Response to the cartoon argument

[kmortis]

For the Muslims, the cartoons were a display of arrogance by imperialists.

Yes, and the beheading of an innocent man live via internet (courtsey of Al- Jazeera) is a display of the much touted peace. Gotcha.

I'm just so sorry if I'm having a hard time mustering up the proper sympathy for this particular fantasy cult. They have repeatedly demonstrated themselves to behave little better than how they did in the 1300's. The images were harmless, put in an "infidel" newpaper (which makes it, to Islamic's eyes less than human) so where's the rub? This has more to do with them getting uppity over Iraq et al than anything else.

I do like, however, how the Muslims have this desire to shoot themselves in the foot by ripping on Norway. The Norwegians were one of the last truely neutral countries in this conflict...not any more.

 

[bignickel]

Yeah, thanks jramsey for the tu quoque there. Not only tu quoque, but not even on the same level. Heck, not even the same platform.

What does that have to do with a religion which teaches it's adherents things along the lines of "He who defames the prophet must die"? And in which the most of them have no problem with that sentament? (Don't believe me? Where was the "moderate" response when the death warrent was issued on Rushdie?)

What we have here are people following a religion which is civilized... for the 14th century. Civilized people do NOT torch embassies and threaten death over a phudging cartoon! The sooner we recognize that we are dealing with a group where the 'moderates' are the minority (in the same way that 'moderates' in Europe during the witchburnings and Inquisition were the minority), the sooner we can start to deal with what is going to be a very large problem this century.

Or will it take an atomic terrorist blast to wake people up enough to take notice?

Here's an recommended book I purchased at TAM4. Very recommended:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/03...f=pd_bbs_1/103-5808801-3887059?_encoding=UTF8

"The End Of Faith" by Sam Harris

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

What does that have to do with a religion which teaches it's adherents things along the lines of "He who defames the prophet must die"? And in which the most of them have no problem with that sentament? (Don't believe me? Where was the "moderate" response when the death warrent was issued on Rushdie?)

I mostly agree with you, but this is a stupid argument and it must be stomped on whenever it is dragged out again. If you have evidence the majority of Muslims in the world support this sort of nonsense then pony it up. "But I didn't hear anything about a moderate Muslim response on the news!" is not evidence of mass support.

Too many do, of course, but painting the majority of Muslims as lunatics is false, counterproductive and offensive.

Or will it take an atomic terrorist blast to wake people up enough to take notice?

I'll pretend you didn't type that.

 

[kmortis]

Kevin,
I'll tell ya what, once the "moderate" muslims start taking back their religion from these fundamentalists who will lie, cheat and murder to further their cause, I'll listen to them. Until then, however, the only evidence that I have is that they are quite willing to allow these idiots to do the speaking for them.

When Robertson does something stupid, the vast majority of Evangelicals step up and decry him as a moron who doesn't speak for them. Where's the parity? I just dont' see it. I've seen an Islamic newspaper editor who called for sanity, only to get threatened. So, I'll continue to ridicule Islam until such time as they step into the 21st century. Or they kill me, which ever comes first.

 

[Iacchus]

Accept Mohammed or, Die by the sword? Isn't that pretty much how the religion started?

 

[jjramsey]

http://forums.randi.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1424682

Well, if that be the case, then it's at least a change of scenery for Denmark, Norway, and France to be blamed for imperialism.

A big part of that is that Europe as a whole is considered "The West" and is thought of as a more-or-less monolithic bloc. That's not reality, and it's not fair, but AFAICT, that's how they see us. It's not that unusual, really, seeing the enemy as an undifferentiated "Them," and in a more group-centered culture, it's even easier.

Yes, and the beheading of an innocent man live via internet (courtsey of Al- Jazeera) is a display of the much touted peace. Gotcha.

That's not peace; that's revenge. Again, it isn't fair, but they see that beheaded man as less a person, and more as one of Them.

So I am skeptical of any attitude that 'western' people are some kind of historic oppressors of Islam.

The history in question is more recent, as when the British controlled what is now Iraq. Also, the U.S. did interfere in Iranian politics when it deposed a socialist democratic government and installed the shah as a puppet ruler. If the U.S. hadn't meddled, there may never have been a Khomeini government. It may be laughable to us, but many Arabs are even afraid of the spectre of a Greater Israel taking over territory from the Nile to the Euphrates. I know it's silly; Israel has too many troubles on its doorstep to be expending resources to go out conquering, but it is very much a part of extremist propaganda nonetheless.

Fundamentalism is essentially a reaction to a perceived threat. In the U.S., the perceived threat is secularism, and since the political infrastructure there is predominantly nonviolent, Christian fundies usually fight with words rather than bullets, and the ones that don't are considered extreme even for fundies. In the Middle East, the perceived threat is a quasi-colonialism from the West, and since there is limited infrastructure for nonviolent political conflict, power there often flows from the barrel of a gun, so not too surprisingly bombs do at least as much of the talking as words.

 

[jjramsey]

I'm just so sorry if I'm having a hard time mustering up the proper sympathy for this particular fantasy cult.

It's not about sympathy. The ones who burned down the embassies are long past sympathy. It's about trying to figure out what is going on and being suspicious of the neat, plausible and wrong answers which are in ready supply. Looking at the underlying tensions and politics and trying to get a grip on how the other side sees the conflict is not the same thing as excusing the other side.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Just a hopefully non-pedantic note: it wasn't Mapplethorpe, it was Andres Serrano.

 

[bignickel]

I mostly agree with you, but this is a stupid argument and it must be stomped on whenever it is dragged out again. If you have evidence the majority of Muslims in the world support this sort of nonsense then pony it up. "But I didn't hear anything about a moderate Muslim response on the news!" is not evidence of mass support.

Too many do, of course, but painting the majority of Muslims as lunatics is false, counterproductive and offensive.

I'll pretend you didn't type that.

A few months ago I might have agreed with you. I do of course agree with your request for evidence; always a good thing to ask for.

So, here we go:

38,000 people surveyed by Pew Research Center for the People and the Press in 2002: "What the World Thinks in 2002" (www.people-press.org)

Some people think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies. Other people believe that, no matter what the reason, this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?

Now, if we collapse responses to 'EVER justified', this is what we get:
Yes No DK/Refused
Lebanon 82 12 6
Ivory Coast 73 27 0
Nigeria 66 26 8
Jordan 65 26 8
Bangladesh 58 23 19
Mali 54 35 11
Senegal 47 50 3
Ghana 44 43 12
Indoesia 43 54 3
Uganda 40 52 8
Pakistan 38 38 23
Turkey 20 64 14

Disturbing? You'll notice that Saudia Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Iran, Suday, Iraq, and the Palestinian territories were NOT included in the survey. This is NOT what we should expect from civilized neighbors. At LEAST from a safety POV alone! "vast majority as lunatics" - well, gosh, I'd have to say yep: guilty as charged. As for the silent 'minority' of Muslims: there's a very obvious reason why they're silent. They don't want to end up dead.

Maybe you should NOT pretend I didn't write it. Check out Harris' book: it's not if, it's when.

 

[epepke]

A big part of that is that Europe as a whole is considered "The West" and is thought of as a more-or-less monolithic bloc. That's not reality, and it's not fair, but AFAICT, that's how they see us. It's not that unusual, really, seeing the enemy as an undifferentiated "Them," and in a more group-centered culture, it's even easier.

Tell that to the Europeans who were spending all that time disassociating themselves from the US a couple of years ago.

Now Europeans are finding out.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Now, if we collapse responses to 'EVER justified', this is what we get:

Well, "ever justified" is a fairly strong term. A lot of USians believe it was justified to bomb Cambodian villages during the Vietnam war, or justified to hit a restaurant full of civilians with missiles because they had a tip-off Saddam Hussein might be there. A lot of USians believe it was justified to be ready to use nuclear weapons on Soviet cities full of civilians during the Cold War, in the event of a nuclear war.

Being ready to target civilians under some circumstances is not something the Islamic world has a monopoly on.

By collapsing all responses into generic approval it seems to me you are cooking the books in favour of the conclusion you want, and by not mentioning the fact that First World powers are willing to target civilians in pursuit of their policies too you make it seem like this is an exclusively Islamic position.

Has there been a study of how many people in the USA believe it would be justified to use violence against civilian targets to defend the USA from terrorism? If you asked the same question and "collapsed" the answers the same way I would not be surprised if you got a reasonable number of USians saying it was sometimes justified.

 

[bignickel]

"Cooking the books"? Are you on crack?

We are talking about asking someone if they think it's justified to KILL civilian targets to defend their RELIGION.

ANYONE who says 'yes', no matter if it's to 'often', 'sometimes', or 'rarely', is a THREAT to civilization and a loony.

The Pew Research Center threw 'rarely' in there to soften the blow, but it's a weasel tactic; someone who thinks it's rarely justified to kill civilian targets is just as much a loony.

As for the rest of your tu quoque... we are talking about people killing in the name of their imagionary invisible friend, not people getting accidently hurt during a war.

Harris suggests the idea of "the perfect weapon" for our investigation into such matters. The Perfect Weapon ONLY kills those who you program it to kill. If you drop it into a village to kill a terrorist, who has killed hundreds of people.., it will kill ONLY him. If he's not there, it will kill no one.

Now, no matter what your political leanings: do you think that the US military wouldn't jump at the chance to use such a weapon? How do you think the President would use such a weapon while trying to conduct wars or strikes on terrorists?

Now ask yourself: how would Osama bin Laden have used such a weapon? Do you think he would have set it to kill only miliary people in the WTC? How about only government employees? Nope; he would have set it to kill EVERY person in both buildings. And if he could, everyone on the street nearby. Because, suicide bombers want to kill the MAXIMUM number of civilians. If you don't know that, or why these bombers do what they do, you need to read Harris' book

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

"Cooking the books"? Are you on crack?

We are talking about asking someone if they think it's justified to KILL civilian targets to defend their RELIGION.

The equivalent for the USA would, I think, to ask if it is ever justified to kill civilians to defend things like freedom or democracy.

That's not really the point though. What your manoeuvre does is "collapse" together two groups of people who differ in a vital way. The first group is the group of people who are currently hell-bent on killing people over their woo woo beliefs, and the second is the group of people who are perfectly happy to live in peace with us now but could conceivably change their minds in the future.

ANYONE who says 'yes', no matter if it's to 'often', 'sometimes', or 'rarely', is a THREAT to civilization and a loony.

The Pew Research Center threw 'rarely' in there to soften the blow, but it's a weasel tactic; someone who thinks it's rarely justified to kill civilian targets is just as much a loony.

If they aren't of the opinion that it's justified now, then wouldn't you say we've got more pressing problems?

As for the rest of your tu quoque... we are talking about people killing in the name of their imagionary invisible friend, not people getting accidently hurt during a war.

Mmm, "accidentally". Shall I put you down as thinking its okay to kill civilians rarely, then?

Harris suggests the idea of "the perfect weapon" for our investigation into such matters. The Perfect Weapon ONLY kills those who you program it to kill. If you drop it into a village to kill a terrorist, who has killed hundreds of people.., it will kill ONLY him. If he's not there, it will kill no one.

Now, no matter what your political leanings: do you think that the US military wouldn't jump at the chance to use such a weapon? How do you think the President would use such a weapon while trying to conduct wars or strikes on terrorists?

Now ask yourself: how would Osama bin Laden have used such a weapon? Do you think he would have set it to kill only miliary people in the WTC? How about only government employees? Nope; he would have set it to kill EVERY person in both buildings. And if he could, everyone on the street nearby. Because, suicide bombers want to kill the MAXIMUM number of civilians. If you don't know that, or why these bombers do what they do, you need to read Harris' book

I think it's a silly scenario and an implausible mind-reading act at the same time.

Let me take a guess about your hypothetical: The USA gets as many "perfect weapons" as it likes, Osama only gets one?

 

[bignickel]

The equivalent for the USA would, I think, to ask if it is ever justified to kill civilians to defend things like freedom or democracy.
...
Mmm, "accidentally". Shall I put you down as thinking its okay to kill civilians rarely, then?

"The equivlent for the USA..."? What are you on? The 'equivlent' in the USA would be for people to kill civilians to defend THEIR RELIGION.

Listen up: It's NEVER OK to intentionally target civilians. Do you understand that? Do you even agree with it? Because if you don't, you're as loony as they are.

There are civilized ways to deal with others in the world, and targeting civilians intentionally in order to defend your 'religion' is NOT civilized. If you found yourself on the upper floors of the WTC on 9/11, then maybe you would have a MUCH clearer perspective of what I'm talking about here.

I don't know how I can break this down any further. You asked for numbers (as if we're handing out rewards to the nation with the 'most' fundamentalists), and I gave them to you. Then you just respend with tu quoque. This is pointless.

Read Sam Harris' book. Until then, we don't really have anything to say to each other.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

"The equivlent for the USA..."? What are you on? The 'equivlent' in the USA would be for people to kill civilians to defend THEIR RELIGION.

People killed for any abstract ideal they themselves are not interested in dying for are equally dead.

Israeli civilians aren't interested in dying for Palestinian freedom, and Iraqi civilians aren't interested in dying for US economic and political interests. They die for them anyway. Does it make much difference to the victims what cause other people decided it was okay they die for?

Listen up: It's NEVER OK to intentionally target civilians. Do you understand that? Do you even agree with it? Because if you don't, you're as loony as they are.

But it is okay to start wars which inevitably kill far more civilians than any suicide bombing, including 9/11? Those killed are just as dead, and they are just as innocent.

There are civilized ways to deal with others in the world, and targeting civilians intentionally in order to defend your 'religion' is NOT civilized. If you found yourself on the upper floors of the WTC on 9/11, then maybe you would have a MUCH clearer perspective of what I'm talking about here.

If you found yourself under a US missile in Baghdad I think you would have a much clearer perspective on why the motivations of the people who kill civilians "for a good cause" don't make much difference to the dead people.

I don't know how I can break this down any further. You asked for numbers (as if we're handing out rewards to the nation with the 'most' fundamentalists), and I gave them to you. Then you just respend with tu quoque. This is pointless.

You are missing the point of my argument, by dismissing it as tu quoque. You conclude from the fact that some people in the Middle East think it might conceivably be okay for civilians to be killed for the abstract ideals they happen to believe in, that these people are an evil menace to everyone around them.

If that's the criteria, then I think by exactly same process I could conclude that an awful lot of people in the USA must also be an evil menace to everyone around them.

If you don't like that conclusion, you need to rethink your argument. If you're okay with that conclusion, fair enough, at least you are consistent.

Read Sam Harris' book. Until then, we don't really have anything to say to each other.

It's a nice thought that the US government would prefer not to kill innocent people. Charming, in fact. However that's not much consolation to the innocent people it does kill (regretting every death, I'm sure).

Would it make Osama bin Laden any better if he released a tape saying "You know, if I had a magical perfect weapon I would only kill military personnel. Alas! I have no such weapon"? Would that get him off the hook in your mind? It would not in mine.

 

[bignickel]

Read Harris' book yet?

 

[3point14]

Surely, in the modern world, a democratically derived right of free speech trumps a many thousand year old dictatorial religious commandment?

No?

 

[bjb]

What's interesting is that the cartoons can't be printed in Islamic newspapers or shown on Islamic TV, so these rioters haven't even seen them. THis means they're rioting based on what they've been told by the (state-run?) press. This reminds me of all the protests against "The Last Temptation of Christ" that were from people who had never even seen the movie.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Read Harris' book yet?

So far you haven't impressed me with its arguments.

 

[stamenflicker]

BJB is correct... the cartoons haven't been seen by probably 99 of 100 people making the stink. Just like no one actually witnessed a US soldier taking a leak on the Koran in Gitmo.

Here's the cold hard fact: these rioters want an excuse, any excuse to behave violently. Period. End of story. Forget about it.

They live every day with the fantasy of sticking a knife in the throat of a wicked white devil because that's what they've been taught since infancy. They are not "disenfranchised youth;" they are man-haters.

I think the cartoons were in poor taste, but so was dropping my religious icon in a jar of human piss and calling it art-- or making a virgin Mary collage out of vaginas cut from Penthouse magazine. It ironic to me that CNN is refusing to show the cartoons "out of respect for Islam," but had no problem rolling tape of either of these pieces of art. They are afraid plain and simple.

I knew Christians who were mad about these events, and heck maybe there was even a death threat or two although I never read about one, but we certainly didn't take to the streets of New York or San Fransico in the attempt to burn it to the ground.

So now Iran is calling for all cartoonists to submit their best works mocking the Holocaust. My God that is so kindergarten.

jj as much as we agree on things I have difficulty rationalizing this kind of hatred in any way, shape, or form. There is nothing really messy about it, in spite of how some European countries have mishandled the law. This response is infantile and thereby cannot be "reasoned" with. I don't write an essay explaining to my 2 year old why she can't spit on her brother when she's angry. I lay down the law, and she responds or suffers consequences. Like it or not arson is illegal-- so is murder. Cartooning is not.

The French let these people off the hook a few months back by blaming themselves. Tell me even if they were truly disenfranchised youth how a group of arsonists can be justified. I saw an interview with a French man who blamed his government for the burning homes and cars. I find that a sickening displacement of responsibility.

Here's the real irony of it all-- they are out making asses of themselves while we honor and bury the wife of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. This alone should be enough evidence to convince even the hardest skeptic that these rioters do not want equality or freedom. By rejecting the only proven method of obtaining equality in human history-- non-violent resistance-- they bear the true marks of the inner most demons. They feed on violence like sharks on fresh blood. It is more than an ideology, it is who they are.

"I got to tell you something, Wyatt.
I told your brothers when they went off to fight...
and I suppose the time's come for you.

You know I'm a man that believes in the law.
After your family, it's about the only thing you got to believe in.

But there are plenty of men who don't care about the law.
Men who'll take part in all kinds of viciousness and don't care who gets hurt.
In fact, the more they hurt, the better.

When you find yourself in a fight
with such viciousness...

Hit first if you can.
And when you do hit, hit to kill.

--Gene Hackman, Wyatt Earp (1994)


Flick