Unveiling according to the Prophet

[Guest Peeves]

Maybe. A fact on its own isn't an argument though.

Maybe not, especially those who find facts inconvenient.

On the other hand, side stepping a fact by accusing the poser of the fact of hate, using ad hominem to avoid something uncomfortably factual, is hardly argument is it?

[cybercoma]

Maybe not, especially those who find facts inconvenient.

On the other hand, side stepping a fact by accusing the poser of the fact of hate, using ad hominem to avoid something uncomfortably factual, is hardly argument is it?

A fact is not an argument. There's no maybe about it.

[Guest Peeves]

A fact is not an argument. There's no maybe about it.

A fact is a proof of a proof thats a proof.

Nor is this, "Please continue. I'm enjoying reading your sounding board of all the ways you hate Muslims, but don't think for a minute that you have even a remotely sound logical argument against anything yet."

When one resorts to ad hominem attack they generally deserve little in the way of respect or courtesy.

[cybercoma]

A fact is a proof of a proof thats a proof.

Nor is this, "Please continue. I'm enjoying reading your sounding board of all the ways you hate Muslims, but don't think for a minute that you have even a remotely sound logical argument against anything yet."

When one resorts to ad hominem attack they generally deserve little in the way of respect or courtesy.

I think you need to look up ad hominem because that wasn't an attack against you as a person. I said you haven't made a logical argument and that you have been listing the different ways that you hate Muslims. That's talkng about your arguments, not you as a person. If you're not proud of your arguments or think they make you look like less of a person, then perhaps you should reconsider the ones you're making.

Edited December 17, 2011 by cybercoma

[Michael Hardner]

Maybe not, especially those who find facts inconvenient.

On the other hand, side stepping a fact by accusing the poser of the fact of hate, using ad hominem to avoid something uncomfortably factual, is hardly argument is it?

A fact isn't an argument. If you put forward an attack against an identifiable group, then it's not based on principals is it ? It's about being against the group, so you will be understandably accused of holding hate in your heart.

If such an argument was actually based on principles, then one would state arguments against a value, an attribute, a behavior but not against a group.

[The_Squid]

One should not hide, but then again why does it matter? There is no picture taken. There is no check of ones ID against the face during these ceremonies. And besides that I can change my looks very easily, use makeup, grow a beard, change my hair style and colour. Within a short time I could look completely different. It doesn't matter. Do I need to show my photo ID card? No.

You think citizenship is handed out without photos of the applicant? Citizenship photos are sent in with the prospective citizen's application.

[Scotty]

This is, without a doubt, the most ignorant thing I have ever read on this board. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I recall a CBC article once where a female reporter put on the burqua, and she described how heavy, oppressive, and hellishly hot the things were, even in our more moderate climate. So I'd suspect that, as rude as the original poster was, he was probably, to a degree, factual. Anyone encased in those robes on a hot day is going to sweat like a pig.

[Scotty]

Give him time....he makes tons of ignorant posts and never comes back to defend...ya know, in a 'trollish' kind of way.

He and you have much in common, then.

[Scotty]

And since all of the big three religions have similar problems, of course it looks suspicious if you point at the problems of only one. It's not surprising at all that people would think you're bigoted towards them.

If A then B.

The problem with such logic is when you presuppose A, without any actual evidence.

The Big Three religions have similar problems? Perhaps you could expound upon this. I don't see that at all. In particular, I don't see the rising fanaticism amongst Muslims to be be similar to any problems Christianity has.

Edited December 18, 2011 by Scotty

[Scotty]

Very black-and-white, but not true. You can state facts and still be bigoted, and in fact you can mislead people with facts placed out of context.

Of course it's your business. But why are you complaining ?

You appear to be applying a standard to one group, and not another so you should just get used to the accusations against you, as they will continue.

An interesting position for a 'facilitator' to take. Rather than suggesting people stick to discussing the issues rather than attacking the person, you matter-of-fact state that 'accusations' against a person because of their opinion, will simply continue as long as they express that opinion. And ask him why he is complaining!

Edited December 18, 2011 by Scotty

[Scotty]

Example would be posting crime stats of one sort or other by race, which - out of context - implies causation.

IE "These" people do "this".

And that would be bigoted?

I'm afraid that, like most on the Left, you have an extremely poor grasp of what bigotry means. If one posts facts, and derives conclusions from those facts, that is not bigotry. Those conclusions are either mistaken, or correct. The proper response then would be to discuss the various reasons why the conclusion is or is not correct.

You appear to think the correct response is to call the person who made the conclusions names.

That is a pretty damned poor response from someone who has accepted a position to attempt to keep discussions respectful.

[Scotty]

as an aside, what do you guys care if a Muslim woman wishes to wear a Hijab or Niqab for that matter? How does it affect you? Not much different than gay marriage in my opinion. Doesn't affect me one way or the other.

Doesn't really affect me as long as I never have to have any dealings with them. I sure wouldn't want to have to work with one, though. I don't want to work with people whose faces I can't see, who walk around with a shroud over themselves. Work has a social environment, and these women deliberately exclude themselves from it and from the rest of society.

[Scotty]

A fact isn't an argument. If you put forward an attack against an identifiable group, then it's not based on principals is it ? It's about being against the group, so you will be understandably accused of holding hate in your heart.

How do you feel about the KKK?

[Guest Manny]

You think citizenship is handed out without photos of the applicant? Citizenship photos are sent in with the prospective citizen's application.

Yes, so what. These are the photos that get printed on the citizenship card. They are sent in by the mail, I believe.

Naturally, anyone wearing a veil should remove it for these photos...

[cybercoma]

If one posts facts, and derives conclusions from those facts, that is not bigotry. Those conclusions are either mistaken, or correct. The proper response then would be to discuss the various reasons why the conclusion is or is not correct.

I already explained in this thread why bigotry and racism are logical fallacies. One can post facts and derive bigoted and racist conclusions from them. They would be making an argumentative error, but you don't want to admit that.

[Michael Hardner]

The Big Three religions have similar problems? Perhaps you could expound upon this. I don't see that at all.

They all have holy books that are rife with bad advice, in fact they share some of those books.

Their leaders will exploit ignorance and superstition in their followers to engage them in war, persecution and all manner of behaviors which are actually prohibited in the books themselves.

That's a high-level summary, I would say.

[Michael Hardner]

An interesting position for a 'facilitator' to take. Rather than suggesting people stick to discussing the issues rather than attacking the person, you matter-of-fact state that 'accusations' against a person because of their opinion, will simply continue as long as they express that opinion. And ask him why he is complaining!

This has nothing to do with my facilitation - it's an observation that if you attack one group, then people will rightly wonder why that is.

[Michael Hardner]

And that would be bigoted?

The attribution of race, or some group characteristic as a cause would be, I think.

I'm afraid that, like most on the Left, you have an extremely poor grasp of what bigotry means. If one posts facts, and derives conclusions from those facts, that is not bigotry.

We are not robots. This is not calculus where someone can parse the facts and come up with a "true" conclusion. Prejudices find their way into the decision process in all kinds of ways.

Those conclusions are either mistaken, or correct. The proper response then would be to discuss the various reasons why the conclusion is or is not correct.

There's a third option: "Can't be proven."

You appear to think the correct response is to call the person who made the conclusions names.

No one can call you a bigot definitively, but they can explain why fallacious arguments come out of prejudice, for example. It's a thin line between insulting a person, and explaining why their arguments are biased.

That is a pretty damned poor response from someone who has accepted a position to attempt to keep discussions respectful.

Well, we also have to agree to disagree. There are posters on here who have posted intelligent and eloquent arguments about identifiable groups, which are just... wrong in my opinion. The only thing I can do is explain to them why I believe their arguments are prejudiced.

It's not about name calling - I actually respect such posters to a degree for their clarity of thought - but about discussion. Of course, they're unlikely to agree that they're biased, and so we reach that "agree to disagree" position.

Do you see ?

[Michael Hardner]

How do you feel about the KKK?

How do I feel about them ? I don't feel anything about them.

[Scotty]

They all have holy books that are rife with bad advice, in fact they share some of those books.

Their leaders will exploit ignorance and superstition in their followers to engage them in war, persecution and all manner of behaviors which are actually prohibited in the books themselves.

That's a high-level summary, I would say.

I'm sure we would have little difficulty finding current Muslim leaders who do that. Can you describe the last Christian leader who used the bible to justify war or persecution? The interpretation of the bible has shifted drastically over the centuries and decades as western society has shifted. I don't see any mainstream Christian churches preaching hate and violence these days. The same can certainly not be said of the mosque.

[Scotty]

How do I feel about them ? I don't feel anything about them.

You don't disapprove of them, then? If a guy introduced himself to you as a member of the KKK that wouldn't influence your opinion of that person?

[Michael Hardner]

I'm sure we would have little difficulty finding current Muslim leaders who do that. Can you describe the last Christian leader who used the bible to justify war or persecution?

Not off the top of my head. A little Googling gave me this:

Telegraph Article

According to a report in GQ magazine the religious texts were imposed over pictures of the US armed forces engaged in the war.

Shown to only a small circle of senior advisers, the pages were first used on the eve of the 2003 invasion and were designed to provide support and encouragement to Mr Bush, a Christian who often cited the Bible while in office.

Righteous wars are certainly a mainstay of rallying public support for military action, whether its against religious extremism, or the godless commies.

Do you doubt that ?

The interpretation of the bible has shifted drastically over the centuries and decades as western society has shifted. I don't see any mainstream Christian churches preaching hate and violence these days. The same can certainly not be said of the mosque.

Ok... now you have added the qualifier "mainstream" which itself is imbued with subjectivity and cultural relevance. So what are you comparing here ? A suburban Mosque in the US with a Christian church in Africa ?

If you find a single example of someone preaching hate in a mosque, can I counter with a single example of someone preaching hate in a church ?

Certainly these things are "facts" but it doesn't mean the argument is so clear cut.

You don't disapprove of them, then? If a guy introduced himself to you as a member of the KKK that wouldn't influence your opinion of that person?

You asked me how I "feel" and I answered you. Approval/disapproval or assessments I make of the person are personal judgments I may consciously or unconsciously make on the situation, and have nothing to do with how I feel.

Let me move your argument ahead a few spaces: I don't agree with theories of racial superiority, or the equivalent in religion. Does that help ?

But a group that is based on an ideology of racial superiority is altogether a different problem than groups that are based on the principles Christianity, Judaism, or Islam.

[cybercoma]

Can you describe the last Christian leader who used the bible to justify war or persecution?

Why bother? Islam today is obviously way more abusive than Christianity today. That doesn't mean that Christian leaders don't have their own brand of insanity, like the Phelps family picketing the funerals of homosexuals, Bishops saying natural disasters are God's punishment, Evangelicals psychologically abusing gays, or this excommunication that defies explanation. At least they're not beheading non-believers, stoning women to death after they're raped, or mutliating the genitals of little girls. We're talking, however, the lesser of two evils here.

[Guest Peeves]

Why bother? Islam today is obviously way more abusive than Christianity today. That doesn't mean that Christian leaders don't have their own brand of insanity, like the Phelps family picketing the funerals of homosexuals, Bishops saying natural disasters are God's punishment, Evangelicals psychologically abusing gays, or this excommunication that defies explanation. At least they're not beheading non-believers, stoning women to death after they're raped, or mutliating the genitals of little girls. We're talking, however, the lesser of two evils here.

I doubt the Phelps are considered religious in the accepted tradition or of a reverence toward God by anyone. Perhaps profane zealots would be more like it.

Insanity? I doubt that those even claiming to be Christian leaders can be considered insane unless they're handing out cool aid.

There are those peripheral groups without any mainstream Christian religion -sect that are fundamentally 'nuts' from an observers point of view, (Snake handling), but they are in no way or manner comparable to Islamic terrorists or fundamentalist sharia following, Wahhabist or Muslims extremist that riot and murder over cartoons or 'Mohammad" named toy bears..

Burning a book or the Phelps disgraceful conduct are exceptions that prove the rule in the differences of the 'two' cited religions. Terrorist acts of Muslims are commonplace. On the other hand,those as the Phelps behavior in the name of a Christian god are aberrations.

By any measure of, brutality, terror, draconian laws, human rights, equal rights, civil rights, free speech, principles of democratic election, charity, mercy or any other moral code of Christianity, Islam in a political or religious sense cannot be lumped circuitously or unceremoniously, with contemporary Christianity.

Edited December 20, 2011 by Peeves

[cybercoma]

That's why I didn't lump them together, but your bias is obviously showing if you would write off Christian fundamentalists and extremists as "nut jobs" that don't speak for anyone, while not giving Muslims the same respect. You don't write off their extremists and nut jobs, while there are millions of Muslims all over the world that are nothing short of moderate.