Sign of the Times Middle East Style

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Here's how your thing works.

First you identify something that oversimplifies a human being and call it "devout." You even present an image of a fanatic as what you mean by "devout."

If you can get that package deal across, you then use it to bash people who are not "devout" (but appear to be in a vague manner) and rant and rail against a whole culture. You now have a perfect scapegoat without having to think or observe any more.

It's an intellectual con.

I definitely call that bigotry.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

Bob,

Here's how your thing works.

First you identify something that oversimplifies a human being and call it "devout." You even present an image of a fanatic as what you mean by "devout."

If you can get that package deal across, you then use it to bash people who are not "devout" (but appear to be in a vague manner) and rant and rail against a whole culture. You now have a perfect scapegoat without having to think or observe any more.

It's an intellectual con.

I definitely call that bigotry.

Michael

Still don't get it. Yes, devout = fanatic and we both agree (I think) that these people are dangerous. I am NOT painting the entire muslim world as devout or fanatical (this is your bias, not mine).

Answer the question.

What can you say about a person that accepts the entire communist platform (devout communist)?

What I am saying, and repeating over and over, is that the body of thought called Islam is really bad. As bad, or probably worse than communism. The people I make claims about are only the ones self-described as devout followers. Just like I can conclude that flat-earthers are wrong, I can conclude that devout muslims are morally corrupt.

As well, it's pretty straightforward that the BOOK of Islam is really bad. Not that the Bible, for example is good, but Islam is worse - quite a bit worse actually.

Bob

EDIT: The scapegoat is the BOOK, because that's what the fanatics cite as their motivation. If the book is discredited, so is the foundation of the fanatics. Sheesh...

That is NOT bigotry and I respectfully ask that you withdraw the accusation.

Edited January 28, 2011 by Bob_Mac

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

My standard of good character is rooted in whether a person bullies others or not.

Any "devout" anything who is a bully is evil. Any "devout" anything who is not is not evil.

Any "non-devout" anything who is a bully is evil. Any "non-devout" anything who is not is not evil.

That's my standard and it cuts across all cultures.

(There are other standard involved, so there are exceptions, but bullying is a critical one.)

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

Bob,

My standard of good character is rooted in whether a person bullies others or not.

Any "devout" anything who is a bully is evil. Any "devout" anything who is not is not evil.

Any "non-devout" anything who is a bully is evil. Any "non-devout" anything who is not is not evil.

That's my standard and it cuts across all cultures.

(There are other standard involved, so there are exceptions, but bullying is a critical one.)

Michael

Fair enough. But I don't think you are applying your standard.

The Qur'an is the bully manifesto Michael - seriously.

Bob

Edit: The so-called "Prophet" is easily one of history's biggest bullies.

Edited January 28, 2011 by Bob_Mac

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

The parts of the Qur'an that induce bullying are evil. The parts that induce peaceful coexistence are not. Some of them are even quite beautiful.

That goes for all holy books, and even philosophical texts (including Atlas Shrugged).

Bullying versus peaceful coexistence is a universal standard for human behavior. You don't need to reference a body of thought to understand that.

In fact, "understand" is a great term for social interaction. We all want to persuade someone at some time. That's part of our nature. The peaceful person seeks to persuade through being understood. The bully just wants to be obeyed. (And woe to the person who obeys him too much because he vents his emotional imbalances on minions when his mood changes.)

So, from what I have observed, if a person seeks understanding in a holy book, he will go in one direction--generally a good direction. If he seeks a form to make others obey in holy writings, he will go another--a bad one.

There are many "devout" religious people who "devoutly" follow the parts in the holy books that lead to wisdom and "devoutly" ignore or "interpret" the passages that lead to bullying. And there are those who use holy books to justify their urge to force others to obey them.

Muslims who are bullies are the evil ones to me. Christians, too. Objectivists and libertarians, too.

Fanatics usually are bullies.

People who identify, then evaluate as their fundamental thinking system usually are not.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

There are many "devout" religious people who "devoutly" follow the parts in the holy books that lead to wisdom and "devoutly" ignore or "interpret" the passages that lead to bullying. And there are those who use holy books to justify their urge to force others to obey them.

Ugh... What part of "devout" involves ignoring large portions of a doctrine? Give me a break.

Utopian ideals in commumism are "beautiful" too. Still crap.

Bob

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Ain't it funny how people do what they do and not what you would have them do?

It is most definitely possible to be "devout" to your chosen beliefs. And it is most definitely possible to choose some values from holy books without choosing others.

That's the way the world turns. And this applies to all bodies of thought the world over.

I get the feeling you dislike that idea intensely.

But I'm not going to let the bullying off the hook.

Islam per se does not equal bullying.

Bullies bully, not a holy book.

And bullies bully by choice. They think bullying is good. Their acts prove it.

Michael

[Selene]

Bob:

Mother Teresa ...devout;

Mother Teresa...not a bully.

I like to keep "stuff" simple.

Adam

[bmacwilliam]

It is most definitely possible to be "devout" to your chosen beliefs.

Sure, but a devout muslim is devout to Islam, not to some arbitrary something else - C'mon.

And it is most definitely possible to choose some values from holy books without choosing others.

Not while remaining devout to those holy books it's not. A devout xyz is devoted to all or most of the beliefs outlined in the book of xyz.

You're backed into an impossible corner again and you're trying to weasle out by claiming a "devout muslim" may or may not believe in adherence to any, some, all, or none of the Qur'an. Not gonna fly.

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

Bob:

Mother Teresa ...devout;

Mother Teresa...not a bully.

I like to keep "stuff" simple.

Adam

Yes!

In fact, if you look at Jesus himself (or the stories) and you mimic his life (maximum devoutness), you get a kind, gentle result. (Perhaps full of crap) but Jesus, the star of the fairy tale is gentle. The other "prophet" is a mass-murderer. Big difference.

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

But I'm not going to let the bullying off the hook.

Islam per se does not equal bullying.

Bullies bully, not a holy book.

And bullies bully by choice. They think bullying is good. Their acts prove it.

Michael

Sure, but you avoid, once again, that Muhammed was one of the biggest bullies in history and the book is his manifesto.

Bob

[Richard Wiig]

How do you figure that? By what standard do you judge devout Islamic religiosity to equate to being a good person? You're essentially claiming that Bob hasn't studied Islam before he reached his conclusion. I don't know how you reached that conclusion from his post, because I certainly can't see it. I don't have a clue what Bob does or doesn't know about Islam.

This is another example of normative before cognitive reasoning.

My words don't have to be explained from a filter of bias. Nobody will find what I am "essentially claiming" as given by you unless they adopt your bias and feel the need to push an oversimplified view of the Islamic world.

On the contrary, as I consistently define my terms, my meaning is pretty clear to most of the readers.

But, judging from your posts, I can see how you don't understand my meaning.

The correct fundamental thinking sequence is identify, then evaluate. When you invert that, i.e., judge, then go about seeking facts to justify the judgment, you miss a lot. Rand called this blank-out, but that makes it sound like a conscious choice to not see. From what I observe (in general, not just in this case), it is more like a blindness imposed by an incorrect thinking sequence.

It is impossible to rationally judge what you do not know. That goes for anywhere at any time. You just cannot refuse to identify and claim to be rational.

But it is not impossible to judge haphazardly without knowing. People do that all the time. You just have to give up the need to correctly identify something, then bash away to your heart's content. If you find enough people who do the same so you can get some social proof, the judgment even feels good inside. Suddenly there's a good "us" to fight the evil "them."

Just don't examine the premises too closely and you will be fine in that world.

Er... unless you interact with people who think for themselves according to the identify, then evaluate system. Your pre-chewed memes (which Rand colorfully called "bromides") stop working with those folks.

Michael

Huh? You haven't actually answered any of my questions. In a long-winded way you've merely said that I don't know how to think properly. You haven't enlightened me one iota as to how you reached your conclusion about Bob from his post. In fact, when I think about it you havne't answered any of my questions. How about answering this one I asked earlier: What's wrong with hating a creed that leads to atrocities such as Beslan, Mumbai, and blowing people to pieces in airport baggage claim areas?

[Richard Wiig]

Yes, I knew you'd say that. Well, it might have value to you, Michael, but it's a bit like fiddling while Rome burns.

Richard,

Zero value to whom?

[Richard Wiig]

Is someone a "bad person" if they come from a muslim country? No, but you can't be a devout muslim and be a good person. You simply can't. No more than you can be a devout communist and be a good person. "Good" people from the middle east are "good" to the extent they reject Islam.

This is a perfect example of normative before cognitive reasoning.

And that's the root of bigotry.

Michael

How do you figure that? By what standard do you judge devout Islamic religiosity to equate to being a good person? You're essentially claiming that Bob hasn't studied Islam before he reached his conclusion. I don't know how you reached that conclusion from his post, because I certainly can't see it. I don't have a clue what Bob does or doesn't know about Islam.

Micheal writes nonsense, quite regularly.

Just have him answer this question:

What can you say about the moral character of a person that is an ardent, devout communist?

Being a devout anything means in the simplest terms that the moral teachings and conclusions of the body of thought in question are largely or completely in line with the person's own morality.

What I can conclude, quite easily, is that a devout communist or muslim MUST have a moral code virtually directly opposed to my own. I think Michael (and certainly Rand without question) would be happy to make this conclusion wrt communism (in fact, Rand quite emphatically did on many occasions) but he denies the obvious conclusion wrt to Islam.

"Normative before cognitive" - nonsense. He simply puts political correctness or some other distaste for the truth ahead of logic.

He has demonstrated numerous times that he has no idea what bigotry is at all. He doesn't even understand the ideas behind Dr. Seuss's "Sneetches" - I've tried to explain it - no avail.

Bob

Nicely put, Bob.

[Richard Wiig]

Bob,

Here's how your thing works.

First you identify something that oversimplifies a human being and call it "devout." You even present an image of a fanatic as what you mean by "devout."

If you can get that package deal across, you then use it to bash people who are not "devout" (but appear to be in a vague manner) and rant and rail against a whole culture. You now have a perfect scapegoat without having to think or observe any more.

It's an intellectual con.

I definitely call that bigotry.

Michael

He may have done this somewhere other than this thread, I do not know, but where has he bashed anyone who is not devout in this thread? Where? I'm really at a loss as to where you are coming from. Justice is to judge someone objectively, but I don't see that from you when you judge Bob here. There's nothing but injustice.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Sure, but a devout muslim is devout to Islam, not to some arbitrary something else - C'mon.

Bob,

Only in la-la land is a culture like Islam, Christianity, Judaism,, etc., equivalent to a holy book.

And only in la-la land is a culture a monolithic thing that is identical the world over.

But to realize that, you have to observe, then evaluate.

You sound like you have never heard of denominations and detest the fact that they exist.

If all you want to do is look at a book and deduce the world from it, that's your form of thinking.

But it doesn't work in reality and it does lead to bigotry.

Anyway, I'm signing off for now. I have to do some productive work, not try to explain to a person with his eyes closed that there actually is light. This goes nowhere and is a huge time-sucker.

I believe I have presented enough of a case so you and the other dude will not intimidate anyone reading. Such readers have a far better chance of thinking through these things on their own and coming to their own conclusions when different views are presented.

So they--not you--will be the ones to decide for themselves which argument makes sense.

(Ain't that a bitch? )

Carry on...

Michael

[caroljane]

Richard--

"what's wrong with hating a creed which leads to [murder and atrocities]?"

Creeds don't kill people, people kill people.

Edited January 28, 2011 by daunce lynam

[bmacwilliam]

(Ain't that a bitch? )

Carry on...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Be careful with your bullying itch, Bob.

It's a spiritual desert.

Michael

[caroljane]

Be careful with your bullying itch, Bob.

It's a spiritual desert.

Michael

Michael, I'm laughing, it was funny to me and I love cats.

I've been the sole family female my whole life except for dear Ma and now my daughter-in-law.

I don't know if Bob is a bully or not, but with the screen between us, we're of equal size.

[bmacwilliam]

Be careful with your bullying itch, Bob.

It's a spiritual desert.

Michael

Michael, I'm laughing, it was funny to me and I love cats.

I've been the sole family female my whole life except for dear Ma and now my daughter-in-law.

I don't know if Bob is a bully or not, but with the screen between us, we're of equal size.

Well of course a joke, but the obvious is usually lost on Michael.

The joke of course is topical, misogynistic (one of my personal hot buttons), and meant to moderately irritate Michael. Not so funny now that I have to explain it.

Unfortunately I think he had one too many swirlies as a kid and can't tell the difference between bullying and standing up to a bully.

Bob

[Selene]

Richard--

"what's wrong with hating a creed which leads to [murder and atrocities]?"

Creeds don't kill people, people kill people.

Carol:

I assume that you apply that to the gun issue also.

Adam

[Selene]

(Ain't that a bitch? )

Carry on...

Michael

Wow, that is soooo Muslim of you...Sharia and sharia alike, I always stay.

I hear you are just a stone's through from the nearest courthouse.

Adam

[bmacwilliam]

(Ain't that a bitch? )

Carry on...

Michael

Wow, that is soooo Muslim of you...Sharia and sharia alike, I always stay.

I hear you are just a stone's through from the nearest courthouse.

Adam

wait... wait.... Yep, I could actually hear the sound of the joke flying over your head.

[caroljane]

Richard--

"what's wrong with hating a creed which leads to [murder and atrocities]?"

Creeds don't kill people, people kill people.

Carol:

I assume that you apply that to the gun issue also.

Adam

I assume you are being deadpan.

When 30 people can be killed in 30 seconds by ideas, either spoken or transmitted by telepathy, or when looks can kill, or seizing large volumes of philosophy can batter the targets to death as effectively as guns, then I will apply it as you assume.

Motive, means, opportunity. And the greatest of these is the means.