Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies

Peregrinus

Well, you could make exactly the same argument against the use of the term "homophobia", couldn't you? And "xenophobia"? And all the other -phobias?

Perhaps you just don't like the "-phobia" suffix, or don't find it useful?

And just to clarify, when you say . . .

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Anti-Muslim discrimination/bigotry is fine.

. . . I take it that you mean that the term "anti-Muslim discrimination/bigotry" is a good term to describe the phenomenon, and not that the phenomenon itself is unobjectionable?

silverharp

Here is a hilarious Aussi takedown of SJW's reaction to the Reclaim Australia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9er0v7pfqkM

jackofalltrades

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, you could make exactly the same argument against the use of the term "homophobia", couldn't you? And "xenophobia"? And all the other -phobias?

No, Islam is a belief system/ideology the others aren't.

Perhaps you just don't like the "-phobia" suffix, or don't find it useful?

I've no issue when it's used in the context of an irrational fear/hatred/dislike.
Trying to use it to describe a dislike of a religion/ideology is disingenuous.
It's inappropriately using the word so as to take advantage of the stigma associated with it.

. . . I take it that you mean that the term "anti-Muslim discrimination/bigotry" is a good term to describe the phenomenon, and not that the phenomenon itself is unobjectionable?

Yeah just edited my post to make it clearer that I was talking about the term.

Peregrinus

jackofalltrades wrote: »

No, Islam is a belief system/ideology the others aren't.

I've no issue when it's used in the context of an irrational fear/hatred/dislike.
Trying to use it to describe a dislike of a religion/ideology is disingenuous.
It's inappropriately using the word so as to take advantage of the stigma associated with it.

Not necessarily, surely?

Or are you saying that you consider it impossible to have an irrational fear/hatred/dislke of a belief system/religion/ideology?

MrPudding

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not necessarily, surely?

Or are you saying that you consider it impossible to have an irrational fear/hatred/dislke of a belief system/religion/ideology?

The cartoonists in Charlie Hebdo were called Islamaphobic. Would you say they had an irrational fear?

MrP

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not necessarily, surely?

Or are you saying that you consider it impossible to have an irrational fear/hatred/dislke of a belief system/religion/ideology?

it depends on your definition of "irrational"?, based on the def below, that's quite a high bar

"Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent, as from shock"

Peregrinus

MrPudding wrote: »

The cartoonists in Charlie Hebdo were called Islamaphobic. Would you say they had an irrational fear?

MrP

Well, I don't know what they hated and feared.

But if they hated and feared Islam then, yes, that was irrational - just as irrational as hating and fearing republicanism, on account of the phenomenon of republican terrorism, would be.

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

it depends on your definition of "irrational"?, based on the def below, that's quite a high bar

"Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent, as from shock"

But, again, if you apply that standard to all the other -phobia terms we use, you'd find them all equally misnamed, wouldn't you?

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, again, if you apply that standard to all the other -phobia terms we use, you'd find them all equally misnamed, wouldn't you?

it implies to me blanket , if someone hates every black person , every gay person, every muslim, then its as close to irrational as you will get. As for a belief system or ideas in the end you weigh it up and take a view. Is it possible to have an irrational view of Nazism? I dont think so. It might be possible to have an overwhelmingly disproportionate response to people that that have such views but it is fully rational to say that beliefs have consequences.

Peregrinus

Two points:

First, I think you're making a distinction here between (a) people, and (b) a set of beliefs - e.g. hatred of Islam vs. hatred of Muslims, hatred of homosexuality vs. hatred of homosexuals, hatred of Judaism vs. hatred of Jews.

Fair enough, up to a point. But only up to a point. I think we all know how we feel about someone who denies that he has any prejudice against homosexual people, but opposes the expression of homosexuality. The fact is that they way these things play out is the same; giving effect to your dislike for homosexuality is oppressive to gay people, giving effect to your dislike for Islam is oppressive to Muslims, giving effect to your dislike for Judaism is oppressive to Jews. So sometimes - not always, but sometimes - this ideology/people distinction is just a cover for bigotry. And, even when it's not a cover for bigotry , all to often in the way it plays out it might as well be bigotry. It's just as oppressive in practice. So we need to be a bit wary of this.

Secondly, it's fully rational to say that beliefs have consequences, but it may be less rational to pick the consequences of selected beliefs, and hate and fear those beliefs, while ignoring the similar consequences of other beliefs. If people do bad thing in the name of Islam and you hate and fear Islam as a result, but you don't feel the same way about bad things done in the name of democracy, or republicanism, that's not really rational, is it?

A secular and democratic republic, intentionally built on enlightenment values, dropped an atom bomb on a city full of noncombatants, chosen because it had no military significance. And then did the same thing again the following week, on a different city. And to this day, that secular and democratic republic holds a nuclear arsenal sufficient to destroy all life on the planet, and they hold themselves free to use it against enemies who do not have or do not use nuclear weapon. All this was justified, and is still justified, with appeals to "freedom".

No Islamist terrorist has ever managed to pull off anything quite like that in the name of Islam, have they? On that basis, would it not be just as rational, if not more rational, to hate and fear freedom as it to hate and fear Islam?

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

Two points:

First, I think you're making a distinction here between (a) people, and (b) a set of beliefs - e.g. hatred of Islam vs. hatred of Muslims, hatred of homosexuality vs. hatred of homosexuals, hatred of Judaism vs. hatred of Jews.

Fair enough, up to a point. But only up to a point. I think we all know how we feel about someone who denies that he has any prejudice against homosexual people, but opposes the expression of homosexuality. The fact is that they way these things play out is the same; giving effect to your dislike for homosexuality is oppressive to gay people, giving effect to your dislike for Islam is oppressive to Muslims, giving effect to your dislike for Judaism is oppressive to Jews. So sometimes - not always, but sometimes - this ideology/people distinction is just a cover for bigotry. And, even when it's not a cover for bigotry , all to often in the way it plays out it might as well be bigotry. It's just as oppressive in practice. So we need to be a bit wary of this.

Secondly, it's fully rational to say that beliefs have consequences, but it may be less rational to pick the consequences of selected beliefs, and hate and fear those beliefs, while ignoring the similar consequences of other beliefs. If people do bad thing in the name of Islam and you hate and fear Islam as a result, but you don't feel the same way about bad things done in the name of democracy, or republicanism, that's not really rational, is it?

A secular and democratic republic, intentionally built on enlightenment values, dropped an atom bomb on a city full of noncombatants, chosen because it had no military significance. And then did the same thing again the following week, on a different city. And to this day, that secular and democratic republic holds a nuclear arsenal sufficient to destroy all life on the planet, and they hold themselves free to use it against enemies who do not have or do not use nuclear weapon. All this was justified, and is still justified, with appeals to "freedom".

No Islamist terrorist has ever managed to pull off anything quite like that in the name of Islam, have they? On that basis, would it not be just as rational, if not more rational, to hate and fear freedom as it to hate and fear Islam?

Homosexuality is a state of being so you cant separate the person from the state of being a homosexual.On the other hand if you can convert into something and apostate out then its possible to talk about these ideas.
As for secularism , the human condition is to make mistakes and move on. A lot of the acts carried out by the Allies in WW2 would be war crimes if they were committed again. Also to the extent that countries like the US are still overly interventionist Ill argue all day against someone who wants to do more "Iraqs" so we are back to a battle of ideas

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

Homosexuality is a state of being so you cant separate the person from the state of being a homosexual.On the other hand if you can convert into something and apostate out then its possible to talk about these ideas.

Well, homosexual acts aren't a given. You'd give short shrift to somebody who opposed homosexual acts, but insisted he had no prejudice against homosexual people. And yet it's arguably easier to choose to refrain from engaging in homosexual acts than it is to choose not to hold particular beliefs.

The fact that someobody can choose not to be a Muslim isn't, I think, any kind of defence of anti-Muslim sentiment. Somebody can just as easily choose not to be an atheist, or a democrat, or a republican, or a secularist. Can we hate on them all?

silverharp wrote: »

As for secularism , the human condition is to make mistakes and move on. A lot of the acts carried out by the Allies in WW2 would be war crimes if they were committed again. Also to the extent that countries like the US are still overly interventionist Ill argue all day against someone who wants to do more "Iraqs" so we are back to a battle of ideas

You seem to conceding my point here, silverharp. Yes, dreadful things were done in the name of freedom, democracy, etc. Therefore, freedom-phobia is just as justified (or just as unjustified) as Islamophobia, no?

Where do we stand on homeopath-a-phobia? Or pyramid-scheme-a-phobia? Or any other bollox-peddling-a-phobia?

130Kph

The cartoonists in Charlie Hebdo were called Islamaphobic. Would you say they had an irrational fear?

MrP

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, I don't know what they hated and feared.

But if they hated and feared Islam then, yes, that was irrational - just as irrational as hating and fearing republicanism, on account of the phenomenon of republican terrorism, would be.

That’s fine.

Lets say then for completeness, that they were equal opportunity satirists. Lets say thay didn’t hate and fear Islam but they disliked it – as they appeared to dislike all religions esp christianity.

They certainly hated Islamic terrorism, I imagine, like most rational people.

So, if one accepts this - arguably more likely situation, then those who call them Islamophobic are either a bit thick or a bit of a Jihadist enabler. Would you agree?

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, homosexual acts aren't a given. You'd give short shrift to somebody who opposed homosexual acts, but insisted he had no prejudice against homosexual people. And yet it's arguably easier to choose to refrain from engaging in homosexual acts than it is to choose not to hold particular beliefs.

The fact that someobody can choose not to be a Muslim isn't, I think, any kind of defence of anti-Muslim sentiment. Somebody can just as easily choose not to be an atheist, or a democrat, or a republican, or a secularist. Can we hate on them all?


You seem to conceding my point here, silverharp. Yes, dreadful things were done in the name of freedom, democracy, etc. Therefore, freedom-phobia is just as justified (or just as unjustified) as Islamophobia, no?

But there is no rational reason not to engage in homosexual acts , only religious or some totalitarian idea of what the perfect person ought to be.
Again we are back to ideas . if its worth valuing ideas like free speech and individual freedom for people to live their lives how they choose , then one is going to challenge the ideas of people who wish to overturn this.



I don't think there is anything to concede , Christian states did awful things throughout history and if someone went back in time to give these people nukes they would have used them in many cases. I dont think anything is lost having a separation of church and state, its progress . and I wouldn't support any Amish or secular Amish position .
To flip it around if the whole world converted to islam there would be peace but it is nonsensical as it ought not be on the table anymore than suggesting the whole planet ought to be devout catholic or vegan.

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

But there is no rational reason not to engage in homosexual acts , only religious or some totalitarian idea of what the perfect person ought to be.
Again we are back to ideas . if its worth valuing ideas like free speech and individual freedom for people to live their lives how they choose , then one is going to challenge the ideas of people who wish to overturn this.

And since, if they drop a nuclear bomb on you, you no longer have freedom of speech or the freedom to live your life how you choose, or indeed a range of other freedoms, you should take exactly the same attitude to ideas in whose name nuclear bombs are dropped as you to do ideas in whose name journalists and cartoonists are murdered, no?

I keep asking this question, and you keep conspicuously not answering it.

silverharp wrote: »

don't think there is anything to concede , Christian states did awful things throughout history and if someone went back in time to give these people nukes they would have used them in many cases. I dont think anything is lost having a separation of church and state, its progress . and I wouldn't support any Amish or secular Amish position .

But my question wasn’t about what Christian states might have done in the name of Christianity, if they had nuclear weapons. My question was about what a secular, democratic, enlightenment whichdoes have nuclear weapons did actually do, in the name of freedom, and holds itself free to do again.

Again, if it’s rational to hate and fear Islam on account of the dreadful things some people have done in the name of Islam, why is it not rational to hate and fear freedom on account of the even more dreadful things that some people have done in the name of freedom?

silverharp wrote: »

To flip it around if the whole world converted to islam there would be peace but it is nonsensical as it ought not be on the table anymore than suggesting the whole planet ought to be devout catholic or vegan.

This (a) is nonsense (if the whole world converted to Islam, or Catholicism, or veganism there would not be peace; you know this) and (b) has nothing to do with anything I have said.

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

And since, if they drop a nuclear bomb on you, you no longer have freedom of speech or the freedom to live your life how you choose, or indeed a range of other freedoms, you should take exactly the same attitude to ideas in whose name nuclear bombs are dropped as you to do ideas in whose name journalists and cartoonists are murdered, no?

I keep asking this question, and you keep conspicuously not answering it.

No , technological advance is a given and politics is clearly imperfect. Im not sure what I am not answering? the worst form of governments are totalitarian. A republic has checks and balances so is a better choice. I think targeting civilians is inherently wrong and the first nuclear bomb could just as easily been dropped 20km out in Tokyo bay. What happened in 45 would be illegal now so one can argue that here has been progress, it would be unacceptable for a country like the US to engage in Total war against a civilian population. You cant take everything off the table? you have to start from somewhere?

Peregrinus wrote: »

But my question wasn’t about what Christian states might have done in the name of Christianity, if they had nuclear weapons. My question was about what a secular, democratic, enlightenment whichdoes have nuclear weapons did actually do, in the name of freedom, and holds itself free to do again.

Again, if it’s rational to hate and fear Islam on account of the dreadful things some people have done in the name of Islam, why is it not rational to hate and fear freedom on account of the even more dreadful things that some people have done in the name of freedom?


This (a) is nonsense (if the whole world converted to Islam, or Catholicism, or veganism there would not be peace; you know this) and (b) has nothing to do with anything I have said.

[/QUOTE]

because Islam is an added layer of nonsense , it cant be valid so cant possibly be a time immemorial solution to anything also here you are mixing behaviour at the individual level to what states do to each other , a democracy treats homosexuals and women and free thinkers better than Islam right? so there are clear reasons to want to take Islam off the table
Well I sort of fear the current situation as well , which is why its worth fighting to improve it. Dont you think in 50 years time there could be improved structures and lessons learned from say, what the US did to Iraq in the last 15 years?

KomradeBishop

silverharp wrote: »

because Islam is an added layer of nonsense , it cant be valid so cant possibly be a time immemorial solution to anything also here you are mixing behaviour at the individual level to what states do to each other , a democracy treats homosexuals and women and free thinkers better than Islam right? so there are clear reasons to want to take Islam off the table
Well I sort of fear the current situation as well , which is why its worth fighting to improve it. Dont you think in 50 years time there could be improved structures and lessons learned from say, what the US did to Iraq in the last 15 years?

The Muslim Brotherhood gained power in Egypt through democratic elections, and they were removed in a coup - it's not 'Democracy vs Islam', democracy has led to some of these Islamic groups coming to power.

The only lesson to learn from Iraq, and all of the other wars that have gone on in the region, is that if you blow the shít out of huge numbers of civilians and destroy/destabilize entire countries, then you radicalise a significant number of people and start sending droves of them into movements like ISIS, and make many of them choose to support extremely conservative ideologies, in reaction against those who are attacking them.

After war and fighting has actually created and strengthened these movements, thinking that more war and fighting is the answer, is as stupid/nonsensical as saying that the solution to gun violence, is to give everyone a gun.


If you truly respect democracy and desire democracy for these people, you need to respect their right to democratically elect an Islamic government, and then just stay the hell out of their business, as it's all a domestic issue and nobody elses business anyway.

If you don't do that, you end up creating/propping-up dictatorships in e.g. Egypt, or you end up pissing people off enough, that they will go to war instead of you - as ISIS are doing now - and the nation/state that they create, will be far more conservative and brutal, than what came before - only making the problem worse (but then this is the real intention behind the western wars in the region: the US does not want the wars to ever end, as they are a hugely profitable boondoggle, for those involved).


Fact is, ISIS have already won and are unstoppable - they are arguably receiving support from Turkey and everything (especially in fighting the Kurds).

They are going to create a unified country out of the remnants of Iraq/Syria, and when the dust settles, the rest of the world will have to deal with them democratically - and that is the only way to deal with them, that isn't going to just make things worse.

You can directly thank war and fighting from the west, for boosting the entire rise of highly conservative Islamic practices; you fight them with more wars and civilian deaths, you're going to make that rise even more strongly.

silverharp

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The Muslim Brotherhood gained power in Egypt through democratic elections, and they were removed in a coup - it's not 'Democracy vs Islam', democracy has led to some of these Islamic groups coming to power.

The only lesson to learn from Iraq, and all of the other wars that have gone on in the region, is that if you blow the shít out of huge numbers of civilians and destroy/destabilize entire countries, then you radicalise a significant number of people and start sending droves of them into movements like ISIS, and make many of them choose to support extremely conservative ideologies, in reaction against those who are attacking them.

After war and fighting has actually created and strengthened these movements, thinking that more war and fighting is the answer, is as stupid/nonsensical as saying that the solution to gun violence, is to give everyone a gun.


If you truly respect democracy and desire democracy for these people, you need to respect their right to democratically elect an Islamic government, and then just stay the hell out of their business, as it's all a domestic issue and nobody elses business anyway.

If you don't do that, you end up creating/propping-up dictatorships in e.g. Egypt, or you end up pissing people off enough, that they will go to war instead of you - as ISIS are doing now - and the nation/state that they create, will be far more conservative and brutal, than what came before - only making the problem worse (but then this is the real intention behind the western wars in the region: the US does not want the wars to ever end, as they are a hugely profitable boondoggle, for those involved).


Fact is, ISIS have already won and are unstoppable - they are arguably receiving support from Turkey and everything (especially in fighting the Kurds).

They are going to create a unified country out of the remnants of Iraq/Syria, and when the dust settles, the rest of the world will have to deal with them democratically - and that is the only way to deal with them, that isn't going to just make things worse.

You can directly thank war and fighting from the west, for boosting the entire rise of highly conservative Islamic practices; you fight them with more wars and civilian deaths, you're going to make that rise even more strongly.

To generalise the point I would support any dissent against a democracy that votes itself into a dictatorship . wouldn't a coup in 33 been the right response to Hitler?
As for isis I reckon they will implode because everyone hates them with other muslims being top of the list. The only reason they made gains quickly was because of the support ftom saddam's top people.

KomradeBishop

silverharp wrote: »

To generalise the point I would support any dissent against a democracy that votes itself into a dictatorship . wouldn't a coup in 33 been the right response to Hitler?
As for isis I reckon they will implode because everyone hates them with other muslims being top of the list. The only reason they made gains quickly was because of the support ftom saddam's top people.

Eh? Egypt didn't vote itself into a dictatorship, the coup against the democratically elected Islamic government there, put the country into a dictatorship...

You don't support democracy at all really, because you seem to support the overthrow of democracy, and the conversion of a country into a dictatorship, whenever an Islamic government is democratically elected.

Not surprising really, as nobody who cites 'democracy' as a reason for going to war in the middle east, really wants it at all - indeed most of them defend turning places like Egypt into a dictatorship.

silverharp

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Eh? Egypt didn't vote itself into a dictatorship, the coup against the democratically elected Islamic government there, put the country into a dictatorship...

You don't support democracy at all really, because you seem to support the overthrow of democracy, and the conversion of a country into a dictatorship, whenever an Islamic government is democratically elected.

Not surprising really, as nobody who cites 'democracy' as a reason for going to war in the middle east, really wants it at all - indeed most of them defend turning places like Egypt into a dictatorship.

The country is a mess but morsi was trying to pervert the democratic process. He was in the pocket of the Muslim brotherhood and was heading in the direction of becoming an Islamic state

KomradeBishop

silverharp wrote: »

The country is a mess but morsi was trying to pervert the democratic process. He was in the pocket of the Muslim brotherhood and was heading in the direction of becoming an Islamic state

Morsi was democratically elected - the country decided to vote in a leader who supported the Muslim Brotherhood and had values leaning towards becoming an Islamic state - and you have no evidence that he would have suspended democracy.

What you're defending is pretty ridiculous as well - it amounts to: 'replacing the democratically elected government with a dictator, was necessary to save democracy!'
It's a bit like the "we had to destroy the village in order to save it" reasoning.


I think you've lost any credibility here, of caring about democracy, when you openly support the overthrow of a democratic government, with a dictatorship.

As unpalatable as extremely conservative Islamism is, it also covers movements that are democratic, and which have been democratically elected into government - and it's very telling that your opposition to all things Islam, actually extends to replacing democratic governments with dictatorships, in order to get rid of Islamic governments.

That's an extremely irrational/arrogant and dangerously anti-democratic point of view.

robindch

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Morsi was democratically elected - the country decided to vote in a leader who supported the Muslim Brotherhood and had values leaning towards becoming an Islamic state - and you have no evidence that he would have suspended democracy.

Morsi might have been elected by a slim majority in a democratic election in the middle of 2012, but towards the end of the year, he gave himself "full executive and legislative powers", effectively appointing himself dictator of the country:

http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/50248.aspx

In doing this, Morsi certainly did suspend democracy.

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

No , technological advance is a given and politics is clearly imperfect. I'm not sure what I am not answering?

You're not answering this question:

If it's rational to hate and fear Islam because of atrocities committed in the name of Islam, is it not also rational to hate and fear freedom, democracy, republicanism or any other ideology in whose name similar or worse atrocities are committed?

This has nothing to do with technological advances, or checks and balances, or any of the other smokescreens that you keep throwing up to try and avoid this question. If you claim that the fear and hatred of Islam is a rational response to atrocities perpetrated in the name of Islam than, if you are rational, you should fear and hate any ideology in whose name atrocities are perpetrated. If you don't, then you are either not being rational, or not being honest (perhaps even to yourself) about the true motivations for fear and hatred of Islam.

KomradeBishop

robindch wrote: »

Morsi might have been elected by a slim majority in a democratic election in the middle of 2012, but towards the end of the year, he gave himself "full executive and legislative powers", effectively appointing himself dictator of the country:

http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/50248.aspx

In doing this, Morsi certainly did suspend democracy.

He greatly eroded the post-Mubarak democracy, but he did not suspended it - the coup that replaced him, did suspend it; good article here comparing Morsi and the subsequent military dictatorship:

None of this changes the fact that the Morsi government, in absolute terms, was a failure. Morsi and the Brotherhood, animated by majoritarianism, did not govern in the spirit of inclusive democracy. The Islamist-dominated constitution-drafting process produced a deeply flawed and illiberal framework—though over 60 percent of Egyptians ultimately voted in favor of the document amid low voter turnout. But, as incompetent and divisive a president as Morsi no doubt was, the opposition still had recourse to counter and constrain executive action. And, for us, this is the key consideration: Can the opposition oppose the government, through the organization of political parties and protests, as well as through the media?

None of these channels are afforded to the Islamist opposition—or any other opposition—under Egypt’s current leaders, who have effectively criminalized dissent (as when three Strong Egypt party members were sentenced to three years in prison for hanging up posters calling for a “no” vote in the country’s recent constitutional referendum). The new political order is closed to a broad swath of the population in a way that it never was under Morsi or even Mubarak.

Many critiques of Morsi’s year in office advance two simultaneous assumptions, claiming that the Muslim Brotherhood-led government was both incompetent and autocratic. There is substantial evidence for the first claim, reflected in the mismanagement of the economy and the seemingly endless gaffes, missteps, and policy reversals. But the evidence for the latter, as we have shown, is quite thin.

The tragedy of Egypt’s failed transition is a tragedy of perception and expectations. Decades of transitions show that Morsi, while inept and majoritarian, was no more autocratic than a typical transitional leader and was more democratic than other leaders during societal transitions. In Egypt, the coup dismantled fragile democratic institutions, based on fears of the future rather than the substance of the present. This is a polity in which the opposition has little, if any, recourse and where even mild dissent is met with arrest. What remains—and what is likely to remain for some time—is a military-led regime with few checks on its power. Egypt’s descent into autocracy is bad enough, on its own, but it did not come out of nowhere. It was legitimized and justified based on a fundamental misreading and distortion of what came before.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/was-mohammed-morsi-really-an-autocrat/359797/

The government under Morsi, was far more democratic than the military dictatorship that ensued after the coup, and in the context of a country still undergoing significant societal and political transitions, was not far removed from past precedent, for countries undergoing those conditions.

robindch

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The government under Morsi, was far more democratic than the military dictatorship that ensued after the coup [...]

It's at least arguable whether or not that's the case.

What is not arguable is that your claim that there was "no evidence that he would have suspended democracy" is false, for the simple reason that Morsi did suspend democracy (and he triggered several more rounds of national instability on account of having done so).

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're not answering this question:

If it's rational to hate and fear Islam because of atrocities committed in the name of Islam, is it not also rational to hate and fear freedom, democracy, republicanism or any other ideology in whose name similar or worse atrocities are committed?

This has nothing to do with technological advances, or checks and balances, or any of the other smokescreens that you keep throwing up to try and avoid this question. If you claim that the fear and hatred of Islam is a rational response to atrocities perpetrated in the name of Islam than, if you are rational, you should fear and hate any ideology in whose name atrocities are perpetrated. If you don't, then you are either not being rational, or not being honest (perhaps even to yourself) about the true motivations for fear and hatred of Islam.

Well firstly I live in Ireland so my taxes have not been used to commit atrocities abroad . I could list dozens of others that havnt either in the recent past. So I don't have a default fear of democracy. It needs to be watched , there needs to be a strong judicial arm and a strong constitution .
On the other hand there isnt an Islamic country on earth that I would consider as acceptable as a model to be lived under.
What i see is certain countries that because of their size and regardless of their system will do crappy things.

Peregrinus

Again, silverharp, you're dancing around the question is a way that reflects no credit on you. We're not talking about countries here, or how your taxes are applied; we're talking about ideologies. There are millions of Muslims who have never murdered journalists and who are revolted at the idea, but you hate and fear Islam because journalists have been murdered by those claiming to act in its name. Given that, there is no sense in your pointing to democracies that haven't dropped atom bombs on cities full of non-combatants in the name of freedom. It's not rational to decide your view of Islam based on the atrocities that have been committed in its name, but to decide your view of other ideologies based on atrocities that could have been committed in their name but haven't been, while ignoring those which actually have. There's a fairly obvious double standard at work here.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

[...] there is no sense in your pointing to democracies that haven't dropped atom bombs on cities full of non-combatants in the name of freedom.

I don't immediately recall anybody claiming that the two Japanese nukes were dropped in the name of freedom.

"Attempting to terminate a war" and "sending a message to potential future aggressors" - yes. "Freedom" - no.

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

Again, silverharp, we're dancing around the question is a way that reflects no credit on you. We're not talking about countries here, we're talking about ideologies. There are millions of Muslims who have never murdered journalists and who are revolted at the idea, but you hate and fear Islam because journalists have been murdered by those claiming to act in its name. Given that, there is no sense in your pointing to democracies that haven't dropped atom bombs on cities full of non-combatants in the name of freedom. It's not rational to decide your view of Islam based on the atrocities that have been committed in its name, but to decide your view of other ideologies based on atrocities that could have been committed in their name but haven't been, while ignoring those which actually have. There's a fairly obvious double standard at work here.

You have put plenty of words in my mouth. I primarily have a dislike of Islam based on what it does to individuals who adhere to it. Personally I dont go on that much about terrorism because I can see that 99% of Muslims will never become a terrorist. However if being a Muslim gives most people the idea that homosexuality is inherently wrong and ought to be illegal in some manner then my Roger Moore eyebrow gives a twitch. Or for instance their attitude to women or their attitude to education. If you think its bad in Ireland Saudi kids have 9 periods a week of religious education . then we have issues over freedom of speech which is essential for progress.
All I need to be able to defend is that Muslims are worse off because of their religious belief. They are approaching the world not having all cylinders firing.