Merged Terror attack on German Christmas market

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Do you have a better proposal?

McHrozni

Yes. Don't use that argument. It's really terrible on several levels, not least of all the unnecessary descriptor.

 

[McHrozni]

Yes. Don't use that argument. It's really terrible on several levels, not least of all the unnecessary descriptor.

The descriptor is the only thing you took issue with so far. The argument is good enough if I put it this way:

To use your false equivalence with rape, what would you say to a rape victim that was walking around a construction site with all male crew naked and flirting? "Don't do that" is a good start, I think. Does that imply she deserved to be raped? No. Should the perpetrators be punished? Yes. Should she be punished? No. Should she act differently in the future? Yes.

Please point out what, if anything, is wrong with it.

McHrozni

 

[Dipayan]

The descriptor is the only thing you took issue with so far. The argument is good enough if I put it this way:

To use your false equivalence with rape, what would you say to a rape victim that was walking around a construction site with all male crew naked and flirting? "Don't do that" is a good start, I think. Does that imply she deserved to be raped? No. Should the perpetrators be punished? Yes. Should she be punished? No. Should she act differently in the future? Yes.

Please point out what, if anything, is wrong with it.

McHrozni

When you tell that particular woman 'don't do that' it is fine. When you gather a bunch of random women and try to convince them that they need to apologize for that woman's actions, you are being foolish.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The descriptor is the only thing you took issue with so far. The argument is good enough if I put it this way:

To use your false equivalence with rape, what would you say to a rape victim that was walking around a construction site with all male crew naked and flirting? "Don't do that" is a good start, I think. Does that imply she deserved to be raped? No. Should the perpetrators be punished? Yes. Should she be punished? No. Should she act differently in the future? Yes.

Please point out what, if anything, is wrong with it.

McHrozni

Right, let's try and look at it then. How many ways of wrong should we aim for? 6? 8? 10? A dozen might be pushing it. But let's see how we get on.

1. It wasn't very well written. OK not the strongest card first here but I didn't say they'd be in order. Your explanatory about families wasn't a clear explanation of anything and left me wondering why the woman in question being far away from her mum and dad was relevant.

2. It's a hideously bad analogy. Our protagonist in this case is a woman who is acting irresponsibly and putting themselves in danger. What then is the comparison here to Muslims. Who is the analogy applying to? What action is it that Muslims are taking? Being Muslim? Not sufficiently denouncing Islamic terrorism? Is there any equivalence between these actions and those in your analogy?

3. It uses unnecessarily emotive language. Your argument could be simply reduced to 'people who deliberately choose to put themselves in risky situations have some responsibility for the consequences of those actions'. That of itself is probably a topic that can be discussed but at least your statement would be relatively uncontroversial in and of itself. Of course this still wouldn't establish how Muslims are choosing to put themselves in risky situations merely by being Muslim.

4. Your analogy seems to be perpetrating the 'asking for it' myth, which would also seem to suggest that you equally consider Muslims to be asking for it. I'm sure you would deny this is your point but that would just go to show that again your analogy is terrible.

5. Your analogy seems to be perpetrating the 'all men are rapists in waiting myth' while at the same time also perpetrating the 'men can help themselves, it's only natural' myth. Doubly terrible in your portrayal of men here but also somehow suggesting that racists, bigots and islamophobes are just 'boys being boys'?

6. The recommendation actions resulting from your analogy seem to be troubling. That women should temper their behavior to avoid being raped and that equally Muslims should temper their behavior (presumably looking and acting a bit Muslim-y) in order to avoid being the subject of Islamophobia.

7. Your analogy seems to suggest that Muslims are inciting violence against them by living their lives and bothering no one. They are, in your view, analogous to a woman dancing naked in front of a bunch of rapists in waiting.

Is this enough to be going on with? I have a meeting to attend.

 

[McHrozni]

When you tell that particular woman 'don't do that' it is fine. When you gather a bunch of random women and try to convince them that they need to apologize for that woman's actions, you are being foolish.

I agree. Now could you read what my argument actually says and address that maybe?

Pretty please with sugar cubes on top?

McHrozni

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Right now, in my head, I'm thinking to myself that if I don't craft a reply that draws at least yellow card, I've failed as a human being.

It's taking about the limit of my discipline not to do so.

 

[McHrozni]

Right, let's try and look at it then. How many ways of wrong should we aim for? 6? 8? 10? A dozen might be pushing it. But let's see how we get on.

I'll go ahead and claim you'll score zero. The first one was aimed entirely at something you didn't understand and I have since corrected, which really sets the tone for the rest of your post.

2. It's a hideously bad analogy. Our protagonist in this case is a woman who is acting irresponsibly and putting themselves in danger. What then is the comparison here to Muslims. Who is the analogy applying to? What action is it that Muslims are taking? Being Muslim? Not sufficiently denouncing Islamic terrorism? Is there any equivalence between these actions and those in your analogy?

The analogy with Muslims is that they're spreading belief that an Arab camel merchant turned highwayman turned warlord is the code of conduct for mankind that, a perfect human we should all emulate. This is essentially universal to all factions of Islam (save perhaps those few who follow only the Koran), the only disagreement is then which part of his life one should follow - even though this 'debate' is explicitly settled in the Koran. The other significant disagreement is which line of his successors are the proper ones, but both behaved much the same anyway, the difference is largely theological. Calling it "acting irresponsibly" is extremely mild by comparison with the woman in my analogy. Calling it "creating unnecessary danger" would be more in line with reality.

3. It uses unnecessarily emotive language.

No it doesn't. It is more severe than it absolutely needs to be, but if it were any milder and you'd try to weasel out of it.

4. Your analogy seems to be perpetrating the 'asking for it' myth, which would also seem to suggest that you equally consider Muslims to be asking for it. I'm sure you would deny this is your point but that would just go to show that again your analogy is terrible.

It's the exact opposite. I made a point that not even in such an extreme example is 'asking for it' the correct answer.

5. Your analogy seems to be perpetrating the 'all men are rapists in waiting myth' while at the same time also perpetrating the 'men can help themselves, it's only natural' myth. Doubly terrible in your portrayal of men here but also somehow suggesting that racists, bigots and islamophobes are just 'boys being boys'?

I'm saying that most men who haven't had intercourse in a while would get aroused when seeing a flirtatious, naked female. The only exceptions would be homo- and asexuals. Some would opt to have sex with such a woman, even if she wouldn't consent. I didn't say she was raped by the entire crew, or anything like that, this is entirely your invention. The same goes for 'Islamophobes'.

6. The recommendation actions resulting from your analogy seem to be troubling. That women should temper their behavior to avoid being raped and that equally Muslims should temper their behavior (presumably looking and acting a bit Muslim-y) in order to avoid being the subject of Islamophobia.

You said things are wrong about it, and now you mention it's merely troubling?

Muslims should live their lives in line with the norms of the country they live in. What I find troubling is that you seem to think their religion gives them the right to act in any way they desire and furthermore be entitled not to receive any negative response to their behavior, as long as they don't explicitly violate any laws. This is truly troubling, and completely out of line with how our society operates.

If you disagree please explain what is wrong with hostile acts towards Muslims that harm no one - leaving gifts of pork at mosques, staring angrily at Muslims and refusing to engage them in conversation and so on? If Muslims are entitled to act in any way they desire and be further entitled there is no backlash to their behavior, doesn't that go for the rest of us as well?

Note: I don't think that leaving gifts of pork at mosques or acting hostile towards Muslims for no reason is the way anyone should act.

7. Your analogy seems to suggest that Muslims are inciting violence against them by living their lives and bothering no one. They are, in your view, analogous to a woman dancing naked in front of a bunch of rapists in waiting.

You did not adequately describe the problem. Muslims are inciting violence against them by living their lives and pretending nothing is wrong with Islam while large numbers of Muslims rape and murder people in the name of Islam.

This is analogous to a woman walking around naked and flirting with random lonely males but not wanting to have sex with them. It is to be expected that some of those males will want to have sex with her, and some of those will rape her as a result. That doesn't make the rape right by any means, but her behavior is making the problem much, much worse than it otherwise would have been. That doesn't mean she is guilty of anything or that she deserves to be punished for it or anything, but it does mean she needs to stop doing that if she wants to make it less likely to happen again. Or do you disagree with that?

Is this enough to be going on with? I have a meeting to attend.

You currently stand at zero things being wrong about it, so no, it's clearly not enough.

* Substantial portions of Islamic literature can be classified as hate speech and thus be subject to legal limitations, but that's another matter entirely. The assumption here is that Islamic literature doesn't violate any law, which is certainly not slanted against Islam.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Right now, in my head, I'm thinking to myself that if I don't craft a reply that draws at least yellow card, I've failed as a human being.

It's taking about the limit of my discipline not to do so.

In times like this I find this letter amusing and a good way to relieve stress.

http://www.angelfire.com/super2/quasievilgirl/flame.html

Just imagine you wrote that to me and how insulted I'd get. You'll feel better I hope it helps

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

You currently stand at zero things being wrong about it, so no, it's clearly not enough./QUOTE]

The only thing registering zero around here is my surprised that McHronzi can't see his own bigotry meter.

 

[McHrozni]

The only thing registering zero around here is my surprised that McHronzi can't see his own bigotry meter.

It's McHrozni, not McHrozni. It's also "my surprise", not "my surprised".

Therefore I disagree.

McHrozni
(and not McHronzi)