Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
It doesn't mean that it's not, either.
Why are the atheists slaves? The question never comes up unless we recognize that they are atheists.
Here is where your confusion seems to lay.
Saying the rioters are primarily Muslim is very different from saying they are rioting because they are Muslim.
Think about that.
The first is just a fact. It doesn’t infer anything. There could be many reasons why the people who are rioting are primarily Muslim. That it might have something to do with the actual practice of their faith is (without evidence) only conjecture.
If you believe merely identifying the rioters as Muslim automatically infers they’re rioting because of their religion, then that speaks to your own preconceptions.
daredelvis
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2002
- Messages
- 2,217
Flo
Illuminator
No, corellation /= causation. But it's a good place to look further if religion turns out to be a reliable indicator. That's not racist, that's rational.
It's your own damned fault for raising the possibility that not all French are mammals. What did you expect?
daredelvis, that's twice in less than 24 hours you've asked me to disprove an allegation made by Orwell. You've been around here long enough that you should know that while that's a line of argument that may work for "psychics," UFOlogists, 9/11 conspiracists, and other charlatans, it carries no weight around here. If I claim I have a herd of invisible pink unicorns in my backyard and the monkeys flying out of your behind are lassoing them and riding them in the Kentucky Derby, it is my job to prove it; it is not your job to disprove it.
And if Orwell is making claims about the religious connection (or lack thereof) to the current riots in France, it is his job to prove those claims*, not mine to disprove.
This is Intro to Skepticism 101.
*...as soon as he gets back from his suspension...
Last edited:
...and it's OUR own damned fault that France isn't part of Germany today. If only we had considered the long-term consequences at Normandy...!
Belz...
Fiend God
That much was implied in my sentence.
Well, let's assume they became atheists while in slavery. Their riot might have nothing to do with their religious (un)beliefs.
If all BPSCG was saying was that they ARE muslims, then I don't know what all the fuss is about. He seemed to be claiming that it was part of his motivations, although he has said otherwise since.
That's not what I'm saying at all.
Belz...
Fiend God
It's your own damned fault for raising the possibility that not all French are mammals. What did you expect?
I'm still not sure about that!
daredelvis
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2002
- Messages
- 2,217
Emphasis mine. I am not a Muslim, and I haven't been rioting at all, certainly not in France (haven't been there in 11 years, and then it was in Provence, not Paris), so I can't say that being Muslim was ever my motivation for participating in the French rioting.
All I said was that Muslims appear to make up the bulk of the rioting population, and that Reuters seemed to want to hide that fact. As regards why the Muslims are rioting, I repeat I don't know why they are rioting. They may be rioting because they have been treated unjustly and unfairly (the "why do they hate us?" line of inquiry); they may be rioting because it's springtime in Paris and that's what young disaffected people in Paris do in the spring (ah, springtime, when a young man's fancy turns lightly to thoughts of
Orwell and others are convinced that the fact that they are rioting has nothing to do with the fact that they are Muslims. They make wonderful arguments; all they lack is any substantial evidence to prove that conclusion.
Belz...
Fiend God
Touché. A typo on my part.
That might not be a bad idea, considering some of their reactions...
Fair enough.
Of course. Claiming it has nothing to do with it bear the same burden of evidence as claiming that it does.
Appeasement may be a worse idea.
Morrigan
Crone of War
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2006
- Messages
- 8,262
Oh, arrête tes conneries. L'hystérie anti-raciste devient aussi irritante que le racisme lui-même ces derniers temps.
Il y a des TAS de gens qui sont racistes dans le monde, et ce ne sont pas tous des blancs ou des nazis. J'oserais dire que la plupart des gens sont racistes. Il y a plusieur facteurs qui influence le racisme, et il y a des différents degrés de racisme - pas tout le racisme vient de la haine. Bien sûr, un moron du KKK qui dit "je hais ces sales nègres" ne devrait pas être pris au sérieux. Mais un Californien tanné que son voisinage soit envahi par des gangs latinos/mexicaines, qui se méfie donc des latinos qu'il rencontre, n'est pas la même chose. S'il est moindrement intelligent et rationel, il saura très bien que ce n'est pas tout les mexicains qui sont des immigrants illégaux, ou dans des gangs, ou whatever. Mais il influencera quand même son comportement par rapport à la race ou l'ethnie des gens, basé sur son expérience, et ce n'est pas de la folie.
Mon père est un directeur d'école secondaire à la retraite. Toute sa vie, il a eu plusieurs mauvaises expériences avec les Jamaïcains (Jamaïquains?). Petit traumatisme quand il était enfant, alors que le logement qu'il habitait avec sa mère, occupé par surtout des Jamaïcains, fut régulièrement envahi de coquerelles, mais surtout, qu'un pourcentage énorme des étudiants jamaïcains qu'il a eu furent des élèves à problème, tandis que plusieurs autres minorités, comme des vietnamiens ou des juifs, eux, se tenaient plus souvent tranquilles.
Mon père n'est pas un con, et il sait que cette tendance s'explique surtout par la pauvreté et des facteurs sociaux, et non pas génétiques. Mais est-ce que ça l'empêche de s'exclamer, parfois, (disons qu'un Jamaïcain criminel est aux nouvelles par exemple) "ah, un autre maudit Jamaïcain" sans trop de surprise? Est-ce qu'il a une tendance à se méfier des jeunes jamaïcains qu'il rencontre à cause de son expérience? Son comportement est légèrement raciste, mais ça ne veut pas dire qu'il est stupide, irrationel, qu'il discriminait les élèves (sauf dans sa tête, comme de la méfiance), et qu'il du même niveau que le KKK ou le monde dans American History X.
Le Japon, d'après plusieurs témoignages, serait considéré extrêmement raciste par nos standards. La citoyenneté complète japonaise est impossible à obtenir par un immigrant qui n'a aucun sang japonais. Il pourra s'intégrer jusqu'à un certain point mais il sera toujours traité différemment, à part du reste. Car la culture japonaise est comme ça. C'est de la discrimination ethnique, et du point de vue nord-américain ça serait terrible et raciste, mais pour eux, c'est normal, voire rationel. Vas-tu me dire qu'on ne devrait jamais prendre un japonais au sérieux?
Le racisme hystérique haineux, je suis d'accord, enlève de la crédibilité. On peut aussi critiquer un japonais conservateur qui discrimine les étrangers, et on peut être en désaccord avec la façon d'agir de mon père ou de notre Californien méfiant. Je ne suis pas certaine dans quel groupe le FN tombe, et je sais que Le Pen lui-même est plutôt douteux, mais il faut se fier à la plateforme du parti, pas seulement son chef. Rien ne sert à s'attarder sur les défauts des chefs de parti, sinon on ne prendra jamais rien du tout au sérieux.
Mais le racisme de quelqu'un ne signifie pas qu'on devrait ignorer tout ce qu'ils disent, surtout s'ils apportent des bon points. Évidemment il faut savoir distinguer les faits apportés et du slant qu'il peut y avoir, mais celà est pareil pour TOUTES les idéologies, incluant celles qui se veulent "ouvertes d'esprits" ou "tolérantes".
Démoniser l'adversaire n'est jamais une bonne idée. Et chose certaine, les tendances récentes, d'après mon expérience, vont accuser de racisme autant un arabe extrémiste qui haïs les "sales juifs" qu'un type qui veut défendre les frontières de son pays. Ça devient ridicule.
Encore une fois, vrai pour le racisme haineux. Pas nécéssairement vrai autrement.
Morrigan
Crone of War
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2006
- Messages
- 8,262
Apologies for the above French, everyone. Don't worry, it would probably bore you anyway.
Anyway, not even BP said they were rioting because they were Muslims. He, and Mycroft, said that it's interesting that the primary demographic of the rioter is Muslim, and it would be interesting to know why that is so, and thus should be noted. But of course, THAT'S RACIST!!
Ad hominem.
Really? You know what they believe? How? Some would say that they believe in government hand-outs. (Note that this is not exclusive to immigrants.)
Anyway, not even BP said they were rioting because they were Muslims. He, and Mycroft, said that it's interesting that the primary demographic of the rioter is Muslim, and it would be interesting to know why that is so, and thus should be noted. But of course, THAT'S RACIST!!
Last edited:
The politics of smear has gotten old. It has gotten more than predictable when conservatives are broad-brush painted. The caricatures of Pat Buchanan in Neanderthal attir, complete with club, were funny to me, not because I found it accurate, but because of the predictability of it.
Anybody in public life who advocates the tough position can expect this painting, but as tough times become apparent, it will be those who advocate the tough positions who will be sought after.
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
And discovering if it is part of the reason or just a positive correlation requires acknowledging and discussing the issue.
That may be true. Discovering if it is true would require acknowledging that atheists are rioting, and then discovering the basis for the positive correlation.
He made a comment on how the media phrased it.
