Posted:
Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:45 pmby Pope Joan
Gauthier wrote:Mairland wrote:"This is just anti-Muslim bigotry."
That user basically just confirmed Dawkin's point right there
Because Dawkins and Maher are correct in that Islam and Muslim are monolithic hiveminds and that every one of them think the exact same way. Therefore all Muslims in the world are IS fighters whether they know it or not.
On the other hand, why do people pay attention to Dawkins and Maher at all, when they have proven that they are the rear quarters of an equine?
Especially Maher who has no chance of being the least amusing if not for his writers.
Posted:
Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:47 pmby Yumyumsuppertime
Pope Joan wrote:Gauthier wrote:Because Dawkins and Maher are correct in that Islam and Muslim are monolithic hiveminds and that every one of them think the exact same way. Therefore all Muslims in the world are IS fighters whether they know it or not.
On the other hand, why do people pay attention to Dawkins and Maher at all, when they have proven that they are the rear quarters of an equine?
Especially Maher who has no chance of being the least amusing if not for his writers.
He feeds into the superiority complex of some non-believers and a number of people on the left.
Posted:
Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:49 pmby New confederate ramenia
Risottia wrote:Wolfmanne2 wrote:Richard Dawkins is a twat. But, speaking as a Catholic, he is not representative of atheism and those who are willing to engage in the reasonable debate that I personally find thrilling and which actually makes me reconsider my own personal philosophy and beliefs. Dawkins should not stain his excellent work in biology with crap like this. But hey, this is probably how he makes money, so he will carry on.
Yeah, speaking as an Atheist, Dawkins does look like a professional troll sometimes.
He literally is a professional troll, he makes a lot of money and attention (which generates more money) from people's butthurt, but that doesn't mean that what he says can't be accurate.
Posted:
Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:54 pmby Salus Maior
New confederate ramenia wrote:Yeah, speaking as an Atheist, Dawkins does look like a professional troll sometimes.
He literally is a professional troll, he makes a lot of money and attention (which generates more money) from people's butthurt, but that doesn't mean that what he says can't be accurate.[/quote]
But the chances of that are slim.
Posted:
Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:56 pmby New confederate ramenia
Salus Maior wrote:New confederate ramenia wrote:He literally is a professional troll, he makes a lot of money and attention (which generates more money) from people's butthurt, but that doesn't mean that what he says can't be accurate.
But the chances of that are slim.
Of course they are. But we can't dismiss what he says just because it's PROBABLY bullshit.
Posted:
Mon Oct 12, 2015 6:19 pmby Hydesland
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:My major concern is to ensure that people aren't getting lumped together unnecessarily
Same here, which is why I find the knee-jerk reaction of many to lump him together with right-wing bigots a bit troubling.
Posted:
Mon Oct 12, 2015 6:24 pmby Yumyumsuppertime
Hydesland wrote:Yumyumsuppertime wrote:My major concern is to ensure that people aren't getting lumped together unnecessarily
Same here, which is why I find the knee-jerk reaction of many to lump him together with right-wing bigots a bit troubling.
As he's expressing bigoted views, he's being lumped in with bigots regardless of their other political views, which seems fair.
Posted:
Mon Oct 12, 2015 6:27 pmby UnitedRP
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Hydesland wrote:Same here, which is why I find the knee-jerk reaction of many to lump him together with right-wing bigots a bit troubling.
As he's expressing bigoted views, he's being lumped in with bigots regardless of their other political views, which seems fair.
Shhh, /r/Atheism may hear you.
Posted:
Mon Oct 12, 2015 6:40 pmby Hydesland
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Hydesland wrote:Same here, which is why I find the knee-jerk reaction of many to lump him together with right-wing bigots a bit troubling.
As he's expressing bigoted views, he's being lumped in with bigots regardless of their other political views, which seems fair.
What specifically bigoted view did he express here from the quotes in the OP? Maher started with a conditional statement:
"
if you say something about a woman being
forced to wear a beekeeper suit in the hot sun all day…" - to which Dawkins said that the excuse 'that's their culture' is invalid. So it's bigoted to mock a non sequitur justification (that you admit is probably invalid because you disagree with cultural relativism) for a specific cultural practice (being
forced to wear a burka in high heat levels)?
Posted:
Mon Oct 12, 2015 6:45 pmby Yumyumsuppertime
Hydesland wrote:Yumyumsuppertime wrote:As he's expressing bigoted views, he's being lumped in with bigots regardless of their other political views, which seems fair.
What specifically bigoted view did he express here from the quotes in the OP? Maher started with a conditional statement:
"
if you say something about a woman being
forced to wear a beekeeper suit in the hot sun all day…" - to which Dawkins said that the excuse 'that's their culture' is invalid. So it's bigoted to mock a non sequitur justification (that you admit is probably invalid because you disagree with cultural relativism) for a specific cultural practice (being
forced to wear a burka in high heat levels)?
Because that's not true across all of Muslim culture, but he doesn't make allowances for that. Instead, he tars the entire religion with the same brush. It's a particular cultural thing, or was, in very specific regions, and Islam does not actually require a burka. If he were going against that practice, that would be fine, but he's tying it into a larger attack on Islam, and even into his larger (if intellectually bankrupt) idea of religion as being a force for evil in the world.
Posted:
Mon Oct 12, 2015 6:50 pmby The Sotoan Union
When talking about Muslim immigration into Europe I hear "They refuse to integrate" a lot as a complaint about it. I'm not saying everyone who believes that is bigoted, but these are often the same people who complain about how whites are going to become minorities in their own lands. I ask, how is someone supposed to integrate into that?
You could have reasonable discussion about it, but surely you can see why it so often crosses into xenophobia and why people are bothered by it.
Posted:
Mon Oct 12, 2015 6:59 pmby The Emerald Legion
Gauthier wrote:Mairland wrote:"This is just anti-Muslim bigotry."
That user basically just confirmed Dawkin's point right there
Because Dawkins and Maher are correct in that Islam and Muslim are monolithic hiveminds and that every one of them think the exact same way. Therefore all Muslims in the world are IS fighters whether they know it or not.
Any time you look at the broad picture there are going to be exceptions. But you
don't get anything done by pointing at them. You can't make things complicated and still get things done. To quote a favorite story of mine.
"If you present the crowds with anything more nuanced than a rousing cheer, you will fight your war alone."
Anyone in the politics game has a goal. And pointing out the nuances of reality rarely serves it.
Posted:
Mon Oct 12, 2015 7:00 pmby Hydesland
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Because that's not true across all of Muslim culture
I see nothing from what is quoted in the OP where he implies that such a practice is true across all of Muslim culture, and I can assure that Dawkins certainly does
not think that is the case. Furthermore it really is unreasonable, given he is a highly regarded intellectual, to assume he thinks something only someone with extreme ignorance about the world, religion and society, would actually think. I do not actually believe that you think Dawkins thinks that, sounds to me like a deliberate strawman.
If he were going against that practice, that would be fine, but he's tying it into a larger attack on Islam
Actually no, he's tying the specific incident quoted in the OP as part of an attack against certain elements of the 'liberal intelligentsia' (for lack of a better term for now) who disallow or insult anyone who criticizes certain things practiced by some Muslims - Islam was not actually the main target in this case.
Posted:
Mon Oct 12, 2015 11:50 pmby Yumyumsuppertime
Hydesland wrote:Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Because that's not true across all of Muslim culture
I see nothing from what is quoted in the OP where he implies that such a practice is true across all of Muslim culture, and I can assure that Dawkins certainly does
not think that is the case. Furthermore it really is unreasonable, given he is a highly regarded intellectual, to assume he thinks something only someone with extreme ignorance about the world, religion and society, would actually think. I do not actually believe that you think Dawkins thinks that, sounds to me like a deliberate strawman.
If he were going against that practice, that would be fine, but he's tying it into a larger attack on Islam
Actually no, he's tying the specific incident quoted in the OP as part of an attack against certain elements of the 'liberal intelligentsia' (for lack of a better term for now) who disallow or insult anyone who criticizes certain things practiced by some Muslims - Islam was not actually the main target in this case.
Seriously, there is no prominent or relevant member of the so-called "liberal intelligensia" who has a single issue with him stating that it's bad to force women to wear burquas. What they have a problem with is his gross generalizations and his deflections when called out on them. Now he's acting as if he's being attacked over legitimate criticisms of specific actions rather than over his truly noxious Islamophobic statements and mischaracterizations. As a biologist, I'm sure he's fine, but as even an armchair religious scholar, he's a base fraud and a bigot.
Posted:
Tue Oct 13, 2015 1:28 amby Zakuvia
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Hydesland wrote:I see nothing from what is quoted in the OP where he implies that such a practice is true across all of Muslim culture, and I can assure that Dawkins certainly does
not think that is the case. Furthermore it really is unreasonable, given he is a highly regarded intellectual, to assume he thinks something only someone with extreme ignorance about the world, religion and society, would actually think. I do not actually believe that you think Dawkins thinks that, sounds to me like a deliberate strawman.
Actually no, he's tying the specific incident quoted in the OP as part of an attack against certain elements of the 'liberal intelligentsia' (for lack of a better term for now) who disallow or insult anyone who criticizes certain things practiced by some Muslims - Islam was not actually the main target in this case.
Seriously, there is no prominent or relevant member of the so-called "liberal intelligensia" who has a single issue with him stating that it's bad to force women to wear burquas. What they have a problem with is his gross generalizations and his deflections when called out on them. Now he's acting as if he's being attacked over legitimate criticisms of specific actions rather than over his truly noxious Islamophobic statements and mischaracterizations. As a biologist, I'm sure he's fine, but as even an armchair religious scholar, he's a base fraud and a bigot.
Agreed, his facts aren't debatable, but his presentation is horrid. Honestly, I'd trade him back for Christopher Hitchens ANY day of the week.
Posted:
Tue Oct 13, 2015 2:02 amby Aelex
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:I got as far as you using the word "forbidden". As I've repeatedly tried to make the point that you're actually free to do whatever you want, and you made a counterpoint comparing me to people who actually wish to forbid things rather than simply advise against them, or encourage more responsible dialogue, I felt no obligation to read further, as I couldn't trust that the rest of your post would have anything to do with what I actually stated.
Actually, what I said is exactly what you stated. Because what you said was that you thought that the law shouldn't censor people from saying what they want to, a thing about which both of us agree totally, but, and here lie the problem, you, in the mean time, advocated the righteousness of the people who censor other people from saying what they want to. And that's the exact definition of what Social Justice is.
And we all know how fucked up this concept is.
So, forgive me but given that the you're supporting a soft power which get so much strenght that it's now able to do exactly the same things as an hard's one, I don't think that I'm false for saying that you indeed want to censor people, not by using the law but rather by using social pressure, which isn't only more pernicious but also completely against the notion of justice as the crowd you want to make the judge of people behavior will likely not be the fairest.
Posted:
Tue Oct 13, 2015 3:26 amby Sociobiology
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Hydesland wrote:I see nothing from what is quoted in the OP where he implies that such a practice is true across all of Muslim culture, and I can assure that Dawkins certainly does
not think that is the case. Furthermore it really is unreasonable, given he is a highly regarded intellectual, to assume he thinks something only someone with extreme ignorance about the world, religion and society, would actually think. I do not actually believe that you think Dawkins thinks that, sounds to me like a deliberate strawman.
Actually no, he's tying the specific incident quoted in the OP as part of an attack against certain elements of the 'liberal intelligentsia' (for lack of a better term for now) who disallow or insult anyone who criticizes certain things practiced by some Muslims - Islam was not actually the main target in this case.
Seriously, there is no prominent or relevant member of the so-called "liberal intelligensia" who has a single issue with him stating that it's bad to force women to wear burquas. What they have a problem with is his gross generalizations and his deflections when called out on them.
which people keep saying but I have yet to see such statements.
Now he's acting as if he's being attacked over legitimate criticisms of specific actions rather than over his truly noxious Islamophobic statements and mischaracterizations.
such as
As a biologist, I'm sure he's fine, but as even an armchair religious scholar, he's a base fraud and a bigot.
his job is to promote science and I have seen him at schools that don't teach evolution because its not sensitive so other cultures, a certain amount of insensitivity is necessary.
Posted:
Tue Oct 13, 2015 7:30 amby Hydesland
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:What they have a problem with is his gross generalizations and his deflections when called out on them. Now he's acting as if he's being attacked over legitimate criticisms of specific actions rather than over his truly noxious Islamophobic statements and mischaracterizations. As a biologist, I'm sure he's fine, but as even an armchair religious scholar, he's a base fraud and a bigot.
What gross generalizations?
Posted:
Tue Oct 13, 2015 7:34 amby Eroda Saaniah
The Sotoan Union wrote:When talking about Muslim immigration into Europe I hear "They refuse to integrate" a lot as a complaint about it. I'm not saying everyone who believes that is bigoted, but these are often the same people who complain about how whites are going to become minorities in their own lands. I ask, how is someone supposed to integrate into that?
You could have reasonable discussion about it, but surely you can see why it so often crosses into xenophobia and why people are bothered by it.
I've integrated pretty well. Most of the people in Muslim countries live pretty regular lives, except for those living in war.
Posted:
Wed Oct 14, 2015 3:06 pmby The Sotoan Union
Eroda Saaniah wrote:The Sotoan Union wrote:When talking about Muslim immigration into Europe I hear "They refuse to integrate" a lot as a complaint about it. I'm not saying everyone who believes that is bigoted, but these are often the same people who complain about how whites are going to become minorities in their own lands. I ask, how is someone supposed to integrate into that?
You could have reasonable discussion about it, but surely you can see why it so often crosses into xenophobia and why people are bothered by it.
I've integrated pretty well. Most of the people in Muslim countries live pretty regular lives, except for those living in war.
What I meant was how can Muslim immigrants integrate if someone's definition of integration means being a white European.
It was more of a gripe at people with racist definitions of integration.
Posted:
Sat Oct 17, 2015 8:02 pmby Olerand
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Hydesland wrote:Same here, which is why I find the knee-jerk reaction of many to lump him together with right-wing bigots a bit troubling.
As he's expressing bigoted views, he's being lumped in with bigots regardless of their other political views, which seems fair.
Have you taken a look at the polls of the Muslim world and the Islamic communities of Europe? What they believe? What they support, and what they don't?
Should we lump in the extremely conservative views of the vast majority of Muslims with those of the extremists?
The Sotoan Union wrote:Eroda Saaniah wrote:I've integrated pretty well. Most of the people in Muslim countries live pretty regular lives, except for those living in war.
What I meant was how can Muslim immigrants integrate if someone's definition of integration means being a white European.
It was more of a gripe at people with racist definitions of integration.
What a ridiculous, made-up notion. No mainstream view of integration is someone literally changing their ethnicity. There are innumerable examples of Arabs, Muslims or not, who integrate into European culture. All they have to do is adopt the values and culture of their home. No more, no less.
Posted:
Sat Oct 17, 2015 8:08 pmby Yumyumsuppertime
Olerand wrote:Have you taken a look at the polls of the Muslim world and the Islamic communities of Europe? What they believe? What they support, and what they don't?
Sorry, the Muslim world? Which part of the Muslim world are you talking about? Indonesia? Saudi Arabia? Dearborn, Michigan? Pakistan?
Should we lump in the extremely conservative views of the vast majority of Muslims with those of the extremists?
[citation needed]
Posted:
Sat Oct 17, 2015 8:13 pmby Nationes Pii Redivivi
Dawkins made a name for himself talking about how Religion (a nefarious entity) is a great evil and a plague upon the world, without, however, actually looking into all the issues any more deeply than religion is involved. Northern Ireland- it is those Catholics and Protestants battling it out, not a complex issue more social than religious. Our misadventures in the middle east, a quest to liberate those backwards Moslems from themselves with our wholly rational, benevolent, and incidentally white, hands. I think it is here that he shows himself to be a shallow thinker and a bigot- he speaks of 'Islamic culture' as if it were an evil thing to be opposed, criticized, caricatured, and mocked, rather than understood- to him, and his ilk, there is nothing to understand, it is just some ass-backward religion which should be eliminated from this planet. He can paint general strokes- look at what happened to poor Salman Rushdie, in Saudi Arabia, they stone woman for driving, in Iran, they cut of people's hand for stealing, look at ISIS, look how terrible the whole of 'Islamic Culture' is. 'Islamic Culture', then, is merely what he finds distasteful in certain Arab countries, and use that to justify his prejudice against the brown people via their faith.