|
Jastiger posted:a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. I'm glad video games are now a religion.
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:19 |
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Is that person who doesn't think they should vote enforcing a moratorium on them voting, or is it merely a personally held belief? What if the women were like Phyllis Schlafly, evil incarnate? I am in favor of barring all anti-suffragettes from the vote, and also banning Schlafly from holding a non-homemaker job. I think that's fair.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Why not both? This isn't an answer. Do you not get that there is a wide overlapping system of morals where nearly everyone agrees on some things (Randomly killing people is bad) but there is wide contention on other subjects, with lots of different venn diagrams of moralites. quote:I said I don't think people consider male superiority as moral and good in modern western cultures. Then why do we have male superiority and belief in male superiority in modern western cultures?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Then why do we have male superiority and belief in male superiority in modern western cultures? Because men have superior strength than womens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_records_in_athletics Not by much, and is getting reduced and in some case the womens may end winning, but in average it seems the male body have superior strength.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
Lord save me from New Athiests and their incessant pedantry. Nobody likes an evangelical, regardless of whether they wear a cassock or a fedora.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
Tei posted:Because men have superior strength than womens. If might makes right, why do we have a legal system? Also holy jesus  lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
Tei posted:Because men have superior strength than womens. Do you seriously not understand that wasn't an open question, but specifically for jastiger because of a claim he'd made?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:This isn't an answer. Do you not get that there is a wide overlapping system of morals where nearly everyone agrees on some things (Randomly killing people is bad) but there is wide contention on other subjects, with lots of different venn diagrams of moralites. Of course I get that. I don't see why that especially matters here? Its not incompatible with what I'm saying. For the same reason we still have only one election day, the great lakes are 5 instead of 4, and an agrarian based school schedule: Its not important enough for the political leaders (in their estimation) to tackle, or it indirectly benefits them somehow. I feel like you're splitting hairs just to argue with me on something I think we fundamentally agree on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:This isn't an answer. Do you not get that there is a wide overlapping system of morals where nearly everyone agrees on some things (Randomly killing people is bad) but there is wide contention on other subjects, with lots of different venn diagrams of moralites. Moreover, different cultures have vastly different ways of looking at moral issues and dealing with them. The idea of getting a murderer to just pay the appropriate weregild and letting him off would seem ludicrous today, but it was the norm in Europe for the better part of 400 years (and even quite a bit beyond then).
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
A random thought I had about this subject (islamophobia) is that a Muslim to the average American must be like a black guy to a middle-European. He heard of them, but saw few and has developed little sensitivity (or empathy) for the stranger (cf. "Zwarte Piet"). I mean you have culturally established (so to speak) Asians, Black people, Natives, Mexicans and others, but there have been so few "classic" Muslim immigrants that they simply do not exist as citizens in the America narrative. That must make it much harder to discuss or even notice the small percentage of Muslims which, undoubtedly, may experience acts of islamophobia. Perhaps we should have started with the question how visible Muslims are today, how they are depicted and where you never see them (in the media).
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Of course I get that. I don't see why that especially matters here? Its not incompatible with what I'm saying. No, I absolutely and totally think you are completely wrong, and you never, ever address my actual criticism in any coherent way. in this case, my criticism was that you said: quote:What I mean to say is that there are aspects of culture and behavior that we know lead to those things we find "moral" and those behaviors and norms can be measured. I asked you who 'we' were. You said 'the royal we' which was fatuous because that means 'I'. Then I pointed out that we don't agree on what is moral. I could have also pointed out that we don't agree on what aspects of culture or behavior lead to anything else, too. So, your contention that we find things moral and that therefore we can measure morality collapses. You have to define your we.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
lllllllllllllllllll posted:A random thought I had about this subject (islamophobia) is that a Muslim to the average American must be like a black guy to a middle-European. He heard of them, but saw few and has developed little sensitivity (or empathy) for the stranger (cf. "Zwarte Piet"). I mean you have culturally established (so to speak) Asians, Black people, Natives, Mexicans and others, but there have been so few "classic" Muslim immigrants that they simply do not exist as citizens in the America narrative. That must make it much harder to discuss or even notice the small percentage of Muslims which, undoubtedly, may experience acts of islamophobia. Perhaps we should have started with the question how visible Muslims are today, how they are depicted and where you never see them (in the media). I guarantee the average American has interacted with more Muslims than Native Americans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
I am a bit embarrassed now. I guess that's a fair point. So it's not about numbers. Forget it. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:No, I absolutely and totally think you are completely wrong, and you never, ever address my actual criticism in any coherent way. Western culture? For example, we tend to think self autonomy is important in the West. Marry who you want for example. If we (meaning you and I specifically) started going on about arranging marriages for our daughters, we could quickly be called out as "out of touch" or at the least raise eyebrows on how we're going against our culturally understood definitions of self direction. Thats just an example that I don't think is really relevant to the discussion though, but you keep going on about it. computer parts posted:I guarantee the average American has interacted with more Muslims than Native Americans. I think he meant Americans know the story of say, Sitting Bull or Pocatello or who the Native Americans are and that they existed here. That isn't really true for Middle Easterners in popular American history
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I think he meant Americans know the story of say, Sitting Bull or Pocatello or who the Native Americans are and that they existed here. That isn't really true for Middle Easterners in popular American history Native Americans are demonized in popular mythos so that really doesn't help that much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Western culture? For example, we tend to think self autonomy is important in the West. Marry who you want for example. If we (meaning you and I specifically) started going on about arranging marriages for our daughters, we could quickly be called out as "out of touch" or at the least raise eyebrows on how we're going against our culturally understood definitions of self direction. No, very large amounts of our society thinks that you shouldn't marry people based on their race or their gender, as a quick and easy disproof. Also the phrase 'self autonomy is important' is meaningless. And that isn't morality. Otherwise, great job.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Isn't it the American myth that the pilgrims and the Indians were just fine and dandy and they all sat around the table peaceful-like eating turkey when all of a sudden out of nowhere the Indians just all died and there was no explanation? I guess you might find people who know about the Long Walk of the Navajo or the Trail of Tears or something but I'm imagining for most Americans the Natives came, gave food to the Pilgrim fathers then retreated to their casinos, where they can still be found to this day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Native Americans are demonized in popular mythos so that really doesn't help that much. Oh absolutely, but they "know about them" more than they do about Middle Easterners I think. They are more ingrained, whether positively or negatively, in American folklore than Muslims have been. Thats all, no value judgement here. Obdicut posted:No, very large amounts of our society thinks that you shouldn't marry people based on their race or their gender, as a quick and easy disproof. Also the phrase 'self autonomy is important' is meaningless. And that isn't morality. Otherwise, great job. And by and large people aren't a fan of that. For example you won't see a Presidential candidate say that arranging marriages is "good for American citizens". Yet, and here is where my original criticism came in, they will say that "We have to respect Islamic/Hindu/Christian culture" even if that means arranging marriages (as an example, not saying it really happens). They give religious ideas a pass in this way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:No, very large amounts of our society thinks that you shouldn't marry people based on their race or their gender, as a quick and easy disproof. And more broadly "western culture" includes places where even a "mixed marriage" between Catholics and Protestants is controversial.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:And by and large people aren't a fan of that. That many people are not a fan of mixed-race marriages goes against you,not for you. quote:For example you won't see a Presidential candidate say that arranging marriages is "good for American citizens". Yet, and here is where my original criticism came in, they will say that "We have to respect Islamic/Hindu/Christian culture" even if that means arranging marriages (as an example, not saying it really happens). They give religious ideas a pass in this way. No, there's just a false dichotomy there. YOu can say "we have to respect other culture" but also say "However, female equality is more important, arranged marriages aren't that great". If someone says "We do it for religious reasons" they don't get a pass. I have no idea why you think they do. A small section of the population, maybe. Bryter posted:And more broadly "western culture" includes places where even a "mixed marriage" between Catholics and Protestants is controversial. Good point. US marriage culture and other Western marriage cultures are way loving different.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:That many people are not a fan of mixed-race marriages goes against you,not for you. I guess thats where we disagree. I find that in our American culture, religious arguments get a pass by virtue of being religious rather than on the merit of those arguments. I think that is declining, but it still happens. For example the double speak here: http://www.newsy.com/videos/how-republicans-talk-about-islam-then-vs-now/ I don't know where that video is hosted so if that site sucks, sorry. And yeah good point on US customs vs European customs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I guess thats where we disagree. I find that in our American culture, religious arguments get a pass by virtue of being religious rather than on the merit of those arguments. I think that is declining, but it still happens. But goddamn it I'm not disagreeing with that. I"m saying that arranged marriages don't get a pass for religious reasons. Lots of other religious stuff does, the white christian poo poo. Your particular argument was that arranged marriage is defended in the us by 'but it's religious' and you're wrong, this isn't a successful defense. No loving clue what in your overheated mind that clip was supposed to prove. So again, what 'we' do you mean?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I find that in our American culture, religious arguments get a pass by virtue of being religious rather than on the merit of those arguments. I think that is declining, but it still happens. The key point that various people in the thread have been trying to get at is contained within this sentence: "I find" and "I think." How did you come to these conclusions? What empirical analysis did you do or read that brought you to these ideas? I think the reason your logic's so jumbled is because you're cobbling together an argument from impressions and feelings rather than an actual firm sit-down study of the subject matter in question. Vermain fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Dec 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Here in Spain we got rid of the muslims, here is what story have to say about it: http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/quote3.html quote:"The Arabs suddenly appeared in Spain like a star which crosses through the air with its light, spreads its flames on the Horizon and then vanishes rapidly into naught. They appeared in Spain to fill her suddenly with their activity and the fruit of their genius, and endowed her with a glorious glamour which enveloped her from the Pyrenees to Gibraltar and from the oceans to the Barcelona. But a burning love for liberty and independance, a fickle character disposed to frivolty and merriness, neglect of old virtues, an unfortunate disposition of revolution, provoked always by an inflamed imagination, violent passions and ambitions, a spirit to dominate, and other factors of decay, worked in the course of time, to demolish this grand edifice raised by men like Tariq, 'Abdul Rahman al-Nasir, Muhammad ibn al-Ahmer, and led the Arabs to internal dissention, which sapped their power and pushed them to the abyss of naught. quote:"The land deprived of skillful irrigation of the Moors, grew improvished and neglected, the richest and most fertile valleys languished and were deserted, and most of the populous cities which had filled every district in Andalusia, fell into ruinous decay; and beggars, friars, and bandits took the place of scholars, merchants and knights. So low fell Spain when she had driven away the Moors. Such is the melancholy contrast offered by her history." It was a economic disaster. By volunteering getting rid of a large part of the population, big parts of the country ended neglected and whole industries destroyed. Tei fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Dec 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
Tei posted:It was a economic disaster. By volunteering getting rid of a large part of the population, big parts of the country ended neglected and whole industries destroyed. I for one am shocked that the mass displacement of people didn't end with a land of sunshine and rainbows. Luckily we've learned our lesson from th- oh Donald Trump's still leading the polls? Never mind.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:But goddamn it I'm not disagreeing with that. I"m saying that arranged marriages don't get a pass for religious reasons. Lots of other religious stuff does, the white christian poo poo. Your particular argument was that arranged marriage is defended in the us by 'but it's religious' and you're wrong, this isn't a successful defense. Im pretty sure I just said as an example, not that actual arranged marriages are defended on religious grounds. Did you skip past the part where I overtly said it was not an actual thing in parentheses? Vermain posted:The key point that various people in the thread have been trying to get at is contained within this sentence: "I find" and "I think." How did you come to these conclusions? What empirical analysis did you do or read that brought you to these ideas? I think the reason your logic's so jumbled is because you're cobbling together an argument from impressions and feelings rather than an actual firm sit-down study of the subject matter in question. I would cite the link I posted-many leaders in American culture and many aspects of American culture often cite religion as a blanket positive that isn't really scrutinized-unless its Islam it seems, and only then when something bad happens. Honestly I didn't think it was that controversial a claim.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Im pretty sure I just said as an example, not that actual arranged marriages are defended on religious grounds. Did you skip past the part where I overtly said it was not an actual thing in parentheses? how is it an example, then? Who do you mean by 'we'? quote:I would cite the link I posted-many leaders in American culture and many aspects of American culture often cite religion as a blanket positive that isn't really scrutinized-unless its Islam it seems, and only then when something bad happens. That's not the same thing as giving a pass to specific religious beliefs. You changed your argument again. You know that when you change your argument it admits your previous one was a failure, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:how is it an example, then? I didn't change my argument?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I didn't change my argument? Okay. Restate your argument. Don't use an example that you then run away from. Also, you skipped this: quote:Then why do we have male superiority and belief in male superiority in modern western cultures? You've asserted that we don't think that male superiority is moral and good. And yet, we have a society with male supremacy as both an actual structural thing and a cultural belief. So... you're wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2015/12/16/wheaton-illinois-suspends-hijab-wearing-professor A Christian teacher was suspended for wearing a hijab in solidarity with her Muslim neighbors. The school says it's really for her making a post where she said that Muslims and Christians worship the same God on her personal Facebook. This is absurd because that is objectively true. I'm not sure what business or employer has punishing her for stating facts
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Okay. Restate your argument. Don't use an example that you then run away from. Oy really? You want to just make me rehash the last 4 pages of this thread? Nahh. Go back and read what I originally said before you burst in here all mean. As for your last bit, its a good example of how fluid culture is and how it can be contradictory. You can go and ask people if they think "Men are better or superior to women" and universally, I would bet, they would say "no". But they would still behave in such a way that contradicts that statement. I posit that religion inherently makes people do this. Not that religious beliefs are the ONLY thing that does it, but that its built in to a lot of faith based customs. Like in that video I linked. Doublespeak.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2015/12/16/wheaton-illinois-suspends-hijab-wearing-professor I find your critique interesting that its "objectively true" that they worship the same god. The texts for each religion specifically says they aren't. I guarantee that if that same teacher said "Christianity teaches that women are inferior and slavery is good, and should be condemned" she'd be punished the same way. Even if its "stating facts".
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Oy really? You want to just make me rehash the last 4 pages of this thread? Nahh. Go back and read what I originally said before you burst in here all mean. The last four pages have been your lovely argument falling apart and you reconstructing it constantly. Do you seriously think the fact that everyone thinks you're wrong,and not just wrong but really not even wrong, isn't indicative of anything? quote:You can go and ask people if they think "Men are better or superior to women" and universally, I would bet, they would say "no". You are incredibly ignorant.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:The last four pages have been your lovely argument falling apart and you reconstructing it constantly. Do you seriously think the fact that everyone thinks you're wrong,and not just wrong but really not even wrong, isn't indicative of anything? "everyone" being you, the same poster getting angry again and again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:"everyone" being you, the same poster getting angry again and again. And, just on this page, Vermain, Bryter, Computer Parts, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:And, just on this page, Vermain, Bryter, Computer Parts, right? They agree with me  (jk I'm kiddin')Even if they don't, they aren't being super angry about it, they're discussing things instead of putting a goalpost in the ground and being mad that I dash forward and meet it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:They agree with me See, right here is a great example of you changing the argument. Your original claim was that people didn't think you were wrong. Now you're saying that actually what the difference is they're not angry. Do you not get how this is just wholesale changing your argument because it proved untenable?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:See, right here is a great example of you changing the argument. Your original claim was that people didn't think you were wrong. Now you're saying that actually what the difference is they're not angry. Do you not get how this is just wholesale changing your argument because it proved untenable? Or, now stay with me here, or, and I hope you're sitting down, I was just loving around?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Or, now stay with me here, or, and I hope you're sitting down, I was just loving around? Ah, the puppetmaster defense. I get it, this is shitposting as performance art. In actually relevant news: A good article about the effects of Islamophobia. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/15/nyregion/young-muslim-americans-are-feeling-the-strain-of-suspicion.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:19 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:Ah, the puppetmaster defense. I get it, this is shitposting as performance art. Wow, you're way too intense about this. Thats a good article though. That kind of stuff is bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:44
|
|