of non-"white" residents here would have years ago sent me running to a whiter community.

Similarly, with LGBTQ people. I had very little knowing interaction with the community as a young man. Then I met my future wife. She had several close friends in the community and I quickly learned that my attitude needed to change. These days it is not uncommon to be at a party where my wife, myself and the children of a couple of our friends are the only "straight" people present. And that situation is just fine.

With persons with mental and physical handicaps I had my eyes opened about 25 years ago when my wife and I became foster parents. Many children in the foster care system present challenges that are just not encountered elsewhere. As part of that learning process a lot of the behaviors encountered in those challenging children made more sense and the methods used to teach them produced some remarkable results. Encountering a mentally challenged adult or child in public is not the intimidating situation I once thought.

I am not posting this to show how wonderful, or politically correct, or tolerant I am. I am really just this dude who is trying to understand the world a bit better and maybe make it a bit more pleasant. I still have a ways to go and will likely occasionally do some things that I will not be proud of till the day I die (which is really not that far away).

So enough with the implied bigotry. If I say something that may not be worded in the best way possible tell me and I may try to correct it. Otherwise, address my points and not my perceived personality.

Now, FWIW I do not have the same tolerance toward religion. I will treat all religions with similar distain. In the case of the NZ mosque shootings I am fully supportive of the individuals who have lost loved ones, and those still fighting in the hospital. This is because they are people who did not deserve this, The fact that they are muslims adds nothing.

My upbringing was similar to yours to yours. I was born in the 1950s and spent my early years not far from where you did (Cheshunt, Herts is less than 50 miles away). I never saw a dark skinned man until we moved to NZ in the 1960s, he was the school janitor. In those days, Nelson was a virtual enclave of white, middle-class people - it has become the 3rd most diverse city in NZ, and for the better IMO

I too have fought hard to overcome my own prejudices, not so much from my father who had spent considerable time in India and Ceylon during WW2, but from other NZers who used the same sort derogatory terms to describe coloured people; darkies, nigs, gollywogs etc. To his eternal credit, Dad would never use those terms around us children, although I suspect he always harbored some resentment toward certain people, perhaps coloured (no pun intended) by his wartime experiences, many of which he would never talk about. I do clearly recall him saying on more than one occasion that Enoch Powell got it right in his Rivers of Blood speech. I was too young at the time to understand what he meant.

Moving away from Nelson and taking up the sport of Rugby Union were two of the key things that helped me overcome prejudices, to build friendships with, and respect for, people of other races.

 

[Steve]

...of course I do. Lets join the fight for social justice together and rid the world of the patriarchy.

No you really don't. Ridding the world of religion would be considerable progress in ridding the world of patriarchy. IMO this is happening very slowly but progress will be measured in centuries rather than years. I have no hope of seeing it happen but I will speak on it when I see fit.

You sure seem to have strong opinions about an issue that you don't feel strongly about. And the post that you are responding too contained zero personal attacks, was a thoughtful, logical deconstruction of your original post, and your lack of rebuttal and your hyperbolic response leads me to believe you don't really disagree with what I said.

Please hilite the exageration here:

"You have no idea what political and social causes I am involved with.

As for the rest of your post I agree that NZ has reacted very well in the face of this tragedy. My opinions re women choosing head scarves as a symbol is not a major issue and I really do not understand the excessive emotional responses and personal attacks I am seeing here."

I do indeed have strong opinions on religious oppression. My point is that it is not a major issue in terms of the NZ response to the attacks. Not being major, it is an issue nonetheless.

I agree with some of what you said in your response and I said so. The rest I have no comment on.

As for "excessive emotional responses": well 50 people are dead. Slaughtered by a white supremacist. In our backyard. It happened a little over a week ago, our nation is still in mourning, still dealing with the grief and the horror. A little latitude would be expected, but to be honest "Skeptics" are absolutely terrible at both giving latitude or expressing empathy, so the way this thread has developed is entirely unsurprising to me. That you are surprised by the "excessive emotional responses" though is a bit odd. Perhaps you should review the responses to your posts in this context.

Significant emotion is to be expected. Unfounded accusations based on emotions rather than understanding are not.

I cannot comment for "Skeptics" but I freely admit that feeling and expressing empathy is not a strength of mine. That is just me. Very strong emotional response is very rare for me and is usually confined to events affecting people very close to me, and seldom to strangers. This has advantages and disadvantages. I live with it.

 

[Steve]

Not meaningless. IMO, everyone is, to some degree, a racist, even if it is as seemingly insignificant as feeling a little uncomfortable in the presence of people of a different skin colour. It is an opinion that is widely shared by other people.

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-40124781



My upbringing was similar to yours to yours. I was born in the 1950s and spent my early years not far from where you did (Cheshunt, Herts is less than 50 miles away). I never saw a dark skinned man until we moved to NZ in the 1960s, he was the school janitor. In those days, Nelson was a virtual enclave of white, middle-class people - it has become the 3rd most diverse city in NZ, and for the better IMO

I too have fought hard to overcome my own prejudices, not so much from my father who had spent considerable time in India and Ceylon during WW2, but from other NZers who used the same sort derogatory terms to describe coloured people; darkies, nigs, gollywogs etc. To his eternal credit, Dad would never use those terms around us children, although I suspect he always harbored some resentment toward certain people, perhaps coloured (no pun intended) by his wartime experiences, many of which he would never talk about. I do clearly recall him saying on more than one occasion that Enoch Powell got it right in his Rivers of Blood speech. I was too young at the time to understand what he meant.

Moving away from Nelson and taking up the sport of Rugby Union were two of the key things that helped me overcome prejudices, to build friendships with, and respect for, people of other races.

Cool. As I have said previously I think we understand each other somewhat better than comes across in our written posts.

Just one minor correction - The Surrey I live in is in British Columbia Canada.
However Surrey in England does have a place in my background - I was born in Hampton Hill Middlesex and lived there until I was 6. I still have family in and around the English Surrey.

 

[smartcooky]

Cool. As I have said previously I think we understand each other somewhat better than comes across in our written posts.

Just one minor correction - The Surrey I live in is in British Columbia Canada.
However Surrey in England does have a place in my background - I was born in Hampton Hill Middlesex and lived there until I was 6. I still have family in and around the English Surrey.

Really?

I was born in Enfield Public Hospital (actually, a satellite Nursing home of the hospital, on Windmill Hill, Middlesex).

Hampton Hill parish is literally -just down the road.

What a small world!

 

[banquetbear]

No you really don't.

...you don't believe that women shouldn't be treated as second class citizens in any country and by any group of people?

Ridding the world of religion would be considerable progress in ridding the world of patriarchy. IMO this is happening very slowly but progress will be measured in centuries rather than years. I have no hope of seeing it happen but I will speak on it when I see fit.

I am against women being treated as second class citizens in any country and by any group of people.

Ridding the world of religion won't stop women being treated as second class citizens in any country by any other group that isn't religious. I'm not content to wait for centuries to make changes for social justice. And if you truly are against "women being treated like second class citizens" then you wouldn't be content to be waiting as well. You can do more to "fight the fight" than simply waiting for religion to cease existing. Do you actually mean the words that you said, or were you only expressing them because of your feelings towards Islam?

Please hilite the exageration here:

"You have no idea what political and social causes I am involved with.

LOL.

That wasn't the response I was talking about.

As for the rest of your post I agree that NZ has reacted very well in the face of this tragedy. My opinions re women choosing head scarves as a symbol is not a major issue and I really do not understand the excessive emotional responses and personal attacks I am seeing here."

"Not a major issue." :: steve continues to post about it ::

I do indeed have strong opinions on religious oppression. My point is that it is not a major issue in terms of the NZ response to the attacks. Not being major, it is an issue nonetheless.

But it isn't really an issue is it? Thousands of New Zealanders wore head scarves, a highly symbolic move in solidarity with the Muslim community. You personally wouldn't have worn a head scarf. Okay. That's fine. I wouldn't either. And I didn't. Whats the issue?

Significant emotion is to be expected. Unfounded accusations based on emotions rather than understanding are not.

You didn't complain about "unfounded accusations." If significant emotion is to be expected then why are you surprised that significant emotion are being expressed?

I cannot comment for "Skeptics" but I freely admit that feeling and expressing empathy is not a strength of mine. That is just me. Very strong emotional response is very rare for me and is usually confined to events affecting people very close to me, and seldom to strangers. This has advantages and disadvantages. I live with it.

The thing that people who aren't good with "expressing empathy" have to learn is that when you express your opinion in public it isn't just you who has to "live with it." And people are going to respond to your lack of empathy. Hence the responses to you in this thread. This is "living in society 101." Does that answer your questions?

 

[Max_mang]

...you don't believe that women shouldn't be treated as second class citizens in any country and by any group of people?





Ridding the world of religion won't stop women being treated as second class citizens in any country by any other group that isn't religious. I'm not content to wait for centuries to make changes for social justice. And if you truly are against "women being treated like second class citizens" then you wouldn't be content to be waiting as well. You can do more to "fight the fight" than simply waiting for religion to cease existing. Do you actually mean the words that you said, or were you only expressing them because of your feelings towards Islam?



LOL.

That wasn't the response I was talking about.



"Not a major issue." :: steve continues to post about it ::



But it isn't really an issue is it? Thousands of New Zealanders wore head scarves, a highly symbolic move in solidarity with the Muslim community. You personally wouldn't have worn a head scarf. Okay. That's fine. I wouldn't either. And I didn't. Whats the issue?



You didn't complain about "unfounded accusations." If significant emotion is to be expected then why are you surprised that significant emotion are being expressed?



The thing that people who aren't good with "expressing empathy" have to learn is that when you express your opinion in public it isn't just you who has to "live with it." And people are going to respond to your lack of empathy. Hence the responses to you in this thread. This is "living in society 101." Does that answer your questions?

I see what you did there. Too bad being clever enough to twist someone's words around isn't the same as being right.

 

[Stout]

So no examples of victim blaming racists saying that if the victims of the Mosque shooting were nice white people they'd still be alive and the only reason they're dead is because they're brown ?

Was that just made up ?

There were no witches either but I'm sure their accusers enjoyed a certain level of self-righteous zealotry when they were doing their thing.

 

[sadhatter]

...of course I do. Lets join the fight for social justice together and rid the world of the patriarchy.



You sure seem to have strong opinions about an issue that you don't feel strongly about. And the post that you are responding too contained zero personal attacks, was a thoughtful, logical deconstruction of your original post, and your lack of rebuttal and your hyperbolic response leads me to believe you don't really disagree with what I said.

As for "excessive emotional responses": well 50 people are dead. Slaughtered by a white supremacist. In our backyard. It happened a little over a week ago, our nation is still in mourning, still dealing with the grief and the horror. A little latitude would be expected, but to be honest "Skeptics" are absolutely terrible at both giving latitude or expressing empathy, so the way this thread has developed is entirely unsurprising to me. That you are surprised by the "excessive emotional responses" though is a bit odd. Perhaps you should review the responses to your posts in this context.

How often is the emotional choice the right one?

How often is it the right one in war?

Because that is what we are in, war against people who feel the need to kill in the name of their ideals of various shades.

 

[sadhatter]

...you don't believe that women shouldn't be treated as second class citizens in any country and by any group of people?





Ridding the world of religion won't stop women being treated as second class citizens in any country by any other group that isn't religious. I'm not content to wait for centuries to make changes for social justice. And if you truly are against "women being treated like second class citizens" then you wouldn't be content to be waiting as well. You can do more to "fight the fight" than simply waiting for religion to cease existing. Do you actually mean the words that you said, or were you only expressing them because of your feelings towards Islam?



LOL.

That wasn't the response I was talking about.



"Not a major issue." :: steve continues to post about it ::



But it isn't really an issue is it? Thousands of New Zealanders wore head scarves, a highly symbolic move in solidarity with the Muslim community. You personally wouldn't have worn a head scarf. Okay. That's fine. I wouldn't either. And I didn't. Whats the issue?



You didn't complain about "unfounded accusations." If significant emotion is to be expected then why are you surprised that significant emotion are being expressed?



The thing that people who aren't good with "expressing empathy" have to learn is that when you express your opinion in public it isn't just you who has to "live with it." And people are going to respond to your lack of empathy. Hence the responses to you in this thread. This is "living in society 101." Does that answer your questions?

Order the societies that treat women the worst.

Notice how all the worst offenders are the most religious.

Do the math.

 

[banquetbear]

I see what you did there. Too bad being clever enough to twist someone's words around isn't the same as being right.

...can you be just a bit more specific? You quoted my whole ******* post. Where exactly did I twist steve's words?

 

[banquetbear]

Order the societies that treat women the worst.

...by all means order "societies" any way you like. But steve believes, like I do, that "women shouldn't be treated as second class citizens in any country and by any group of people." So the order doesn't matter. The fight for social justice has no boundaries.

Notice how all the worst offenders are the most religious.

Your subjective list based on subjective criteria has no bearing on anything I said.

Do the math.

Math done. Still irrelevant to anything I've said. Completely irrelevant to the slaughter of 50 innocent Muslims in Christchurch.

How often is the emotional choice the right one?

Often enough.

How often is it the right one in war?

If we are in a war (and I would argue that we are not in a war) then we are in a war against the alt-right, white supremacy, and the constant dissemination of alt-right propaganda. Over the last week the people of New Zealand have made a very emotional response to the attacks. Many businesses have stopped advertising with Facebook. Our ISP's have started blocking the propaganda at the source. We've changed our gun laws. Our largest online news website has completely upended their "comments" policy. We have shown solidarity with the Muslim community. None of these are the "incorrect" response IMHO, even though they have come from an emotional centre. We haven't started any wars. I think we are going to be fine.

Because that is what we are in, war against people who feel the need to kill in the name of their ideals of various shades.

Ummm, okay?

 

[Steve]

...you don't believe that women shouldn't be treated as second class citizens in any country and by any group of people?





Ridding the world of religion won't stop women being treated as second class citizens in any country by any other group that isn't religious. I'm not content to wait for centuries to make changes for social justice. And if you truly are against "women being treated like second class citizens" then you wouldn't be content to be waiting as well. You can do more to "fight the fight" than simply waiting for religion to cease existing. Do you actually mean the words that you said, or were you only expressing them because of your feelings towards Islam?



LOL.

That wasn't the response I was talking about.



"Not a major issue." :: steve continues to post about it ::



But it isn't really an issue is it? Thousands of New Zealanders wore head scarves, a highly symbolic move in solidarity with the Muslim community. You personally wouldn't have worn a head scarf. Okay. That's fine. I wouldn't either. And I didn't. Whats the issue?



You didn't complain about "unfounded accusations." If significant emotion is to be expected then why are you surprised that significant emotion are being expressed?



The thing that people who aren't good with "expressing empathy" have to learn is that when you express your opinion in public it isn't just you who has to "live with it." And people are going to respond to your lack of empathy. Hence the responses to you in this thread. This is "living in society 101." Does that answer your questions?

There are times when continuing a conversation serves no useful purpose. This one has reached that point.

 

[sadhatter]

...by all means order "societies" any way you like. But steve believes, like I do, that "women shouldn't be treated as second class citizens in any country and by any group of people." So the order doesn't matter. The fight for social justice has no boundaries.



Your subjective list based on subjective criteria has no bearing on anything I said.



Math done. Still irrelevant to anything I've said. Completely irrelevant to the slaughter of 50 innocent Muslims in Christchurch.



Often enough.



If we are in a war (and I would argue that we are not in a war) then we are in a war against the alt-right, white supremacy, and the constant dissemination of alt-right propaganda. Over the last week the people of New Zealand have made a very emotional response to the attacks. Many businesses have stopped advertising with Facebook. Our ISP's have started blocking the propaganda at the source. We've changed our gun laws. Our largest online news website has completely upended their "comments" policy. We have shown solidarity with the Muslim community. None of these are the "incorrect" response IMHO, even though they have come from an emotional centre. We haven't started any wars. I think we are going to be fine.



Ummm, okay?

That was very content free.

You literally avoided making any definitive statements knowing if you did so it would pin your arguement and the goalposts.

Dirty pool in my opinion.

 

[banquetbear]

That was very content free.

...you've just literally quoted a whole lot of content. You are objectively incorrect.

You literally avoided making any definitive statements knowing if you did so it would pin your arguement and the goalposts.

Says the person who hasn't made any definitive statements because it would pin their arguments and the goalposts. Says the person who asked me to "Do the math" without making any effort to actually "do the math" or "show their working."

Do you have an ordered list you would like to share, or would you like to continue to avoid making definitive statements?

Dirty pool in my opinion.

Hypocrisy in my opinion.

 

[dudalb]

Problem I have is that some people here do seem to cut Islam some slack they do not cut other religions.

 

[Roboramma]

Order the societies that treat women the worst.

Notice how all the worst offenders are the most religious.

Do the math.

I don't really like to point this out because on this site it's so cliche, but correlation doesn't equal causation. Does religiosity cause the unequal treatment of women, or is it just correlated with it? I think there's certainly a valid argument to made that there is at least some causative effect, but you haven't made that argument, and the correlation on it's own isn't convincing.

 

[Steve]

I don't really like to point this out because on this site it's so cliche, but correlation doesn't equal causation. Does religiosity cause the unequal treatment of women, or is it just correlated with it? I think there's certainly a valid argument to made that there is at least some causative effect, but you haven't made that argument, and the correlation on it's own isn't convincing.

Does it really matter? The inequality exists and it should not.