US Ambassador to Libya killed by mob

SamHarris

JustinDee wrote: »

Who do you think you are to call me "dishonest"?? Sanctimoniously sitting behind an anonymous moniker and purporting to display some form of retroactively dug-up 'expertise' while blurting generalism after generalism doesn't do much for your pro-agendaic argument. I couldn't give a stuff if you wish to continue lumping swathes of demographs as one. It changes nothing of my own experiences.
Unbelievable. Move on indeed.

Ah so you have anecdotal evidence that you feel should replace polling and actual data? Yes, that is dishonest, seeing as though you would straight away point out how stupid that is if the reverse was the case.

Generalism after generalism? No I showed a poll that clearly demonstrates their levels of rascism, for example towards the Jews, is far far higher than any comparable issues in Western societies. Im sure its very irritating that your opinion is not backed up by facts, but thats just the way it is Im afraid.

Could you imagine if thousands of Americans went on a murderous rampage over an Arab film and the debate never got past "Well not ALL Americans are like that!". The level of evasion people resort to with regard to Islam's problems is stunning.

SamHarris

Frank Grimes wrote: »

Part of "dealing in sociological terms" is to challenge gross generalisations and stereotypes and the adherence to dominant narratives and discourses, so it is necessary to point these out where they occur.

Sure. But the vast majority of the times on threads dealing with Islam the debate never moves past that. Its said, its done, move on to the real discussion.

Nodin

SamHarris wrote: »

Sure. But the vast majority of the times on threads dealing with Islam the debate never moves past that. Its said, its done, move on to the real discussion.

The fact is that it needs to be restated, given repeated hysterical generalisations.

SamHarris

Denerick wrote: »

1: Really creepy you would go through my post history and regurgitate something I don't remember posting.

2. So what? I was broadly talking about the political system and how its democratic institutions respond to demagogues spouting hatred and ignorance. America is in a state of material and intellectual decline, its literacy standards are falling, its citizenry basic knowledge of world affairs is often dangerously tenuous - empirical evidence backs this up through numerous surveys. The economic figures attest to its growing inequalities and its declining and/or stagnant economic output, its deindustrialisation, its over-reliance on service industry jobs which often underemploy or underpay people, its housing market, its various stock market bubbles, its ailing infrastructure, ad nauesum. This is rather different to saying something like 'Muslims are a violent race' (sic), or 'Muslims are plotting to overthrow the west', as if they are one uniform entity behaving as members of one singular hive mind.

3. Again, really really creepy.

No, its a pretty brilliant pointing out of your hypocrisy. As is often the case the people determined one group not be judged by polls and data are the quickest and most 'extreme' when pursuing their own agendas.

SamHarris

Nodin wrote: »

The fact is that it needs to be restated, given repeated hysterical generalisations.

Maybe, and in a thread I dont mind generalisations being pointed out as such. But if you read for example al Jazeera or al Arabiya (english versions) they are similiarly devoted to dealing with 'why are Muslims portrayed so negativly' and never 'why are Muslims the only group to react in this way, multiple times, to nearly unheard of media in other countries?'. The real debate the Muslim community should be having is not being had because of the constant victim mentality put forward by these and other publications. I can only imagine how dedicated their Arabic versions are to reinforcing this mindset.


If you are still not convinced that some serious discussions need to be had within the Muslim community, or its constituint communities, then very little can happen that would convince you of the need.

Nodin

SamHarris wrote: »

Maybe, and in a thread I dont mind generalisations being pointed out as such. But if you read for example al Jazeera or al Arabiya (english versions) they are similiarly devoted to dealing with 'why are Muslims portrayed so negativly' and never 'why are Muslims the only group to react in this way, multiple times, to nearly unheard of media in other countries?'.
.

They're the only ones that "react in this way"? Funny....

http://www.smh.com.au/world/hindus-in-valentines-day-attack-on-lovers-20090215-884e.html

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/people/news/article_1292112.php/Richard_Gere_causes_riots_in_India_over_Shetty_kiss_n_hug

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/sethu-dmk-chief-sticks-to-his-stand/218827/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-17727379

SamHarris wrote: »

The real debate the Muslim community should be having is not being had because of the constant victim mentality put forward by these and other publications. I can only imagine how dedicated their Arabic versions are to reinforcing this mindset.
.

The latest buzz words used to give dismisive responses to genuine complaints a pseudo intellectual cloak of respectability.

Laminations

SamHarris wrote: »

The real debate the Muslim community should be having is not being had because of the constant victim mentality put forward by these and other publications.

This I think is true. While criticising generalisations can highlight the logical flaws in an argument they have now become the debate rather than a caveat to the debate - which should be on the violent murderous reaction to religious criticism, parody or offence.

While it is hugely offensive to criticise someone's deities (more than a non-believer could understand) if like to think that logically the relative offense taken over the portrayal of your god in an insulting light should pale in comparison with the level of offense taken having your god used as a reason to kill and your religion abused to justify bloody revenge.

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

They're the only ones that "react in this way"? Funny....

http://www.smh.com.au/world/hindus-in-valentines-day-attack-on-lovers-20090215-884e.html

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/people/news/article_1292112.php/Richard_Gere_causes_riots_in_India_over_Shetty_kiss_n_hug

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/sethu-dmk-chief-sticks-to-his-stand/218827/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-17727379

That's funny, because there are a lot of Hindu Indian immigrants to the Western world and I can't remember the last time they killed anyone in the West for public displays of affection, celebrating valentines day, or otherwise starting a worldwide orgy of violence, murder and intimidation (behead those who insult Hinduism).

I was also not aware that those extremist groups of Hinduism were as powerful as Wahabbism and Salafism is within Islam ... you learn something new every day :rolleyes:

In your desperation to defend Islamic extremism, you're making a mountain out a molehill (the Hindu extremism) and molehill out of a mountain (Islamic extremism).

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

That's funny, because there are a lot of Hindu Indian immigrants to the Western world and I can't remember the last time they killed anyone in the West for public displays of affection, celebrating valentines day, or otherwise starting a worldwide orgy of violence, murder and intimidation (behead those who insult Hinduism).

.....Hindus are not remotely present in the west in the same numbers, nor is there the same spread, generally, as Islam.

I wasn't aware that we were supposed to only care if some group "killed anyone in the West".

SeanW wrote: »

I was also not aware that those extremist groups of Hinduism were as powerful as Wahabbism and Salafism is within Islam ... you learn something new every day .

The BJP is the second largest party in India.

JustinDee

SamHarris wrote: »

Ah so you have anecdotal evidence that you feel should replace polling and actual data? Yes, that is dishonest, seeing as though you would straight away point out how stupid that is if the reverse was the case.

Generalism after generalism? No I showed a poll that clearly demonstrates their levels of rascism, for example towards the Jews, is far far higher than any comparable issues in Western societies. Im sure its very irritating that your opinion is not backed up by facts, but thats just the way it is Im afraid.

Could you imagine if thousands of Americans went on a murderous rampage over an Arab film and the debate never got past "Well not ALL Americans are like that!". The level of evasion people resort to with regard to Islam's problems is stunning.

Your 'data' is cherry-picked as are polls.
A poll can be steered any way its conductor wishes as can its sample.
I've already pointed out the plethora of insulting videos and speeches about Jews and Christians and where they can be found, so you can lay off this line you're taking with me, whoever you are.
If you're spoiling for an internet fight try somebody else.

I take issue with your generalism, because it is subjective tosh. That's all. You'll live.

Denerick

Laminations wrote: »

I would've thought the most important aspect in all this is to condemn the killing and violence and call for some respect for life to be shown by the people who are demanding respect for their religion.

As for people thinking all Muslims are the same, the people who think or argue this are a small minority and to paint anyone with concerns about Islam as such is being guilty of the generalisations you accuse others of. There is a growing problem of fundamentalism in Islam. There has been thousands marching and demonstrating over this and various flaws points of violence. There have been official calls for censure and censorship. Pointing this out is as much saying that all Muslims have a problem as saying all Irish have a problem with alcohol if you point out a problem with alcohol in Irish society.

People are dying over this. Offence or religious defence are not excuses, they are in themselves an abuse of the religion.

None of which I would disagree with, but you would have to admit that some are using these incidents to peddle their own agendas, which often have a very nefarious purpose. On both sides, of course.

SamHarris

Nodin wrote: »

The latest buzz words used to give dismisive responses to genuine complaints a pseudo intellectual cloak of respectability.

Sure. Or your wrong and the vast majority of negative press is generated by the actions of Muslims. Tell me, what widely criculated newspaper is it that you most believe dedicates time to uneccasarily vilifying Muslims?

The 'genuine complaints' is all the arab/islamo-centric media seem to do.

Again if you do not see the need for a real debate within Islam with regard to their use of violence, and any number of other issues, you might ask yourself why it is other groups react so very differently to stimuly? Instead of a single article asking why it is Muslims feel the need to violently protest for weeks over a film we get articles like this BS from al Jazeera http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/201291895216118375.html .

SamHarris

JustinDee wrote: »

Your 'data' is cherry-picked as are polls.
A poll can be steered any way its conductor wishes as can its sample.
I've already pointed out the plethora of insulting videos and speeches about Jews and Christians and where they can be found, so you can lay off this line you're taking with me, whoever you are.
If you're spoiling for an internet fight try somebody else.

I take issue with your generalism, because it is subjective tosh. That's all. You'll live.

Ah so because the Pew Poll does not reach the conclusions you want it to it must have been 'steered'. Or, how bout this, your opinion was wrong and is not backed up by facts?

What generalism did I make exactly that I did not back up with evidence?

Hardly spoiling for any fight, pointing out that your anecdotal evidence isnt worth piss when it directly contradicts polling is just a fact. Im sure youll live.

Nodin

SamHarris wrote: »

Sure. Or your wrong (*........)es like this BS from al Jazeera http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/201291895216118375.html .

Totally evading the whole "why are Muslims the only group to react in this way" thing now, are we? Thats nice. I've already shown they aren't, but it seems that point won't register. What do you call it when somebody ignores facts to stick to their notions again....?

And I've never said anything as regards "the need for a real debate within Islam with regard to their use of violence" I'm unsure why you keep on about it. The thing is, I see problems with various faiths and ideologies. However I see some people utterly ignoring the context of those problems in world terms, and examining them in isolation.

Nodin

SamHarris wrote: »

....... Instead of a single article asking why it is Muslims feel the need to violently protest for weeks over a film we get articles like this BS from al Jazeera http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/201291895216118375.html .

Hmmmmm.

Erik Bleich is Professor of Political Science and Director of International Politics and Economics at Middlebury College and is the author of The Freedom to Be Racist? How the United States and Europe Struggle to Preserve Freedom and Combat Racism, published by Oxford University Press.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/201291895216118375.html

Maybe you should ask Professor Bleich why Al Jazeera publish his "BS", Oxford University Press why they published his doubtless thematically similar "BS" book and Middlebury College why they gave him a job?

SamHarris

Nodin wrote: »

Hmmmmm.


http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/201291895216118375.html

Maybe you should ask Professor Bleich why Al Jazeera publish his "BS", Oxford University Press why they published his doubtless thematically similar "BS" book and Middlebury College why they gave him a job?

What?

SamHarris

Nodin wrote: »

Totally evading the whole "why are Muslims the only group to react in this way" thing now, are we? Thats nice. I've already shown they aren't, but it seems that point won't register. What do you call it when somebody ignores facts to stick to their notions again....?

And I've never said anything as regards "the need for a real debate within Islam with regard to their use of violence" I'm unsure why you keep on about it. The thing is, I see problems with various faiths and ideologies. However I see some people utterly ignoring the context of those problems in world terms, and examining them in isolation.

Yes avoiding it, or ignoring it because it is very clearly an attempt to show equivolance where there is none. Of course religions protest against all sorts of things, that they do does not change that Islam is by far the most likely to violently protest all over the world over perceived 'insults'.

As is often the case people persume that the violence within Islam is proven to be not a special case because they can point to an incidence where, say, a Christian killed an abortion doctor. It is not about a single case, it is about a greater arc that has taken place over the last decades. It is not merely about these particular protests it is about the violence throughout the Muslim world, the support for violent groups and actions by Muslims all over the world and perhaps even further about the manner in which Islam is impacting upon the world in general. The fact that it can occour elsewhere does not mean in the slightest that the frequency and intensity of Muslim reactions are somehow the norm.

I keep on about it because it hasnt even become the topic of this thread yet. If you agreed with it maybe you should have mentioned it instead of ignoring it completly. Uh hu, and what is it that causes these problems, in your estimation?

Nodin

SamHarris wrote: »

Yes avoiding it, or ignoring it because it is very clearly an attempt to show equivolance where there is none. Of course religions protest against all sorts of things, that they do does not change that Islam is by far the most likely to violently protest all over the world over perceived 'insults'.

But it isn't.

SamHarris wrote: »

As is often the case people persume that the violence within Islam is proven to be not a special case because they can point to an incidence where, say, a Christian killed an abortion doctor.

Did you actually look at the links I put up? Have you ever bothered to do any research on the subject at all?

SamHarris

Nodin wrote: »

But it isn't.

Sure, I mean just the other day Buddists went on a rampage over Kung Fu Panda.

Nodin wrote: »

Did you actually look at the links I put up? Have you ever bothered to do any research on the subject at all?

Yes. I was using the example often trotted out by others. So you believe other religions, at this time, have the same propensity towards violence, all around the globe? Please, dont keep it to yourself.

JustinDee

SamHarris wrote: »

Ah so because the Pew Poll does not reach the conclusions you want it to it must have been 'steered'. Or, how bout this, your opinion was wrong and is not backed up by facts?

What generalism did I make exactly that I did not back up with evidence?

Hardly spoiling for any fight, pointing out that your anecdotal evidence isnt worth piss when it directly contradicts polling is just a fact. Im sure youll live.

Enough with this arrogant bilge.
I don't need a specially seeded poll to tell me what I experience myself, no more than I need a weighted poll from any think-tank to try and convince me the Irish are good drivers and the roads are safe.
Five years in Israel, seven in Australia, five in Norway, one in Malaysia, two in Greece amongst other regions over the years has educated me enough to avoid lumping every sod I might disagree with into the one barrel, like Irish are avid roman catholics who eat fish on fridays and support the Provos. Moral relativism about how effwads around the world are prodded into reacting in extremis over a daft youTube video doesn't excuse some of the sectarian actions of your own.

Its not anecdotal "evidence" I'm posting. Just an opinion. This is an internet forum. Not a courtroom. Anonymous monikers like yourself can stir the pot and retroactively dig up anything that suits them via a search engine all you like. Just don't expect not to get pulled up on it from time to time.

You're done. Just park it. We get it. You don't dig Muslims. Quit the pigeon-holing and check people's posting history before you make an even bigger trail of rubbish on these forums.

Laminations

Nodin wrote: »

But it isn't.

Well it kind of is. You've given some of the reasons yourself just on the previous page

Nodin wrote: »

.....Hindus are not remotely present in the west in the same numbers, nor is there the same spread, generally, as Islam.

Islam is larger and more widespread than the others and has a growing presence in the largely securlarised, mostly liberal 'West'

This demand of yours for 'uniqueness' as a prerequisite for the problems to be debated is as stubborn as to say you won't discuss the problem of child abuse in the catholic church because it's not 'unique' - child abuse being more common within the family for one.

Laminations

JustinDee wrote: »

You're done. Just park it. We get it. You don't dig Muslims. Quit the pigeon-holing and check people's posting history before you make an even bigger trail of rubbish on these forums.

In fairness JustinDee I really don't think that's the point he is making, nor do I interpret it from his posts (not that I've been following this thread so haven't read all Sams posts)

Nodin

SamHarris wrote: »

Sure, I mean just the other day Buddists went on a rampage over Kung Fu Panda.
Yes. I was using the example often trotted out by others. So you believe other religions, at this time, have the same propensity towards violence, all around the globe? Please, dont keep it to yourself.

Amazing how you won't address the evidence given.

lamintations wrote:

Islam is larger and more widespread than the others and has a growing presence in the largely securlarised, mostly liberal 'West'.

....I do believe I said as much.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80831987&postcount=190

lamintations wrote:

This demand of yours for 'uniqueness' as a prerequisite for the problems to be debated .

No, thats no demand of mine. The claim was made that "Muslims" were "the only group to react in this way". Such claims of exceptionalism are completely unfounded.

Following the examples of hindu extremism (and I didn't include caste violence or much intercommunal violence) the reply was "people persume that the violence within Islam is proven to be not a special case because they can point to an incidence where, say, a Christian killed an abortion doctor." Thats being obtuse and intellectually dishonest.

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

.....Hindus are not remotely present in the west in the same numbers, nor is there the same spread, generally, as Islam.

I wasn't aware that we were supposed to only care if some group "killed anyone in the West".



The BJP is the second largest party in India.

So, you're talking about a local problem with Hindu extremism. You accept that there is no global history of Hindu terrorism, as there is with Islamic jihad.

You cannot find any evidence of Hindus engaged in a worldwide orgy of violence and threats to "behead those who insult Hinduism" or extremists like Anjem Hinduhury warning that he's going to raise the black flag of the Hindu god over the White House and the Tower of London.

You have zero evidence that mainstream Hinduism has the same tendancy for anti-Semitism, homophobia, and the aggressive world view of Salafism and Wahabbism.

You have zero evidence that India (as a whole) is a theo-fascist hellhole, and that its leaders and business elites are spending vast sums of money promoting the most virulent form of extremism throughout the world the way Saudi Arabia does, with Islamic education, training of Imams in Saudi universities, and subsidised reference books that SA does in the U.K.

JustinDee wrote: »

I've already pointed out the plethora of insulting videos and speeches about Jews and Christians and where they can be found

Yes, and where is the worldwide orgy of violence and threats arising from each?

Memnoch

When the British were ruling India there were countless attacks by freedom fighters on British soldiers and officers in the fight for freedom. Today these would be labelled as terrorists. If they had the means to I'm sure they would have struck at british interests around the world.

The IRA for example did launch attacks in Britain.

Islamic terrorism is a direct result of Western warmongering for greed. Warmongering and exploitation that has been going on for decades now. Including but not limited to selling arms to dictators and helping to keep them in power and then invading and deposing them when they are no longer useful.

I'm not saying terrorism is justifiable. But to say that the cause of terrorism is some kind of inherent or exclusive Islamic problem is naieve and short sighted.

JustinDee

SeanW wrote: »

Yes, and where is the worldwide orgy of violence and threats arising from each?

I've already made that point, so relax.

My reply to earlier poster was that they cannot credibly lump all Muslims into one stereotype as they can't with your own religious demograph or mine.

czx

Memnoch wrote: »

Islamic terrorism is a direct result of Western warmongering for greed.

Can't believe people buy into this stuff

JustinDee

Memnoch wrote: »

Islamic terrorism is a direct result of Western warmongering for greed. Warmongering and exploitation that has been going on for decades now. Including but not limited to selling arms to dictators and helping to keep them in power and then invading and deposing them when they are no longer useful.

I'm not saying terrorism is justifiable. But to say that the cause of terrorism is some kind of inherent or exclusive Islamic problem is naieve and short sighted.

Extremism is certainly pro-agendaic but your claim is far too simplistic to take as de facto, not forgetting myopic.
It comes in various guises which are not exclusive to any one section of society or a particular type of government or government practice. Causes become hijacked by various factions as they have done.

This so-called "warmongering" you mention is a little tilted. There are other sides involved that are not aligned to whom you nail as the guilty party. All mentioned in various threads on Middle East or global conflict issues. I point out that the USSR, for example, were just as culpable in the shaping of the post-war Middle East as the main constituent of that 'other' bloc. The remnants of this bloc v bloc cold war still remain with these alliances still affecting outcomes.

These protests are organised at ground level by pro-agendaic groups. The insult over this silly video with the vast majority of Muslims amongst us, if any, is as contained as anyone would wish it to be. If it wasn't, there'd be chaos on the streets and more people would be murdered. As it happens, this apocalyptic showdown doesn't get to happen.
Everyone has a right to protest and can be upset. Some hijack these causes though to suit agendae. Not everyone. Not the majority. Just some. And the 'causes' can be anything from protests against globalisation to the Love Ulster parade.

czx

JustinDee wrote: »

I've already made that point, so relax.

My reply to earlier poster was that they cannot credibly lump all Muslims into one stereotype as they can't with your own religious demograph or mine.

Yes, but at the same time don't become blind to the wider picture.

Laminations

JustinDee wrote: »

My reply to earlier poster was that they cannot credibly lump all Muslims into one stereotype as they can't with your own religious demograph or mine.

In the grand scheme of things being discussed, so what? A poster could stereotype all muslims all day but the biggest offense to Islam is the killing in the name of. Not the insults, not the generalisations. And in terms of Kantian universality, I'd prefer a world of stereotyping bigots than a world of murdering fundamentalists.

Some British regarded all Irish people as terrorists. While that annoyed me it paled in comparison to the acts of the IRA who were busy at work getting Irish people that name, killing in my name and under the banner of republicanism.

Not all Muslims are the same. The vast majority of 1.6 odd billion are peaceful. Fundamentalism wasn't invented by and isnt limited to Islam. Nevertheless the thread is about Islamic fundamentalism as that's what is causing the recent violence and deaths.