16 more killed over cartoons.

[Orwell]

This is why discussion about race and religion are so limited these days - anyone who isn't 100% careful about their language gets branded a bigot. It's worse than boring, it's damaging.

Art has an history of hysteria.

I would probably give someone else the benefit of the doubt.

 

[FreeChile]

I don't know. You seem to think you can see into people's hearts, you tell me.

Where did anyone say ALL Muslims? They didn't, they said Muslims. Me, I took that to mean Islam as a religion and assumed that there are some Muslims who are not included - because it's so obviously true. Islam, like all these religions, is in my opinion like a virus. It is as if it has a life of it's own - as per Dawkins' meme theory. Islam's laws appear to me to be directly opposed to free speech. Islam seems to have a problem with the western world at large. I think that belief in this medieval fairy story is dangerous.

Saying Islam instead of Muslims does not solve the problem. It remains a stereotype. Note that I have highlighted some words in this paragraph. You are defending something and yet your language shows me you are uncertain. All this makes the whole paragraph self-contradictory. Your meaning is unclear. Is this paragraph about Islam, about religion in general, or about believes in general?

I also think that for bin laden and his ilk to exist there must be a much larger group of people directly supporting him and an even bigger one tacitly supporting him, and another one outside that sympathizing with him. Looking at the riots, pop songs, Muslim media reactions etc etc I'd drawing the conclusion that the sympathetic group is a majority.

I don’t really see the connections you are trying to make here. How are the Cartoon riots connected to Bin Laden?

 

[NeilC]

Saying Islam instead of Muslims does not solve the problem. It remains a stereotype. Note that I have highlighted some words in this paragraph. You are defending something and yet your language shows me you are uncertain. All this makes the whole paragraph self-contradictory. Your meaning is unclear. Is this paragraph about Islam, about religion in general, or about believes in general?


I don’t really see the connections you are trying to make here. How are the Cartoon riots connected to Bin Laden?

And there was me saying that the PC brigade jump on every little word to stifle discussion....

Again you think you are imbued with some form of insight which you are not.

How are the riots connected to islamic extremism? Hmm dunno.

 

[FreeChile]

And there was me saying that the PC brigade jump on every little word to stifle discussion....

Again you think you are imbued with some form of insight which you are not.

Possibly in more words than I needed to, I simply said I did not understand what you meant and requested clarification. I also tried to explain why. Isn't that promoting discussion?

How are the riots connected to Islamic extremism? Hmm dunno.

Thank you for clarifying this further. Are you talking about all Islamic extremists or some? Are you referring to those who incited the riots or the ones who are participating in it? Also, can you please connect this with the paragraph I had the most problems with? The one that starts “Where did anyone say ALL Muslims?” There you talk about beliefs in general, religion in general, Islam in general, as they would relate to freedom of speech.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I haven't done anything lately to "oppose terrorism" either, Art. Does that mean that I approve of it?

If you're part of religion that mandates that you actively oppose evil, and you do not actively oppose terrorism, the only reasonable conclusion is that you do not consider it evil. Note I did not say "approve", I said "okay".

Did the Irish approve of the terrorism in Northern-Ireland? I mean, most Northern-Irish did nothing about it...

All Christians were okay with it. Anyone who claims to believe that they will spend eternity in paradise if they die fighting evil, but is not willing to put their life on the line to stop terrorism, must either be lying about their beliefs, or not consider terrorism to be evil.

It is silly to compare Muslims to Irish, because Irish is a nationality and Islam is an ideology.

This idea that all Muslims (including those that live in the west and have never set foot in a Muslim country and those that live in non-arab countries, i.e. the majority of Muslims when it comes down to it) are somehow responsible for the actions of a minority (albeit a pretty vocal minority), that they automatically approve of these actions because they're not out in the streets protesting them, smacks of, well, bigotry.

As long as we're calling a spade a spade, what's the word for someone who makes up a position for other people? I specifically said "okay", not "approve", and I said "Muslims as a whole", not "all Muslims".

All Muslims are responsble for what other Muslims do. Not in the sense that if one Muslim kills someone, it's okay to put another one in jail, but in the sense that if one Muslim commits murder, that reflects on all Muslims, and all Muslims have an obligation to do something about it. The idea that you can join a group, publicly identify yourself with what it stands for, and then claim that you have no responsibility for what that group does is absurd. Maybe Bush should try that. "I realize that there were abuses at Abu Ghraib, but we are not responsible for what a minority does". And it's not a minority. More than 70% of Palestinian voters voted for terrorist organizations. What people like you simply don't get is that bigotry is irrational disapproval.

You posted a childish response in this thread. Do you have a serious response to it? Where are the riots over Islamic terrorism? Why is it that so many Muslims are are protesting cartoons, but not terrorism? How is it "bigotry" to conclude that Muslims, on the whole, are okay with terrorism? Clearly, when they have a problem with something, they're rather vocal about it. So how is it not a reasonable conclusion that they don't have a problem with it?

Art has an history of hysteria.

Orwell has a history of dishonesty and a bizarre vendetta against me. Claiming that he would give someone else the benefit of the doubt is more dishonesty from him. All his accusations against me have been supported by wild speculation about my motives. Not only has he not given the benefit of the doubt, he hasn't given me the benefit of the certainty.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Thank you, Orwell, for clarifying these points with Art. He doesn't seem to remember that the only good Jap is a dead Jap, or that girls are inferior to boys, or that Indians are savages.

This post is completely outside the bounds of acceptable behavior.

 

[Orwell]

This post is completely outside the bounds of acceptable behavior.

Why? It pretty much sums up in a nutshell what you seem to be saying. If you don't want to be mistaken for a bigot, don't talk like one.

 

[Dcdrac]

I have discussed this cartoon buisness with muslim colleagues at work, all of which could not care less about them, and they told me that as soon as a muslim kills somoene they cease to be a muslim in the eys of Allah.

 

[FreeChile]

Why? It pretty much sums up in a nutshell what you seem to be saying. If you don't want to be mistaken for a bigot, don't talk like one.

I would like to clarify this with both of you. I am not engaged in the personal attack of anyone here. My statements here are not about either Orwell, or Art, or Splossy, or anyone posting here. It is about their statements. I have not accused any of the posters of being a bigot.

Previously by me:

Thank you, Orwell, for clarifying these points with Art. He doesn't seem to remember that the only good Jap is a dead Jap, or that girls are inferior to boys, or that Indians are savages.

Art, what is it that you object to in my statement? The first statement is a statement of agreement with Orwell. The second is a sarcastic remark to highlight our human history and give this issue context. I am not talking about you personally.

 

[FreeChile]

This post is completely outside the bounds of acceptable behavior.

By the way, Art, whatever it is you think I did, I did it because people like you have been intimidating me into following your rules, and freedom of speech is slowly being eroded without anyone talking about it. I did not intend to insult you but to confront the issue of censorship head-on, and expose your extortion to the light of day.

Please don’t take this literally.

 

[ReFLeX]

The mere fact that someone shares genes with me does not mean they can do what they want. Your assertion that I would participate in such violence were I brought up in a different household is speculation completely unsupported by facts.

Don't you mean completely supported by facts? Why don't you tell me what it is about your makeup that separates you from them? Any characteristic except the environment in which you grew up. The facts are that if your whole family is going out to participate in something and you're going to get the crunk beaten out of you if you don't come along, just like the rest of your entire life, your resentment is going to have disappeared a long time ago and you will join in heartily. You can deny this, but it seems to me that is simply so you don't have to believe you could ever have acted like that. You don't like terrorists, so you find a way to push them into an outgroup. Call them monsters...
... or vermin.

 

[ReFLeX]

But murdering innocents over a freakin cartoon no less disqualifies one from the human race IMO. Pls dispose of appropriately and have a nice day.

Another prime example of what I mentioned above. It's a part of attribution theory, though I forget the term.

 

[ReFLeX]

If you're part of religion that mandates that you actively oppose evil, and you do not actively oppose terrorism, the only reasonable conclusion is that you do not consider it evil.

Or perhaps you don't see what you could do about it?! When I was a Christian and I saw others doing bad things, I knew better than to think scolding them would have a speck of influence. It's pretty hard to say one is a hypocrite because they don't live up to every single ideal their belief system has. How do you propose they go about actively opposing every evil they see? Or, then, which evils do they choose to oppose? You see, they would have to discriminate between issues where they could bring about effective opposition and where opposition would seem futile.

 

[Bluegill]

I had a thought yesterday that I had not heard anyone else mention. However, it seems to obvious in retrospect that surely others have made the connection. (Also, it's not very earth-shattering, so I didn't want to start a new thread about it...)

Isn't there an obvious parallel between Muslims who want to kill the cartoonists and U.S. citizens who want to fine or jail people who burn he U.S. flag?

Certainly, one is more severe than the other, but at their roots, the reactions seem very similar.

 

[gtc]

I had a thought yesterday that I had not heard anyone else mention. However, it seems to obvious in retrospect that surely others have made the connection. (Also, it's not very earth-shattering, so I didn't want to start a new thread about it...)

Isn't there an obvious parallel between Muslims who want to kill the cartoonists and U.S. citizens who want to fine or jail people who burn he U.S. flag?

Certainly, one is more severe than the other, but at their roots, the reactions seem very similar.

The motive may be similar and both are similarily wrong. However, the rule of law and proportionality in terms of legal sanctions have been fundamental to the common law since the middle ages.

Thus the fundamental difference remains:

One is taking the law into their own hands and advocating a much greater sanction.