FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Pat Condell - I vote against you

Pat Condell - I vote against you

(5:57) Isn't democracy wonderful?

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (553 days ago)

Clickbait. This kind of crap brings out the racist tw@ts and gets a so called debate going. Thought better of this site!!

Original comment

Clickbait. This kind of crap brings out the racist tw@ts and gets a so called debate going. Thought better of this site!!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (553 days ago)

Then why did you start the conversation?

Original comment

Then why did you start the conversation?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (553 days ago)

I will repeat, this conversation has nothing to do with race, and therefor cannot be racist.

All the people in the world are wonderful and I respect every single one of them.

The religion of islam is a complete farce, is evil, and should be knocked out of existence.

Original comment

I will repeat, this conversation has nothing to do with race, and therefor cannot be racist.

All the people in the world are wonderful and I respect every single one of them.

The religion of islam is a complete farce, is evil, and should be knocked out of existence.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Mesmerelda Mesmerelda (551 days ago)

People are wonderful. Religion is a complete farce. Wise words my friend.

Original comment

People are wonderful. Religion is a complete farce. Wise words my friend.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: I hate this guy (553 days ago)

This man is a vile human being.

He says he doesn't believe that all cultures are equal but yet says he isn't a racist?

I love the fact he promotes free speech at the beginning of his argument then says he is against Islamic doctrine being taught.

His use of 1980s TV friendly "swear words" and a Thai bride marrying British superiority complex makes him even more loathsome.

He has a face I wouldn't tire of punching.

ReplyVote up (107)down (84)
Original comment

This man is a vile human being.

He says he doesn't believe that all cultures are equal but yet says he isn't a racist?

I love the fact he promotes free speech at the beginning of his argument then says he is against Islamic doctrine being taught.

His use of 1980s TV friendly "swear words" and a Thai bride marrying British superiority complex makes him even more loathsome.

He has a face I wouldn't tire of punching.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (553 days ago)

Free speech without limits? Interesting idea, perhaps he might want to try denying the holocaust and see what happens ...after all it's just an opinion right?

ReplyVote up (101)down (75)
Original comment

Free speech without limits? Interesting idea, perhaps he might want to try denying the holocaust and see what happens ...after all it's just an opinion right?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (553 days ago)

You cannot have an opinion on facts.

Fact: the holocaust happened.

Your opinion: it never happened.

TOO ******* BAD your wrong now get over it.

ReplyVote up (101)down (69)
Original comment

You cannot have an opinion on facts.

Fact: the holocaust happened.

Your opinion: it never happened.

TOO ******* BAD your wrong now get over it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (553 days ago)

Agreed. An apologist for bigots, trying to rationalise the deeply obnoxious prejudice that he was clearly raised with - they cite him every time they feel their right to be racist or discriminatory is getting threatened. He only ever seems to preach intolerance, hatred, and division, while complaining about the exact same. I don't think he's the sharpest tool in the box somehow.

Genuinely surprised that BoreMe want to give publicity to this narrow-minded prat.

Original comment

Agreed. An apologist for bigots, trying to rationalise the deeply obnoxious prejudice that he was clearly raised with - they cite him every time they feel their right to be racist or discriminatory is getting threatened. He only ever seems to preach intolerance, hatred, and division, while complaining about the exact same. I don't think he's the sharpest tool in the box somehow.

Genuinely surprised that BoreMe want to give publicity to this narrow-minded prat.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (553 days ago)

Totally agree, shame to find this on Boreme

ReplyVote up (101)down (73)
Original comment

Totally agree, shame to find this on Boreme

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (553 days ago)

All cultures are not equal and he is not a racist for saying that.

Islam is not a race, its a belief, and its wrong on so many levels.

Free speech is one thing but teaching the hateful doctrine of Islam to children is wrong.

Compared to any muslim , his opinion is superior, because he takes into consideration everyone and not just a certain group.

When someone disagrees with you and you can't argue back, you resort to violence.

Your on the wrong side of this argument.

ReplyVote up (83)down (101)
Original comment

All cultures are not equal and he is not a racist for saying that.

Islam is not a race, its a belief, and its wrong on so many levels.

Free speech is one thing but teaching the hateful doctrine of Islam to children is wrong.

Compared to any muslim , his opinion is superior, because he takes into consideration everyone and not just a certain group.

When someone disagrees with you and you can't argue back, you resort to violence.

Your on the wrong side of this argument.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (553 days ago)

And here we see precisely the kind of bigotry that Condell is trying to rationalise. Playing semantics in order to excuse hatred and prejudice.

The only group that Condell considers are right-wing under-educated white guys with a chipshop on their shoulders... oh, and the occasional Zionist. He's been broken apart so many times online by sharper people, it's a pity those response videos never get airtime on BoreMe.

Thunderprat and Condell are just the other side to Islamic fundamentalists: "Our way is the right way, we are not all equal, we must not tolerate anyone we consider to be wrong". File under 'Lunatic bigot'.

ReplyVote up (101)down (61)
Original comment

And here we see precisely the kind of bigotry that Condell is trying to rationalise. Playing semantics in order to excuse hatred and prejudice.

The only group that Condell considers are right-wing under-educated white guys with a chipshop on their shoulders... oh, and the occasional Zionist. He's been broken apart so many times online by sharper people, it's a pity those response videos never get airtime on BoreMe.

Thunderprat and Condell are just the other side to Islamic fundamentalists: "Our way is the right way, we are not all equal, we must not tolerate anyone we consider to be wrong". File under 'Lunatic bigot'.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (553 days ago)

And your wrong.

We are not going to a muslim country and demanding that they change to accomodate us.

We should never change our ways of living and our laws to accomodate them. Everything about islam is backwards and cruel and you want that here?

There is being toleratant and there is being a rug to be walked on. The people of England could probably tell you more about this, im sure their tired of having their daughters raped.

Original comment

And your wrong.

We are not going to a muslim country and demanding that they change to accomodate us.

We should never change our ways of living and our laws to accomodate them. Everything about islam is backwards and cruel and you want that here?

There is being toleratant and there is being a rug to be walked on. The people of England could probably tell you more about this, im sure their tired of having their daughters raped.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (553 days ago)

My wrong what?

Correct, you are not going to a Muslim country, and I'd guess you've never been. Everything about Islam is backwards and cruel? Tell me about the cruel practice of zakat, just for starters.

Please contact the Oxford Dictionary and kindly explain to them that Islam can't be considered a race. Those amateurs seems to think that a race can be "A group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.." What would they know about what words mean?

Developed societies have been including and assimilating other cultures and other religions for centuries. Usually it means no drastic change to our way of life, nor to our laws, but just an acceptance of diversity, and a slight deviation from some artificial and biased concept of 'normal' or 'native'.

And speaking as a proud resident of England, I can honestly tell you that we don't have a problem with Muslims. A small, vocal and repugnant minority do, which of course makes matters worse for everyone. I think I'll stick with being toleratant, thankyouverymuch.

ReplyVote up (101)down (55)
Original comment

My wrong what?

Correct, you are not going to a Muslim country, and I'd guess you've never been. Everything about Islam is backwards and cruel? Tell me about the cruel practice of zakat, just for starters.

Please contact the Oxford Dictionary and kindly explain to them that Islam can't be considered a race. Those amateurs seems to think that a race can be "A group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.." What would they know about what words mean?

Developed societies have been including and assimilating other cultures and other religions for centuries. Usually it means no drastic change to our way of life, nor to our laws, but just an acceptance of diversity, and a slight deviation from some artificial and biased concept of 'normal' or 'native'.

And speaking as a proud resident of England, I can honestly tell you that we don't have a problem with Muslims. A small, vocal and repugnant minority do, which of course makes matters worse for everyone. I think I'll stick with being toleratant, thankyouverymuch.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (553 days ago)

So your saying that a muslim from lebannon is the same race as an afgan muslim?

Ill answer for you, no they are not.

A black african man is of the race of black african.

A lebonese man is considered asian because he comes from the continent of asia.

A white caucasion man of european decent is considered european.

These are races of men. Their religion has nothing to do with it.

Religion does not equal race.

I was born white not Christian. Islam is a choice.

How about hangings, beheadings, sharia law, teaching children in palestein to hate jews on tv, raping and killing non-islamists, the list of offences of islam is very very long. Please just take your awful ways and go back to the hell holes you left.

ReplyVote up (101)down (58)
Original comment

So your saying that a muslim from lebannon is the same race as an afgan muslim?

Ill answer for you, no they are not.

A black african man is of the race of black african.

A lebonese man is considered asian because he comes from the continent of asia.

A white caucasion man of european decent is considered european.

These are races of men. Their religion has nothing to do with it.

Religion does not equal race.

I was born white not Christian. Islam is a choice.

How about hangings, beheadings, sharia law, teaching children in palestein to hate jews on tv, raping and killing non-islamists, the list of offences of islam is very very long. Please just take your awful ways and go back to the hell holes you left.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PA (552 days ago)

You have a very naive, narrow and inaccurate concept of what a race is. Race is not clear cut - black, white, whatever. Of course it isn't. There is no defined black race that is distinct from an arab race for example. Race is a social construct - there's plenty of research on this, in the unlikely event that you'd wish to educate yourself.

An Afghan Muslim and a Lebanese Muslim are usually from separate ethnic races, but similar cultural races. You didn't pick up my point that part of the dictionary definition of race are people with shared culture, language etc. Race does not equal religion, but it's clearly and obviously a significant part of it, and that's something you obviously don't like or understand.

Cherry picking the worst bits of certain forms of Islam to try and show how the entire religion is wrong is just absurd, and gets trotted out by your ilk time and time again. I've worked with Muslims and indeed in Islamic countries and you know what? - I never saw a hanging, beheading, or executing of 'non-islamists'. If you really think that typifies Islam, you really have no clue.

I'm sorry to break this to you, but you are racist. I'm glad that doesn't sit well with you; at least you know it's bad. I suspect you're ethnically racist too (from things you've said on other threads), but you're certainly culturally racist and Islamophobic. Condell is a gift to people like you - a fellow white man with a chip on his shoulder, telling you it's OK to think the things you do. I can see why you lap it up. Ultimately though, you're in the same boat as the Islamists, as the KKK, etc - peddling hatred that's fuelled by simple ignorance and xenophobia.

ReplyVote up (101)down (59)
Original comment

You have a very naive, narrow and inaccurate concept of what a race is. Race is not clear cut - black, white, whatever. Of course it isn't. There is no defined black race that is distinct from an arab race for example. Race is a social construct - there's plenty of research on this, in the unlikely event that you'd wish to educate yourself.

An Afghan Muslim and a Lebanese Muslim are usually from separate ethnic races, but similar cultural races. You didn't pick up my point that part of the dictionary definition of race are people with shared culture, language etc. Race does not equal religion, but it's clearly and obviously a significant part of it, and that's something you obviously don't like or understand.

Cherry picking the worst bits of certain forms of Islam to try and show how the entire religion is wrong is just absurd, and gets trotted out by your ilk time and time again. I've worked with Muslims and indeed in Islamic countries and you know what? - I never saw a hanging, beheading, or executing of 'non-islamists'. If you really think that typifies Islam, you really have no clue.

I'm sorry to break this to you, but you are racist. I'm glad that doesn't sit well with you; at least you know it's bad. I suspect you're ethnically racist too (from things you've said on other threads), but you're certainly culturally racist and Islamophobic. Condell is a gift to people like you - a fellow white man with a chip on his shoulder, telling you it's OK to think the things you do. I can see why you lap it up. Ultimately though, you're in the same boat as the Islamists, as the KKK, etc - peddling hatred that's fuelled by simple ignorance and xenophobia.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (551 days ago)

Thundercat is not racist. How can believing the death penalty for apostasy is a bad idea, be racist?

Original comment

Thundercat is not racist. How can believing the death penalty for apostasy is a bad idea, be racist?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PA (551 days ago)

It can't. However, if you look really closely, you will notice that I never say criticising the death penalty is racist. In fact, I never mention it. Time to build a new strawman Walt.

Of course there are both overlaps and semantic differences between generic xenophobia, ethnic racism, Islamophobia, and various other types of unacceptable bigoted discrimination, but whichever way you cut it, Thundercat / jechill / hitchhiker / whichever name he's using this time is an out-and-out racist:

Let's be clear.... if you criticise specific parts of Islam, without assuming that everyone who identifies as being a Muslim follows those parts, that's not racist - that's just criticising a religion.

If you criticise specific people or militant groups within Islam without using that to generalise over all Muslims worldwide, that's not racist.

If you criticise specific actions taken by the aforementioned specific people, again without generalising to the billions of people that don't commit those actions, that's not racist. However...

If you refer to people from Arab nations as 'sand monkeys' , you are racist. Frankly, you don't need to go any further. It's a pretty clear clue. Seriously.

If you believe all Muslims are likely to "marry off your daughter, rape your wife and kill you for not being a muslim", then you're making a derogatory racist generalisation.

If you believe "whole countries that are barbaric who practice islam", then you're making a derogatory racist generalisation.

I could go on, but I really don't think I need to. Seriously Walt, I know you hate Muslims but when you start defending people that use terms like 'sand monkeys', you need to take a look at yourself. Shame on you.

Original comment

It can't. However, if you look really closely, you will notice that I never say criticising the death penalty is racist. In fact, I never mention it. Time to build a new strawman Walt.

Of course there are both overlaps and semantic differences between generic xenophobia, ethnic racism, Islamophobia, and various other types of unacceptable bigoted discrimination, but whichever way you cut it, Thundercat / jechill / hitchhiker / whichever name he's using this time is an out-and-out racist:

Let's be clear.... if you criticise specific parts of Islam, without assuming that everyone who identifies as being a Muslim follows those parts, that's not racist - that's just criticising a religion.

If you criticise specific people or militant groups within Islam without using that to generalise over all Muslims worldwide, that's not racist.

If you criticise specific actions taken by the aforementioned specific people, again without generalising to the billions of people that don't commit those actions, that's not racist. However...

If you refer to people from Arab nations as 'sand monkeys' , you are racist. Frankly, you don't need to go any further. It's a pretty clear clue. Seriously.

If you believe all Muslims are likely to "marry off your daughter, rape your wife and kill you for not being a muslim", then you're making a derogatory racist generalisation.

If you believe "whole countries that are barbaric who practice islam", then you're making a derogatory racist generalisation.

I could go on, but I really don't think I need to. Seriously Walt, I know you hate Muslims but when you start defending people that use terms like 'sand monkeys', you need to take a look at yourself. Shame on you.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (551 days ago)

Thundercat is criticising a bunch of bad ideas collectively known as Islam. One of those bad ideas is the death penalty for apostasy. I don't see any racism.

Challenge Thundercat on his views that Islam is full of bad ideas. Calling him racist is a distraction technique.

ReplyVote up (78)down (101)
Original comment

Thundercat is criticising a bunch of bad ideas collectively known as Islam. One of those bad ideas is the death penalty for apostasy. I don't see any racism.

Challenge Thundercat on his views that Islam is full of bad ideas. Calling him racist is a distraction technique.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: thundercat (551 days ago)

ya,This guy just wants to wind me up.

Islam is a great idea.

I mean female circumcision, hiding the women behind a viel, having sex with farm animals, killing people, chopping off of hands, class based society, forced marriage, jihad, suicide bombers, yelling out islam is the greatest and america will die, segregating islam in america, dictators, marrying juveniles, lying is ok, and total lack of tolerance for others.

Whats not to like?

Original comment

ya,This guy just wants to wind me up.

Islam is a great idea.

I mean female circumcision, hiding the women behind a viel, having sex with farm animals, killing people, chopping off of hands, class based society, forced marriage, jihad, suicide bombers, yelling out islam is the greatest and america will die, segregating islam in america, dictators, marrying juveniles, lying is ok, and total lack of tolerance for others.

Whats not to like?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PA (550 days ago)

If only this was ironic. But no, you actually believe it. Genuinely delusional. QED.

Original comment

If only this was ironic. But no, you actually believe it. Genuinely delusional. QED.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PA (551 days ago)

Walt. Be honest, be serious for a second. You cannot see anything racist about referring to people from Arab nations as 'sand monkeys '? Really? I guess being born in an Arab nation is just a bad idea that he's criticising perhaps? You think my calling him a racist for such a term is a distraction technique ? I always felt you were a xenophobe, but not an apologist for outright racism. Genuinely a little surprised.

Islamophobia always has a strong racial element, and indeed could be considered a form of racism when you take into account Islamic culture and history. I'm afraid that's just what the word 'race' includes, whether you guys like it or not. Besides, a more classical ethnic racism is often the starting point for extreme bigotry against culture and religion. We can all pretend that Thundercat only has an issue with the religion, not the race, and pretend that's more acceptable, until he goes and shows his colours by using racial slurs and my point is proven in a second.

It's odd that you're trying to reword and edit Thundercat's views. I don't see him saying that Islam is full of bad ideas. I see him saying things like Muslims are likely to "marry off your daughter, rape your wife and kill you for not being a muslim", and "whole countries that are barbaric who practice islam". These aren't specific attacks on specific parts of a religion, these are offensive and ignorant generalisations about millions of people. Don't you see the difference?

And as for challenging him, he has made it very clear on other threads that he has an impressively low understanding on Islam - literally, less than UK primary level RE - he doesn't know the difference between a hadith a a sunnah. He criticises the accuary of the Quran, and then says the only reason he needs for believing Mohammed was a pervert is the Quran. I'm afraid he's not yet on a level where he can debate things in a logical or systematic way.

Original comment

Walt. Be honest, be serious for a second. You cannot see anything racist about referring to people from Arab nations as 'sand monkeys '? Really? I guess being born in an Arab nation is just a bad idea that he's criticising perhaps? You think my calling him a racist for such a term is a distraction technique ? I always felt you were a xenophobe, but not an apologist for outright racism. Genuinely a little surprised.

Islamophobia always has a strong racial element, and indeed could be considered a form of racism when you take into account Islamic culture and history. I'm afraid that's just what the word 'race' includes, whether you guys like it or not. Besides, a more classical ethnic racism is often the starting point for extreme bigotry against culture and religion. We can all pretend that Thundercat only has an issue with the religion, not the race, and pretend that's more acceptable, until he goes and shows his colours by using racial slurs and my point is proven in a second.

It's odd that you're trying to reword and edit Thundercat's views. I don't see him saying that Islam is full of bad ideas. I see him saying things like Muslims are likely to "marry off your daughter, rape your wife and kill you for not being a muslim", and "whole countries that are barbaric who practice islam". These aren't specific attacks on specific parts of a religion, these are offensive and ignorant generalisations about millions of people. Don't you see the difference?

And as for challenging him, he has made it very clear on other threads that he has an impressively low understanding on Islam - literally, less than UK primary level RE - he doesn't know the difference between a hadith a a sunnah. He criticises the accuary of the Quran, and then says the only reason he needs for believing Mohammed was a pervert is the Quran. I'm afraid he's not yet on a level where he can debate things in a logical or systematic way.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (550 days ago)

It looks to me like typical escalation when 2 adults argue. You started it off: "Don't think I've forgotten your 'sand people' / sand monkey comment." And he retorted "yep good ole sand monkeys." What's your problem? If you need a safe space to recover, switch off your computer.

When I read through Thundercat's comments, I don't think of him lying on his sofa, unable to sleep, seething at the brown skinned people who moved in next door. What I read is a vigorous defence of the idea that attacking a religion is not racist.

I thought some of his bullet points were spot on. I may even use them myself. For example, "You cannot leave your race but you can leave Islam" . Surely that is crucial. So when Islam has the death penalty for apostasy, how can you blame anyone for getting angry and calling Islam evil? Why are you not angry? Why do you try to defend the bad ideas. It's not racist to attack bad ideas.

"Islamophobia always has a strong racial element …" Yes but it's not hard to see why. Muslims tend to look the same because they come from the same geographic area. So people get confused and lump race and religion together. Media don't help either. Many human beings are not that bright.

You can criticise the ideas in Islam, and Muslims for following those ideas, and not be racist. Of course Muslims genuinely don't believe the ideas they follow are bad, and will defend them and rightly so. But here's the thing, when someone defends their religion, they do it by distancing themselves from their holy books. The closer you follow your holy book, the more fundamentalist you become. The more you re-interpret your holy book, the more acceptable it becomes. So why not just go the full hog and ditch the holy book altogether. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

"It's odd that you're trying to reword and edit Thundercat's views. I don't see him saying that Islam is full of bad ideas." Isn't a religion just a collection of ideas looking for a following? Here's a thought, if people stopped believing in god, would he still exist?

When Thundercat says "Muslims are likely to marry off your daughter" - arranged marriage is the idea in Islam, Muslims are the people who choose to carry out that idea. If you think arranged marriages is a bad idea, then criticising a Muslim for implementing a bad idea is not being racist.

"… he doesn't know the difference between a hadith a a sunnah." I don't think you need to know the difference between a hadith and a sunnah to know that the death penalty for apostasy is wrong. Or that Sharia law is barbaric.

Original comment

It looks to me like typical escalation when 2 adults argue. You started it off: "Don't think I've forgotten your 'sand people' / sand monkey comment." And he retorted "yep good ole sand monkeys." What's your problem? If you need a safe space to recover, switch off your computer.

When I read through Thundercat's comments, I don't think of him lying on his sofa, unable to sleep, seething at the brown skinned people who moved in next door. What I read is a vigorous defence of the idea that attacking a religion is not racist.

I thought some of his bullet points were spot on. I may even use them myself. For example, "You cannot leave your race but you can leave Islam" . Surely that is crucial. So when Islam has the death penalty for apostasy, how can you blame anyone for getting angry and calling Islam evil? Why are you not angry? Why do you try to defend the bad ideas. It's not racist to attack bad ideas.

"Islamophobia always has a strong racial element …" Yes but it's not hard to see why. Muslims tend to look the same because they come from the same geographic area. So people get confused and lump race and religion together. Media don't help either. Many human beings are not that bright.

You can criticise the ideas in Islam, and Muslims for following those ideas, and not be racist. Of course Muslims genuinely don't believe the ideas they follow are bad, and will defend them and rightly so. But here's the thing, when someone defends their religion, they do it by distancing themselves from their holy books. The closer you follow your holy book, the more fundamentalist you become. The more you re-interpret your holy book, the more acceptable it becomes. So why not just go the full hog and ditch the holy book altogether. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

"It's odd that you're trying to reword and edit Thundercat's views. I don't see him saying that Islam is full of bad ideas." Isn't a religion just a collection of ideas looking for a following? Here's a thought, if people stopped believing in god, would he still exist?

When Thundercat says "Muslims are likely to marry off your daughter" - arranged marriage is the idea in Islam, Muslims are the people who choose to carry out that idea. If you think arranged marriages is a bad idea, then criticising a Muslim for implementing a bad idea is not being racist.

"… he doesn't know the difference between a hadith a a sunnah." I don't think you need to know the difference between a hadith and a sunnah to know that the death penalty for apostasy is wrong. Or that Sharia law is barbaric.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PA (549 days ago)

Right, what's my problem? What's yours? Why are you are totally unwilling or unable to address obvious racism - is it so hard to admit that using a term like 'sand monkeys ' is wrong? Is that really a stretch for you? You just can't bring yourself to say it, can you? I wonder at what stage you would ever describe something as racist? It suddenly puts all your whimpering about political correctness into a new context.

I enjoy our little exchanges Walt, but honestly, forgetting everything about Islam for a moment; if you really are too cowardly to call a term like 'sand monkey' racist, then there's no debate - seriously, don't bother reading on - I know an attitude like that clouds rationality and we'd be wasting our time. If we can't as adults even start from the same premise that racism is demonstrably wrong and that 'sand monkeys' is racist then you've shown your true colours and I've totally misjudged you.

If however, you can bravely put those words into a sentence, then here are my replies:

------------------------- -------------

"Muslims tend to look the same because they come from the same geographic area.... Many human beings are not that bright."
Correct, which is why you end up with people like Thundercat using racist terms like 'sand monkey', and people like you tripping over themselves to defend him for it. This is also why atheist Arabs wearing a thawb will get still racist abuse relating to Islam, and white Western Muslims who wear Western-style clothes escape without criticism. Because it's racial and cultural, not rational and religious.

"You can criticise the ideas in Islam, and Muslims for following those ideas, and not be racist."
Agreed. But if you make sweeping negative generalisations based on a minority across the entire Muslim race, that's racist; if you make negative assumptions about all people of a certain culture, that's racist; if you make slurs based on the ethnicity of Muslims such as 'sand monkeys', that's also racist. Thundercat happens to be ignorantly critical of Islam AND racist too, so he ticks all the boxes. By the way, if you denounce all Welsh people as being inbred, that's racist too. It doesn't matter if the Welsh aren't really a separate ethnic race to the English, and it doesn't matter that technically you can choose not to be Welsh by renouncing your UK citizenship and getting a foreign passport.... it is still racist.

"I don't think you need to know the difference between a hadith and a sunnah to know that the death penalty for apostasy is wrong."
Correct. But you do need to know the difference to criticise the notion of 72 virgins, or to criticise the ages of Muhammed's wives, or to understand why some Islamic beliefs are actually much rarer than others. It's also rather damning when you can't make such a fundamental distinction within very basic knowledge of Islam, yet you still feel qualified to criticise the religion - it asks the question what else have you misunderstood? What else don't you know about? Obtuse ignorance or an innocent lack of knowledge is always an issue when it comes to criticising anything. If you literally describe the entirety of Islam as being ' cruel ', but have never heard of zakat, or you describe Islam as being ' backwards ' but have never heard of al-Haytham, Queen Rania or Rhazes, then you're out of your depth and your emotive opinions are based on a poor education, a lack of understanding or an underlying racial bias.

"So when Islam has the death penalty for apostasy, how can you blame anyone for getting angry and calling Islam evil?"
This is another great example. You need to know enough about the Quran and the hadith to understand that Islam does not have the death penalty for apostasy. The Quran itself condemns it, but says that Allah will do the punishing, so therefore it's actually certain governments that choose to have the death penalty for apostacy, not an entire religion. In fact, in more than half of Muslim countries apostacy isn't even a crime. As I said, that's just ignorance. So yes, you can criticise the idea, but the moment you attempt to generalise over an entire race or religion, you're making a factual and racist mistake. Arranged marriage is accepted in much of the Islamic world, correct. How about "having sex with farm animals, killing people... suicide bombers... marrying juveniles... lying" - all claims by Thundercat which you've somehow neglected to mention? Do you think they fairly represent the 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide? Do you think that's a 'vigorous defence of the idea that attacking a religion is not racist" ... or do you think that maybe, possibly, just perhaps, they're racist generalisations?

Original comment

Right, what's my problem? What's yours? Why are you are totally unwilling or unable to address obvious racism - is it so hard to admit that using a term like 'sand monkeys ' is wrong? Is that really a stretch for you? You just can't bring yourself to say it, can you? I wonder at what stage you would ever describe something as racist? It suddenly puts all your whimpering about political correctness into a new context.

I enjoy our little exchanges Walt, but honestly, forgetting everything about Islam for a moment; if you really are too cowardly to call a term like 'sand monkey' racist, then there's no debate - seriously, don't bother reading on - I know an attitude like that clouds rationality and we'd be wasting our time. If we can't as adults even start from the same premise that racism is demonstrably wrong and that 'sand monkeys' is racist then you've shown your true colours and I've totally misjudged you.

If however, you can bravely put those words into a sentence, then here are my replies:

------------------------- -------------

"Muslims tend to look the same because they come from the same geographic area.... Many human beings are not that bright."
Correct, which is why you end up with people like Thundercat using racist terms like 'sand monkey', and people like you tripping over themselves to defend him for it. This is also why atheist Arabs wearing a thawb will get still racist abuse relating to Islam, and white Western Muslims who wear Western-style clothes escape without criticism. Because it's racial and cultural, not rational and religious.

"You can criticise the ideas in Islam, and Muslims for following those ideas, and not be racist."
Agreed. But if you make sweeping negative generalisations based on a minority across the entire Muslim race, that's racist; if you make negative assumptions about all people of a certain culture, that's racist; if you make slurs based on the ethnicity of Muslims such as 'sand monkeys', that's also racist. Thundercat happens to be ignorantly critical of Islam AND racist too, so he ticks all the boxes. By the way, if you denounce all Welsh people as being inbred, that's racist too. It doesn't matter if the Welsh aren't really a separate ethnic race to the English, and it doesn't matter that technically you can choose not to be Welsh by renouncing your UK citizenship and getting a foreign passport.... it is still racist.

"I don't think you need to know the difference between a hadith and a sunnah to know that the death penalty for apostasy is wrong."
Correct. But you do need to know the difference to criticise the notion of 72 virgins, or to criticise the ages of Muhammed's wives, or to understand why some Islamic beliefs are actually much rarer than others. It's also rather damning when you can't make such a fundamental distinction within very basic knowledge of Islam, yet you still feel qualified to criticise the religion - it asks the question what else have you misunderstood? What else don't you know about? Obtuse ignorance or an innocent lack of knowledge is always an issue when it comes to criticising anything. If you literally describe the entirety of Islam as being ' cruel ', but have never heard of zakat, or you describe Islam as being ' backwards ' but have never heard of al-Haytham, Queen Rania or Rhazes, then you're out of your depth and your emotive opinions are based on a poor education, a lack of understanding or an underlying racial bias.

"So when Islam has the death penalty for apostasy, how can you blame anyone for getting angry and calling Islam evil?"
This is another great example. You need to know enough about the Quran and the hadith to understand that Islam does not have the death penalty for apostasy. The Quran itself condemns it, but says that Allah will do the punishing, so therefore it's actually certain governments that choose to have the death penalty for apostacy, not an entire religion. In fact, in more than half of Muslim countries apostacy isn't even a crime. As I said, that's just ignorance. So yes, you can criticise the idea, but the moment you attempt to generalise over an entire race or religion, you're making a factual and racist mistake. Arranged marriage is accepted in much of the Islamic world, correct. How about "having sex with farm animals, killing people... suicide bombers... marrying juveniles... lying" - all claims by Thundercat which you've somehow neglected to mention? Do you think they fairly represent the 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide? Do you think that's a 'vigorous defence of the idea that attacking a religion is not racist" ... or do you think that maybe, possibly, just perhaps, they're racist generalisations?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (549 days ago)

You can call me a white earth monkey if you like. After all we all share 99% of our dna with chimps.

I don't need to know much about nazi fasism to know its a bad thing and i don't need to know much about islam to know its evil.

In a lot of ways Christianity is equally so.

Original comment

You can call me a white earth monkey if you like. After all we all share 99% of our dna with chimps.

I don't need to know much about nazi fasism to know its a bad thing and i don't need to know much about islam to know its evil.

In a lot of ways Christianity is equally so.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (549 days ago)

Do you really think for a minute that i care one little bit what a person's skin colour is?

This is about what people do, not what their skin colour is.

Original comment

Do you really think for a minute that i care one little bit what a person's skin colour is?

This is about what people do, not what their skin colour is.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PA (549 days ago)

Yeah Thundercat, ' sand monkey s' is about what people do. Are you seriously trying to rationalise that to yourself?

Like I said, you are busted. All that song and dance pretending to be only attacking a religion, then you use an ugly racial slur like that. I have no more time for you and your impulsive ill-informed racism.

Original comment

Yeah Thundercat, ' sand monkey s' is about what people do. Are you seriously trying to rationalise that to yourself?

Like I said, you are busted. All that song and dance pretending to be only attacking a religion, then you use an ugly racial slur like that. I have no more time for you and your impulsive ill-informed racism.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (549 days ago)

lmao

I just think its funny. Sand monkey, sand monkey.

You guys need to relax.

Sand monkey is a racial slur? How about slanty eyes?

How exactly is sand monkey about what people do?

Your right educated racism is much better lol. Mechanics can sometimes be called grease monkeys.

Tell you what, take that pickle out of your ass and live life for a bit.

Original comment

lmao

I just think its funny. Sand monkey, sand monkey.

You guys need to relax.

Sand monkey is a racial slur? How about slanty eyes?

How exactly is sand monkey about what people do?

Your right educated racism is much better lol. Mechanics can sometimes be called grease monkeys.

Tell you what, take that pickle out of your ass and live life for a bit.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (548 days ago)

this dude is utter ******* scum

Original comment

this dude is utter ******* scum

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (548 days ago)

So your "guest" now? what name will you use next i wonder.

Fudge packer would be a good suggestion.

Original comment

So your "guest" now? what name will you use next i wonder.

Fudge packer would be a good suggestion.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (548 days ago)

christ your amount of stupid hurts my eyes

Original comment

christ your amount of stupid hurts my eyes

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (548 days ago)

lol

what a loser you are.

Original comment

lol

what a loser you are.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PA (546 days ago)

I love this comment. Sometimes in a debate your opponent will say something that somehow encapsulates all your points against them.

Original comment

I love this comment. Sometimes in a debate your opponent will say something that somehow encapsulates all your points against them.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (548 days ago)

Wagon Burner, sand monkey, diaper head, niglets, wahoo, pikey, wop, daygo , i cant think of any more but these should really boil your blood.

Original comment

Wagon Burner, sand monkey, diaper head, niglets, wahoo, pikey, wop, daygo , i cant think of any more but these should really boil your blood.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (548 days ago)

"Why are you are totally unwilling or unable to address obvious racism - is it so hard to admit that using a term like 'sand monkeys ' is wrong?" I don't think it's obvious. When Thundercat says "Do you really think for a minute that i care one little bit what a person's skin colour is?" I believe him. I don't see how you can be racist if you don't care about someone's skin colour. When I think about Islam, race is not even on the radar. Why should it be? Why do you insist on lumping religion and race together?

About sand monkey. YOU started it. YOU wanted to provoke a reaction from Thundercat. YOU said: "Don't think I've forgotten your 'sand people' / sand monkey comment." If you didn't bring it up, no one would be talking about sand monkeys. But now, every other sentence refers to sand monkeys. The topic was Islam. Now it's sand monkeys. Thanks a banana bunch!

I don't think racism is black and white, I think it's a sliding scale. Everybody is racist to some extent, it's a matter of degree. People value and protect those close to them more than outsiders, so it's easy to see how that morphs into racism. Racism born out of fear and ignorance, for example in redneck America, I don't consider real racism. It's like a cat stealing your fish. You might get angry, you might even kick the cat, but you can't blame the cat because that's what cats do. Ignorant rednecks don't like outsiders because they are ignorant. If you want to educate the ignorant redneck, you need to think of a different way than just slagging him off and calling him racist.

I think real racists are those who think their race is superior to other races and act accordingly, like white supremacists. But I think they are quite small in numbers. White supremacists are like the ISIS of racists. You are generalising and tarnishing all racists with the same brush. Racism is more nuanced than you seem to appreciate.

Original comment

"Why are you are totally unwilling or unable to address obvious racism - is it so hard to admit that using a term like 'sand monkeys ' is wrong?" I don't think it's obvious. When Thundercat says "Do you really think for a minute that i care one little bit what a person's skin colour is?" I believe him. I don't see how you can be racist if you don't care about someone's skin colour. When I think about Islam, race is not even on the radar. Why should it be? Why do you insist on lumping religion and race together?

About sand monkey. YOU started it. YOU wanted to provoke a reaction from Thundercat. YOU said: "Don't think I've forgotten your 'sand people' / sand monkey comment." If you didn't bring it up, no one would be talking about sand monkeys. But now, every other sentence refers to sand monkeys. The topic was Islam. Now it's sand monkeys. Thanks a banana bunch!

I don't think racism is black and white, I think it's a sliding scale. Everybody is racist to some extent, it's a matter of degree. People value and protect those close to them more than outsiders, so it's easy to see how that morphs into racism. Racism born out of fear and ignorance, for example in redneck America, I don't consider real racism. It's like a cat stealing your fish. You might get angry, you might even kick the cat, but you can't blame the cat because that's what cats do. Ignorant rednecks don't like outsiders because they are ignorant. If you want to educate the ignorant redneck, you need to think of a different way than just slagging him off and calling him racist.

I think real racists are those who think their race is superior to other races and act accordingly, like white supremacists. But I think they are quite small in numbers. White supremacists are like the ISIS of racists. You are generalising and tarnishing all racists with the same brush. Racism is more nuanced than you seem to appreciate.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PA (548 days ago)

Oh wow, you really can't do it. I thought you were just stalling for time. That is so revealing. You can criticise anything, from philosophers to scientists, Jews to 'social justice warriors', but you can't bring yourself to admit that the label 'sand monkey' is racist. It's either hilarious or tragic. You think it's not obviously racist - maybe 'sand monkey' refers to their religion, right, or the way they behave? Good god. I'm afraid that puts a whole different context to all your other comments. Huge fail there, Walt. Cowardly apologism at its worse.

If someone uses openly racists terms and then tells you they're not racist, you're gullible (or in denial) if you believe them. Of course there are different levels of racism, but using obvious racial slurs means you are on the spectrum. Yes, I quoted his 'sand monkey' comment from another thread (which was also talking about Islam, FYI). He was the first person to use that term. I mentioned it to conclusively prove (to anyone other than an apologist) that actually he is racist, however much you deny or defend it. The fact is, you don't use those terms (on any thread) if you don't have those attitudes - he knows he was caught red-handed.

Why would race even be on the radar when talking about Islam? Great question, ask Thundercat, he was the first to bring it up on an Islam thread.

Basically, when two of the most vociferous critics of Islam on BoreMe are happy to use (or defend) racist slurs against Arabs in threads about Islam, it implies that their criticism emanates from an emotional bias against an ethnicity rather than logical reasoning against a religion. I wish it were different, but until it's clear that critics can separate their racial insults from points about the faith, no meaningful debate can be had. Deep rooted prejudice obviously clouds rational debate, and if you are unable to call it out, we're done. Pitiful.

Well what a noble defence of racism you have conjured up, you utter hero: Everyone is racist, deep down, so you won't condemn those that use racist abuse. Maybe I just wound Thundercat up, and heck every adult starts insulting entire races when they're wound up, right? And the only "real racists" are white supremacists, anything less than that we should tolerate. And not forgetting this classic: I'm making unfavourable generalisations across all racists and TARNISHING ALL RACISTS with the same brush!!!!? Are you freaking having a laugh? You've become a parody; I totally overestimated you. You've literally changed the way I think about you within a few comments. "Tarnishing all racists with the same brush!"

Original comment

Oh wow, you really can't do it. I thought you were just stalling for time. That is so revealing. You can criticise anything, from philosophers to scientists, Jews to 'social justice warriors', but you can't bring yourself to admit that the label 'sand monkey' is racist. It's either hilarious or tragic. You think it's not obviously racist - maybe 'sand monkey' refers to their religion, right, or the way they behave? Good god. I'm afraid that puts a whole different context to all your other comments. Huge fail there, Walt. Cowardly apologism at its worse.

If someone uses openly racists terms and then tells you they're not racist, you're gullible (or in denial) if you believe them. Of course there are different levels of racism, but using obvious racial slurs means you are on the spectrum. Yes, I quoted his 'sand monkey' comment from another thread (which was also talking about Islam, FYI). He was the first person to use that term. I mentioned it to conclusively prove (to anyone other than an apologist) that actually he is racist, however much you deny or defend it. The fact is, you don't use those terms (on any thread) if you don't have those attitudes - he knows he was caught red-handed.

Why would race even be on the radar when talking about Islam? Great question, ask Thundercat, he was the first to bring it up on an Islam thread.

Basically, when two of the most vociferous critics of Islam on BoreMe are happy to use (or defend) racist slurs against Arabs in threads about Islam, it implies that their criticism emanates from an emotional bias against an ethnicity rather than logical reasoning against a religion. I wish it were different, but until it's clear that critics can separate their racial insults from points about the faith, no meaningful debate can be had. Deep rooted prejudice obviously clouds rational debate, and if you are unable to call it out, we're done. Pitiful.

Well what a noble defence of racism you have conjured up, you utter hero: Everyone is racist, deep down, so you won't condemn those that use racist abuse. Maybe I just wound Thundercat up, and heck every adult starts insulting entire races when they're wound up, right? And the only "real racists" are white supremacists, anything less than that we should tolerate. And not forgetting this classic: I'm making unfavourable generalisations across all racists and TARNISHING ALL RACISTS with the same brush!!!!? Are you freaking having a laugh? You've become a parody; I totally overestimated you. You've literally changed the way I think about you within a few comments. "Tarnishing all racists with the same brush!"

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (548 days ago)

Were done. lmao who cares?

Who the hell do you think you are and what gives you the right to judge anyone? Your just an armchair critic of other people at least Pat has a face and isn't afraid to stand up for his opionions. You just like to play God, behind your mask and take many persona's to do this, often changing your name here and having fake arguments with your self. Get a life you loser.

Your going to wear out your fingers trying to cause shit, trying to get people to see your point of view but your just as much a racist as anyone else.

Your really make me laugh.

Original comment

Were done. lmao who cares?

Who the hell do you think you are and what gives you the right to judge anyone? Your just an armchair critic of other people at least Pat has a face and isn't afraid to stand up for his opionions. You just like to play God, behind your mask and take many persona's to do this, often changing your name here and having fake arguments with your self. Get a life you loser.

Your going to wear out your fingers trying to cause shit, trying to get people to see your point of view but your just as much a racist as anyone else.

Your really make me laugh.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (548 days ago)

your a ******* retard. you hipocrite how many names do you use on here jechill hitchiker thundert@t and you say PA uses a mask? HA HA! go cry a river he called you out for being what you are. a peice of sh!t racist. disgusting worth less little troll you are.

Original comment

your a ******* retard. you hipocrite how many names do you use on here jechill hitchiker thundert@t and you say PA uses a mask? HA HA! go cry a river he called you out for being what you are. a peice of sh!t racist. disgusting worth less little troll you are.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (548 days ago)

lmao

you mad bro?

Original comment

lmao

you mad bro?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PA (550 days ago)

Come on Walt. I'm fascinated to hear why you don't think using the term 'sand monkeys' is racist.

Original comment

Come on Walt. I'm fascinated to hear why you don't think using the term 'sand monkeys' is racist.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: thundercat (551 days ago)

lmao.

damned sand monkeys

Original comment

lmao.

damned sand monkeys

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (552 days ago)

No im not a racist, I just don't like islam, and if you don't like that, then it sucks to be you. When you ask someone what race they are , they certainly do not say "im muslim". Thats not a race. They usually say im african or im Irish etc. Islam is a choice not a race. You cannot leave your race but you can leave islam.

Islam is evil and always has been. You can't say islam murders sometimes, look over here its good but over here its bad. If you claim to be islamic then you condone whatever evil islam does.

Pat Condell is a great man, thats why he is still going strong.

Original comment

No im not a racist, I just don't like islam, and if you don't like that, then it sucks to be you. When you ask someone what race they are , they certainly do not say "im muslim". Thats not a race. They usually say im african or im Irish etc. Islam is a choice not a race. You cannot leave your race but you can leave islam.

Islam is evil and always has been. You can't say islam murders sometimes, look over here its good but over here its bad. If you claim to be islamic then you condone whatever evil islam does.

Pat Condell is a great man, thats why he is still going strong.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PA (552 days ago)

Yeah, I get that you don't want to be racist, that's great. But you are. It's just that you don't understand what race is (the Irish are a race, but not the Jews? Seriously?) and therefore you don't understand what racism is either. I've literally quoted the Oxford definition of race, and you still don't understand it. I can't help you. If you think you know better than that, then you're done with reason. Just make it up as you go along, if that's worked for you this far.

Any belief from Islam to veganism, atheism to Luddism, has extremes that are unpleasant, militant and often violent. Islam is no more responsible for Isis / militant Islamists than the Parti Québécois are reponsible for the FLQ, or Christianity is responsible for the KKK or the LRA. The undeniable fact that you don't like is that the vast majority of Muslims worldwide, including every single Muslim that I've ever worked with, are peaceful, tolerant, and diplomatic. Deal with it, because that's the world that the rest of us live in. The only threat are the intolerant zealots like you, Condell, al Baghdadi etc etc etc.

Pat Condell is a bigot, and bigots are popular with bigots. That's why him, Trump, al Baghdadi, and a million others are 'still going strong', that's why Hitler and Stalin did so well, there are endless examples - there are a lot of backward undereducated folk desperately seeking to rationalise the prejudice that they were brought up with, and their fears are exploited by politicians and egotists. You're a scared white guy who simply doesn't have enough experience of other cultures, especially not Islam. But I think you're proud of that, and fiercely defensive of your right to be ignorant on such matters.

I'm wrestling with swine here. I should know better.

Original comment

Yeah, I get that you don't want to be racist, that's great. But you are. It's just that you don't understand what race is (the Irish are a race, but not the Jews? Seriously?) and therefore you don't understand what racism is either. I've literally quoted the Oxford definition of race, and you still don't understand it. I can't help you. If you think you know better than that, then you're done with reason. Just make it up as you go along, if that's worked for you this far.

Any belief from Islam to veganism, atheism to Luddism, has extremes that are unpleasant, militant and often violent. Islam is no more responsible for Isis / militant Islamists than the Parti Québécois are reponsible for the FLQ, or Christianity is responsible for the KKK or the LRA. The undeniable fact that you don't like is that the vast majority of Muslims worldwide, including every single Muslim that I've ever worked with, are peaceful, tolerant, and diplomatic. Deal with it, because that's the world that the rest of us live in. The only threat are the intolerant zealots like you, Condell, al Baghdadi etc etc etc.

Pat Condell is a bigot, and bigots are popular with bigots. That's why him, Trump, al Baghdadi, and a million others are 'still going strong', that's why Hitler and Stalin did so well, there are endless examples - there are a lot of backward undereducated folk desperately seeking to rationalise the prejudice that they were brought up with, and their fears are exploited by politicians and egotists. You're a scared white guy who simply doesn't have enough experience of other cultures, especially not Islam. But I think you're proud of that, and fiercely defensive of your right to be ignorant on such matters.

I'm wrestling with swine here. I should know better.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (552 days ago)

No im not racist.

Religion is not race, period!

Yes they want to be law abiding citizens so eventually they can get their own way and bring sharia law to the west.

I cannot leave my race but i can leave my religion.

Pat is not a bigot, he's a realist.

Yesterday isis beheaded a 7 year old boy for swearing under sharia law.

That sounds really civilised and i can just hear all of your muslim friends standing up against it. Thats right they are not, because secretly they agree with sharia.

I have no fear at all of muslims, they just won't get their way and thats, that.

Im wrestling with a muslim apologist, you make excuses etc. If Christians were causeing this much trouble, you would see millions of Christians standing up against it. Not so with islam.

When the shit hits the fan, dont think for a minute that your muslim friends have your back, they may be the first to throw stones just to prove how real muslim they are.

Original comment

No im not racist.

Religion is not race, period!

Yes they want to be law abiding citizens so eventually they can get their own way and bring sharia law to the west.

I cannot leave my race but i can leave my religion.

Pat is not a bigot, he's a realist.

Yesterday isis beheaded a 7 year old boy for swearing under sharia law.

That sounds really civilised and i can just hear all of your muslim friends standing up against it. Thats right they are not, because secretly they agree with sharia.

I have no fear at all of muslims, they just won't get their way and thats, that.

Im wrestling with a muslim apologist, you make excuses etc. If Christians were causeing this much trouble, you would see millions of Christians standing up against it. Not so with islam.

When the shit hits the fan, dont think for a minute that your muslim friends have your back, they may be the first to throw stones just to prove how real muslim they are.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PA (552 days ago)

Holy crap. It's like you can't read. Where did I say religion is the same as race? I have just mentioned the dictionary definition of race which includes language, culture, etc and that includes religion... it doesn't equal religion... it includes religion. It's not the same... but it includes it. Yeah? So that means if you're generalising about all people in a negative way, based on their culture, that is a form of racism. There are other forms. But that is one. Yeah? Get it? Not rocket science, Jechill.

Oh those devious law-abiding Muslims, trying to come over here and abide by our laws, just so eventually they can make their own. What_planet_do_you_live_o n? If they abide by our laws, they're being devious to sneak in, and if they don't, they're dangerous and evil. Duh. The majority of Muslims will continue to get their way, as will the rest of us - a diverse culture in which most of us can live alongside different views. And yes, my friends and colleagues stand up against Isis all the time. In fact, one of them recently described Isis as the biggest threat to Islam that has ever existed, because they murder more Muslims than anyone else, and because they stoke the hatred among scared right wing extremists like you and Condell. No one is defending Isis, which is why countless countries (including Muslim countries with Sharia law) are investing millions of pounds (not to mention lives) in fighting them. No one is defending Islamic extremism either, which is why members of the Muslims community come out every_single_time there is an attack in a Western country and outright condemn it. Parisian Muslim leaders came out to denounce the Paris attacks before Hollande had even got out of his limo. Didn't you notice that? Of course not. So don't say they don't stand up against it, that's just ignorant.

You're paranoid, you're scared, you're undereducated, and yes you're racist, awkwardly wrestling with the prejudice that was spoon fed to you by incompetent mentors. Don't think I've forgotten your 'sand people' / sand monkey comment. You think you don't have a history on here? You're pretty much the definition of racist, and oh brother is it ugly as hell.

Original comment

Holy crap. It's like you can't read. Where did I say religion is the same as race? I have just mentioned the dictionary definition of race which includes language, culture, etc and that includes religion... it doesn't equal religion... it includes religion. It's not the same... but it includes it. Yeah? So that means if you're generalising about all people in a negative way, based on their culture, that is a form of racism. There are other forms. But that is one. Yeah? Get it? Not rocket science, Jechill.

Oh those devious law-abiding Muslims, trying to come over here and abide by our laws, just so eventually they can make their own. What_planet_do_you_live_o n? If they abide by our laws, they're being devious to sneak in, and if they don't, they're dangerous and evil. Duh. The majority of Muslims will continue to get their way, as will the rest of us - a diverse culture in which most of us can live alongside different views. And yes, my friends and colleagues stand up against Isis all the time. In fact, one of them recently described Isis as the biggest threat to Islam that has ever existed, because they murder more Muslims than anyone else, and because they stoke the hatred among scared right wing extremists like you and Condell. No one is defending Isis, which is why countless countries (including Muslim countries with Sharia law) are investing millions of pounds (not to mention lives) in fighting them. No one is defending Islamic extremism either, which is why members of the Muslims community come out every_single_time there is an attack in a Western country and outright condemn it. Parisian Muslim leaders came out to denounce the Paris attacks before Hollande had even got out of his limo. Didn't you notice that? Of course not. So don't say they don't stand up against it, that's just ignorant.

You're paranoid, you're scared, you're undereducated, and yes you're racist, awkwardly wrestling with the prejudice that was spoon fed to you by incompetent mentors. Don't think I've forgotten your 'sand people' / sand monkey comment. You think you don't have a history on here? You're pretty much the definition of racist, and oh brother is it ugly as hell.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (552 days ago)

lmao.

yep good ole sand monkeys.

Islam is evil, everyone knows it.

From africa to asia to europe they spread their evil and now in the philipines as well. Keep your eyes closed and one day they will be at your door to marry off your daughter, rape your wife and kill you for not being a muslim.

Blind ignorance is bliss for you isn't it.?

Original comment

lmao.

yep good ole sand monkeys.

Islam is evil, everyone knows it.

From africa to asia to europe they spread their evil and now in the philipines as well. Keep your eyes closed and one day they will be at your door to marry off your daughter, rape your wife and kill you for not being a muslim.

Blind ignorance is bliss for you isn't it.?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PA (552 days ago)

Busted, Mr 'I'm not Racist'!

And as for ignorance, I don't doubt for a second that l I've had more interactions with Muslims in a single year than you would ever allow yourself in a lifetime, but tell yourself what you want. You're the expert on Islam.

It just shows, there's not enough knowledge in the world to educate a born-and-bred bigot.

ReplyVote up (100)down (60)
Original comment

Busted, Mr 'I'm not Racist'!

And as for ignorance, I don't doubt for a second that l I've had more interactions with Muslims in a single year than you would ever allow yourself in a lifetime, but tell yourself what you want. You're the expert on Islam.

It just shows, there's not enough knowledge in the world to educate a born-and-bred bigot.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (552 days ago)

This link is from an ex-muslim woman.

LINK

Original comment

This link is from an ex-muslim woman.

LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PA (552 days ago)

Cool that's very authoritative.

This link is from the Oxford Dictionary.

LINK

Check out the race(2) definition and point 1.2 below that:

"A group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc"

Original comment

Cool that's very authoritative.

This link is from the Oxford Dictionary.

LINK

Check out the race(2) definition and point 1.2 below that:

"A group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc"

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (552 days ago)

LINK

LINK

There are thousands of people who disagree with the oxford version of race.

Islam is not a race.

Original comment

LINK

LINK

There are thousands of people who disagree with the oxford version of race.

Islam is not a race.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PA (552 days ago)

PS - I wouldn't entertain some anonymous blog, but I felt compelled to read the Guardian article. Be honest, did you read it? It pretty much contradicts your entire argument: "There is actually quite a strong racial dimension to Islamophobia" etc. It's a great article, thanks for sharing it and undermining your cause so comprehensively.

Original comment

PS - I wouldn't entertain some anonymous blog, but I felt compelled to read the Guardian article. Be honest, did you read it? It pretty much contradicts your entire argument: "There is actually quite a strong racial dimension to Islamophobia" etc. It's a great article, thanks for sharing it and undermining your cause so comprehensively.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PA (552 days ago)

Oh really, thousands of people? If it's about numbers, I can point you towards 1.5 billion people who think your take on Islam is rubbish.

Personally, when it comes to the English language and what words mean, I'll take the opinion of the Oxford Dictionary over some racist apologists trying to convince the world that their type of discrimination is allowed.

Original comment

Oh really, thousands of people? If it's about numbers, I can point you towards 1.5 billion people who think your take on Islam is rubbish.

Personally, when it comes to the English language and what words mean, I'll take the opinion of the Oxford Dictionary over some racist apologists trying to convince the world that their type of discrimination is allowed.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (553 days ago)

Let's not pretend that Islam has a monopoly on horrific deaths as punishment for apostacy, or hate preaching. If you look closely, you'll find that a principal feature of fundamentalist versions of any faith. How about burning women as witches, trying to erase other cultures with Christian missionay zeal, building intentionally provocative zionist settlements in occupied Palestine, catholics teaching that all Jews are Christ-killers, crusaders slaughtering every person when Jerusalem was sacked...it is the certainty of righteousness in every fundamentalist that allows the rationalisation of killing others for having a different take on a divinity.

Original comment

Let's not pretend that Islam has a monopoly on horrific deaths as punishment for apostacy, or hate preaching. If you look closely, you'll find that a principal feature of fundamentalist versions of any faith. How about burning women as witches, trying to erase other cultures with Christian missionay zeal, building intentionally provocative zionist settlements in occupied Palestine, catholics teaching that all Jews are Christ-killers, crusaders slaughtering every person when Jerusalem was sacked...it is the certainty of righteousness in every fundamentalist that allows the rationalisation of killing others for having a different take on a divinity.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: thundercat (553 days ago)

I couldnt agree with you more.

Religion is only a tool for control, with made up after life punishments for sins and benefits for being a donating member. Giving the ayatollah power,the pope,the rabbi,some states all derive their power over man through religion. Its called a lottery state of existence, imho, living with the hope of winning something better later on. This keeps people happy in the state of living as they are and allows them to fight against change. This is what made the dark ages of europe last so long, and it was well known to the holy roman empire.

Original comment

I couldnt agree with you more.

Religion is only a tool for control, with made up after life punishments for sins and benefits for being a donating member. Giving the ayatollah power,the pope,the rabbi,some states all derive their power over man through religion. Its called a lottery state of existence, imho, living with the hope of winning something better later on. This keeps people happy in the state of living as they are and allows them to fight against change. This is what made the dark ages of europe last so long, and it was well known to the holy roman empire.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (552 days ago)

I'm not averse to religion per se. Everyone is entirely welcome to whatever sincerely held belief they like, but I'd sure prefer they just quietly kept it to themselves. When any cult becomes an institution, it seeks to perpetuate itself. Then the fanatics arise to purify the faith of any independent thought, the swords come out, and the slaughter begins. **** that.

Original comment

I'm not averse to religion per se. Everyone is entirely welcome to whatever sincerely held belief they like, but I'd sure prefer they just quietly kept it to themselves. When any cult becomes an institution, it seeks to perpetuate itself. Then the fanatics arise to purify the faith of any independent thought, the swords come out, and the slaughter begins. **** that.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: thundercat (553 days ago)

Your obvious question to me should be: why are the jews considered a race?

They just say it differently to avoid problems.

We might say that that guy is an jewish american.

But a jew would say thats an american jew.

Original comment

Your obvious question to me should be: why are the jews considered a race?

They just say it differently to avoid problems.

We might say that that guy is an jewish american.

But a jew would say thats an american jew.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Drumbeat (550 days ago)

To be a jew you have to be born of a jewish mother, jewish father just won't cut it. Want to become a jew ? you can just lve like one and stick to the rules but thats it you wll never be an actual jew. See where the race comes into it, by breeding.

Original comment

To be a jew you have to be born of a jewish mother, jewish father just won't cut it. Want to become a jew ? you can just lve like one and stick to the rules but thats it you wll never be an actual jew. See where the race comes into it, by breeding.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (553 days ago)

"Compared to any muslim , his opinion is superior" Wow, how many muslims exactly have you met let alone had a proper conversation with? We must be told (Hint: might take some time, there's 1.6 bn)

Original comment

"Compared to any muslim , his opinion is superior" Wow, how many muslims exactly have you met let alone had a proper conversation with? We must be told (Hint: might take some time, there's 1.6 bn)

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (553 days ago)

The point is a muslim will only see a muslim point of view. To do otherwise he would be a bad muslim. All other points of view are considered wrong by any true muslim, especially if it came from a non- muslim.

Ive had several muslim friends that i had to disassociate myself from once i realized they were not and could not ever be on my side because i wasnt muslim.

Being anti muslim by no means makes a person racist, being a muslim is not a race.

Original comment

The point is a muslim will only see a muslim point of view. To do otherwise he would be a bad muslim. All other points of view are considered wrong by any true muslim, especially if it came from a non- muslim.

Ive had several muslim friends that i had to disassociate myself from once i realized they were not and could not ever be on my side because i wasnt muslim.

Being anti muslim by no means makes a person racist, being a muslim is not a race.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (553 days ago)

How about this for a compromise. Being anti-Muslim children is "racist" because they have no choice in what they believe - all Muslim children are born atheist and then brainwashed into Islam - just like you have no choice with your race or sexuality. But being anti-Muslim adult, especially better educated Muslim adults - is not being racist at all, just anti bad ideas.

Original comment

How about this for a compromise. Being anti-Muslim children is "racist" because they have no choice in what they believe - all Muslim children are born atheist and then brainwashed into Islam - just like you have no choice with your race or sexuality. But being anti-Muslim adult, especially better educated Muslim adults - is not being racist at all, just anti bad ideas.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (553 days ago)

Im not against any children from anywere. I am against teaching children how to hate and that is what islam does. Most religions give children an us or them attitude, what they really need is a human attitude. We are all created equal and we are all human. Everyone is going to die and everyone was born. What happens after death, no one knows. What happens after birth should bring people together, not drive people apart.

Original comment

Im not against any children from anywere. I am against teaching children how to hate and that is what islam does. Most religions give children an us or them attitude, what they really need is a human attitude. We are all created equal and we are all human. Everyone is going to die and everyone was born. What happens after death, no one knows. What happens after birth should bring people together, not drive people apart.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (553 days ago)

I'm with Thundercat on this. Not all ideas are good, and there are plenty of bad ideas in religion.

Not all bad ideas from different religions are equally bad. Why would they be? Jesus was a non-human hippy, Muhammed was a warlord, Budhha was a prince. Nobody's perfect, not even god.

If your religion advocates circumcision, and you think circumcision is a bad idea, shouldn't you be allowed to criticise the practice? And if you are outside the religion, shouldn't you be allowed to criticise the doctrine that advocates circumcision? And what about criticising the person who follows the doctrine that advocates circumcision? Is that OK, or is that a step too far?

Of course you might think circumcision is not a bad idea at all and it's just fixing a mistake that god made when he created us. That's OK, that's freedom of thought - but please use your freedom of speech to explain why.

ReplyVote up (81)down (101)
Original comment

I'm with Thundercat on this. Not all ideas are good, and there are plenty of bad ideas in religion.

Not all bad ideas from different religions are equally bad. Why would they be? Jesus was a non-human hippy, Muhammed was a warlord, Budhha was a prince. Nobody's perfect, not even god.

If your religion advocates circumcision, and you think circumcision is a bad idea, shouldn't you be allowed to criticise the practice? And if you are outside the religion, shouldn't you be allowed to criticise the doctrine that advocates circumcision? And what about criticising the person who follows the doctrine that advocates circumcision? Is that OK, or is that a step too far?

Of course you might think circumcision is not a bad idea at all and it's just fixing a mistake that god made when he created us. That's OK, that's freedom of thought - but please use your freedom of speech to explain why.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (553 days ago)

Religion, when allowed to influence politics, is never a good idea.

Problem with religious thinking example: God is all powerful and can do anything, but, can he make something so heavy that even he can't pick it up?

ReplyVote up (101)down (71)
Original comment

Religion, when allowed to influence politics, is never a good idea.

Problem with religious thinking example: God is all powerful and can do anything, but, can he make something so heavy that even he can't pick it up?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (553 days ago)

Ooh that's deep man. Did you think of that?

ReplyVote up (101)down (70)
Original comment

Ooh that's deep man. Did you think of that?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (553 days ago)

No.

Man came first, then the idea of a God was born and not the other way around.

Original comment

No.

Man came first, then the idea of a God was born and not the other way around.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (552 days ago)

Thanks for your opinion, let me write that down somewhere.

Original comment

Thanks for your opinion, let me write that down somewhere.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (552 days ago)

ok then.

Original comment

ok then.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PA (553 days ago)

I don't think anyone is suggesting that all ideas are good, in religion or otherwise, and citing your personal attitudes towards religious figures proves nothing. The fact is, few of us agree about which are good and bad ideas, so we are left to decide how we treat those who disagree with us.

There are forms of criticism that are healthy and productive, of course. However, people like Pat Condell and indeed Abu Bakr al Baghdadi seem to think the answer is further division, hatred, and ostracism. That's why we know their names, after-all. They engage in finger-pointing, militant rhetoric, and sweeping generalisations based on little more than personal prejudice and an extreme and naive ethnocentrism. This only exacerbates the problem on both sides, as history shows us.

I don't think anyone needs to use freedom of speech to explain their beliefs unless they want us to susbcribe to them. I don't feel I am owed an explanation from anyone, any more than I am duty bound to justify my beliefs to them.

Original comment

I don't think anyone is suggesting that all ideas are good, in religion or otherwise, and citing your personal attitudes towards religious figures proves nothing. The fact is, few of us agree about which are good and bad ideas, so we are left to decide how we treat those who disagree with us.

There are forms of criticism that are healthy and productive, of course. However, people like Pat Condell and indeed Abu Bakr al Baghdadi seem to think the answer is further division, hatred, and ostracism. That's why we know their names, after-all. They engage in finger-pointing, militant rhetoric, and sweeping generalisations based on little more than personal prejudice and an extreme and naive ethnocentrism. This only exacerbates the problem on both sides, as history shows us.

I don't think anyone needs to use freedom of speech to explain their beliefs unless they want us to susbcribe to them. I don't feel I am owed an explanation from anyone, any more than I am duty bound to justify my beliefs to them.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (553 days ago)

Religions claim all their ideas are good - isn't that the implication of faith - that god knows best and cannot be wrong.

"The fact is, few of us agree about which are good and bad ideas, so we are left to decide how we treat those who disagree with us." That's not a fact, it's an assumption. If morals evolve, then people would agree much more on what are good and bad ideas if religion did not exist at all. In other words, religious morals distort our genetically driven morals.

"There are forms of criticism that are healthy and productive, of course. However, people like Pat Condell ... division, hatred, and ostracism". I know two wrongs don't make a right, but much more serious is the division, hatred and ostracism promoted in some religions, that go far beyond anything from Pat Condell.

"I don't feel I am owed an explanation from anyone, any more than I am duty bound to justify my beliefs to them." Sure, no problem keeping your beliefs to yourself. That's freedom of thought.

ReplyVote up (83)down (101)
Original comment

Religions claim all their ideas are good - isn't that the implication of faith - that god knows best and cannot be wrong.

"The fact is, few of us agree about which are good and bad ideas, so we are left to decide how we treat those who disagree with us." That's not a fact, it's an assumption. If morals evolve, then people would agree much more on what are good and bad ideas if religion did not exist at all. In other words, religious morals distort our genetically driven morals.

"There are forms of criticism that are healthy and productive, of course. However, people like Pat Condell ... division, hatred, and ostracism". I know two wrongs don't make a right, but much more serious is the division, hatred and ostracism promoted in some religions, that go far beyond anything from Pat Condell.

"I don't feel I am owed an explanation from anyone, any more than I am duty bound to justify my beliefs to them." Sure, no problem keeping your beliefs to yourself. That's freedom of thought.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PA (552 days ago)

You know on another thread you said when someone tends to "introduce a new angle so as to avoid the point he couldn't answer. And then he waits a month or so and comes back with the same point as if we never had the discussion before. It's been going on for years. That's not progress." To me, this almost perfectly describes your thinking about religion and Islam.

'Genetically driven morals', wow, I don't think we have the time to try and unpick that. My point is, each religion or schism, or form of secularism, indeed each individual, believes its own ideas are good, and that others are bad - it doesn't matter why they think that. I wasn't talking about morality, I was talking about what we consider good ideas and bad ideas - that's far more specific. It is a fact, not an assumption that we don't agree in general on what those are, and therefore it's also a fact that we also choose how to treat those we disagree with. Condell and al Baghdadi think we should treat them with hatred and division and militant rhetoric.

You're right, two wrongs don't make a right. Or is your point that so long is there is at least one person behaving worse than Condell, he is excused? It's simple - when Condell is criticising division, hatred and ostracism, he looks like a hypocritical bigot if he exemplifies those exact same traits - particularly when he uses a minority of Islamists to generalise over an entire religion.

Original comment

You know on another thread you said when someone tends to "introduce a new angle so as to avoid the point he couldn't answer. And then he waits a month or so and comes back with the same point as if we never had the discussion before. It's been going on for years. That's not progress." To me, this almost perfectly describes your thinking about religion and Islam.

'Genetically driven morals', wow, I don't think we have the time to try and unpick that. My point is, each religion or schism, or form of secularism, indeed each individual, believes its own ideas are good, and that others are bad - it doesn't matter why they think that. I wasn't talking about morality, I was talking about what we consider good ideas and bad ideas - that's far more specific. It is a fact, not an assumption that we don't agree in general on what those are, and therefore it's also a fact that we also choose how to treat those we disagree with. Condell and al Baghdadi think we should treat them with hatred and division and militant rhetoric.

You're right, two wrongs don't make a right. Or is your point that so long is there is at least one person behaving worse than Condell, he is excused? It's simple - when Condell is criticising division, hatred and ostracism, he looks like a hypocritical bigot if he exemplifies those exact same traits - particularly when he uses a minority of Islamists to generalise over an entire religion.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (551 days ago)

"You know on another thread you said … To me, this almost perfectly describes your thinking about religion and Islam." What's weird is that I think the same about you. I think it's how human brains work.

When I try to figure you out, I put myself in your shoes to see your world from your perspective. But I'm not you, so I can never see your world from your perspective. I can only see your world from my perspective, but it feels like I'm seeing it from your perspective. We are all fooled, even when we know it.

My point is, each religion or schism, or form of secularism, indeed each individual, believes its own ideas are good, and that others are bad - it doesn't matter why they think that. I wasn't talking about morality, I was talking about what we consider good ideas and bad ideas - that's far more specific. A good idea is one that fulfils the brief. So if a religion claims to be a religion of peace, the death penalty for apostasy is a bad idea. If the brief is for an effective way of preventing someone leaving their religion, then the death penalty for apostasy is a good idea. Take your pick.

"You're right, two wrongs don't make a right. Or is your point that so long is there is at least one person behaving worse than Condell, he is excused?" I made no comment on his "behaviour", but I agree with most of his points. I just thought it was ironic that the regressive left he is criticising is more divisive than he is. It reminded me of the time when Richard Dawkins read out his hate mail from peace loving Christians. LINK

Original comment

"You know on another thread you said … To me, this almost perfectly describes your thinking about religion and Islam." What's weird is that I think the same about you. I think it's how human brains work.

When I try to figure you out, I put myself in your shoes to see your world from your perspective. But I'm not you, so I can never see your world from your perspective. I can only see your world from my perspective, but it feels like I'm seeing it from your perspective. We are all fooled, even when we know it.

My point is, each religion or schism, or form of secularism, indeed each individual, believes its own ideas are good, and that others are bad - it doesn't matter why they think that. I wasn't talking about morality, I was talking about what we consider good ideas and bad ideas - that's far more specific. A good idea is one that fulfils the brief. So if a religion claims to be a religion of peace, the death penalty for apostasy is a bad idea. If the brief is for an effective way of preventing someone leaving their religion, then the death penalty for apostasy is a good idea. Take your pick.

"You're right, two wrongs don't make a right. Or is your point that so long is there is at least one person behaving worse than Condell, he is excused?" I made no comment on his "behaviour", but I agree with most of his points. I just thought it was ironic that the regressive left he is criticising is more divisive than he is. It reminded me of the time when Richard Dawkins read out his hate mail from peace loving Christians. LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PA (551 days ago)

Perhaps you're right about individual perspectives. What I would say, is that from time to time (albeit rarely) you concede ground - you accept for example that probability is not relevant for metaphysical entities - and yet you come back a month later still talking about what probably is or isn't the case. Anyway, that's another story, let's not get side-tracked.

And talking of side-tracked, I'm not sure your discussion about what constitutes a good idea is relevant; My only point was that if you believe an idea is good or bad (be it the death penalty or banning sharia law), you then have the choice on how to treat those who disagree with you. Zealots from both sides seem to feel that when you believe something is bad, you have the right to use militant rhetoric, to try and ostracise or condemn the believers, and to encourage hatred towards a larger group than those offending you. This only exacerbates the situation and drives more people towards the extreme beliefs that are being criticised. Jihadists use propaganda and hate speech to imply that all Westerners are like Condell - hating Islam, wanting to crush it, wanting it out of our culture. Conversely, right-wingers like Condell use propaganda and hate speech to imply that all Muslims are like Jihadists - hating all Westerners, wanting to destroy Western culture, etc. etc. It's the same thing from the other side.

Could you give me an example of how 'the regressive left' are as divisive as Condell? I can see how some religious extremists are, though I still say it makes no sense to attack them by doing the exact same. Do you think the Youtube comments that Dawkins reads out are from the 'regressive left'?

Original comment

Perhaps you're right about individual perspectives. What I would say, is that from time to time (albeit rarely) you concede ground - you accept for example that probability is not relevant for metaphysical entities - and yet you come back a month later still talking about what probably is or isn't the case. Anyway, that's another story, let's not get side-tracked.

And talking of side-tracked, I'm not sure your discussion about what constitutes a good idea is relevant; My only point was that if you believe an idea is good or bad (be it the death penalty or banning sharia law), you then have the choice on how to treat those who disagree with you. Zealots from both sides seem to feel that when you believe something is bad, you have the right to use militant rhetoric, to try and ostracise or condemn the believers, and to encourage hatred towards a larger group than those offending you. This only exacerbates the situation and drives more people towards the extreme beliefs that are being criticised. Jihadists use propaganda and hate speech to imply that all Westerners are like Condell - hating Islam, wanting to crush it, wanting it out of our culture. Conversely, right-wingers like Condell use propaganda and hate speech to imply that all Muslims are like Jihadists - hating all Westerners, wanting to destroy Western culture, etc. etc. It's the same thing from the other side.

Could you give me an example of how 'the regressive left' are as divisive as Condell? I can see how some religious extremists are, though I still say it makes no sense to attack them by doing the exact same. Do you think the Youtube comments that Dawkins reads out are from the 'regressive left'?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (551 days ago)

Let's get side-tracked - because I don't remember a satisfactory response. Probability is not relevant for metaphysical entities because it's a case of 1 in infinity. But atheism vs a supernatural being, that's different. It is reasonable to look around - find no evidence for supernatural beings, find compelling theories that explain can everything without the need of supernatural beings, find evidence as to why people believe in supernatural beings - and then come to the conclusion that there is a higher probability that supernatural beings are made up, not real. Impossible to put a number on it except that it's not 50/50.

"My only point was that if you believe an idea is good or bad (be it the death penalty or banning sharia law), you then have the choice on how to treat those who disagree with you." This is the problem. If you care about something and want to get your ideas out, then being polite and respectful is often ineffective. You are just ignored. So the tendency is to ramp it up. We're all adults. Get over it and argue his points not his presentation.

"Could you give me an example of how 'the regressive left' are as divisive as Condell?" Preventing Germaine Greer from giving a lecture at Cardiff University after she said "I don’t believe a woman is a man without a cock". I'd say that is much more divisive than Pat Condell spouting why he would vote against you. LINK For a start, Pat Condell is just words.

Original comment

Let's get side-tracked - because I don't remember a satisfactory response. Probability is not relevant for metaphysical entities because it's a case of 1 in infinity. But atheism vs a supernatural being, that's different. It is reasonable to look around - find no evidence for supernatural beings, find compelling theories that explain can everything without the need of supernatural beings, find evidence as to why people believe in supernatural beings - and then come to the conclusion that there is a higher probability that supernatural beings are made up, not real. Impossible to put a number on it except that it's not 50/50.

"My only point was that if you believe an idea is good or bad (be it the death penalty or banning sharia law), you then have the choice on how to treat those who disagree with you." This is the problem. If you care about something and want to get your ideas out, then being polite and respectful is often ineffective. You are just ignored. So the tendency is to ramp it up. We're all adults. Get over it and argue his points not his presentation.

"Could you give me an example of how 'the regressive left' are as divisive as Condell?" Preventing Germaine Greer from giving a lecture at Cardiff University after she said "I don’t believe a woman is a man without a cock". I'd say that is much more divisive than Pat Condell spouting why he would vote against you. LINK For a start, Pat Condell is just words.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PA (551 days ago)

Right, so the tendency to 'ramp it up' as you put it is generally what any respectable atheists hates about evangelical religious believers. They feel they can't get by with simple quiet belief, they have to take it up a level. I imagine that Isis believe that if you are tolerant and respectful and polite, you are just ignored, and they felt the need to ramp it up too. But the hatred fuelled rhetoric that they and Condell come out with help the other side, as it alienates people.

With the Greer issue, do you really mean 'divisive'? If so, can you explain how the attempt by a few students to ban a single speech (which by the way wasn't successful) is divisive? Meanwhile, Condell rants about female Muslims ("mentally ill") and male Muslims ("primitive pigs") the world over with no distinction; he rants about Christians; he rants about communists; he rants about people on benefits; he rants about democrats; he rants about Palestine; he rants about anyone vaguely left wing; he rants about anyone vaguely middle-class; he rants about feminists; he rants about Europe; he rants about the UN... I mean basically, he rants about everyone that doesn't come from his undereducated socio-economic group and political stance. And you think a cluster of affronted students setting up a failed petition about one talk are as divisive as that? Come on. And by the way, when I say rant, I don't mean constructively criticise in a way that Dawkins might, for example. I don't mean just using freedom of speech to air a simple opinion. I mean he deliberately tries to offend, that is his purpose, by using divisive rhetoric, offensive generalisations, and plain abuse. He wants to put up barriers between people. He wants to point fingers and say 'I'm better than you'. And what that does, in case you've lived your life with your eyes shut, is it alienates moderate people who end up being pushed towards the extremes. If you were a Muslim and really thought that the UK was full of people like Condell, would you have much loyalty or affinity with our culture? Would you be more likely to assimilate, or more likely to grow ever more disillusioned and possibly even become radicalised? Trump has literally been used in Isis recruitment propaganda. If Condell was a little more significant I'm sure he would be too.

Probability. It really is a side-track, so I'll try to be brief. Supernatural beings in the context of this debate are metaphysical - all major gods have a metaphysical element. Therefore, no, it would not be reasonable to look around for evidence, any more than you would look around for evidence of free will. Of course, you could look for evidence for specific interpretations of metaphysical beings ("my god always leaves this empirical evidence at location X"), but upon not finding any, it would only affect the probability of that particular interpretation, in particular the creation of evidence. And because it's all untestable and unmathematical, you end up using Bayesian probability (ring any bells?) - otherwise known as subjective probability, and is not often used in mathematics. It's saying nothing more than 'With my unique interpretation of just the evidence that I have found and am willing to accept, I feel confident in guessing X'. You would and could be no more right than anyone else. No, it's not impossible to put a number on it, it's just entirely arbitrary because it depends on how you have weighed up the probability of all those prior assumptions (the probability that a god would leave evidence that we can find, the probability that most humans alive believe in monotheism, etc, etc etc). Therefore, I would repeat, talking about probability when discussing theism or atheism makes no sense. It's no more meaningful to say 'God probably does exist' than it is to say 'The Nightwatch scientifically is the most beautiful painting'. It's just the misuse of a certain term. It's an attempt to gain credibility by appealing to mathematical or scientific knowledge which simply has nothing to say.

Original comment

Right, so the tendency to 'ramp it up' as you put it is generally what any respectable atheists hates about evangelical religious believers. They feel they can't get by with simple quiet belief, they have to take it up a level. I imagine that Isis believe that if you are tolerant and respectful and polite, you are just ignored, and they felt the need to ramp it up too. But the hatred fuelled rhetoric that they and Condell come out with help the other side, as it alienates people.

With the Greer issue, do you really mean 'divisive'? If so, can you explain how the attempt by a few students to ban a single speech (which by the way wasn't successful) is divisive? Meanwhile, Condell rants about female Muslims ("mentally ill") and male Muslims ("primitive pigs") the world over with no distinction; he rants about Christians; he rants about communists; he rants about people on benefits; he rants about democrats; he rants about Palestine; he rants about anyone vaguely left wing; he rants about anyone vaguely middle-class; he rants about feminists; he rants about Europe; he rants about the UN... I mean basically, he rants about everyone that doesn't come from his undereducated socio-economic group and political stance. And you think a cluster of affronted students setting up a failed petition about one talk are as divisive as that? Come on. And by the way, when I say rant, I don't mean constructively criticise in a way that Dawkins might, for example. I don't mean just using freedom of speech to air a simple opinion. I mean he deliberately tries to offend, that is his purpose, by using divisive rhetoric, offensive generalisations, and plain abuse. He wants to put up barriers between people. He wants to point fingers and say 'I'm better than you'. And what that does, in case you've lived your life with your eyes shut, is it alienates moderate people who end up being pushed towards the extremes. If you were a Muslim and really thought that the UK was full of people like Condell, would you have much loyalty or affinity with our culture? Would you be more likely to assimilate, or more likely to grow ever more disillusioned and possibly even become radicalised? Trump has literally been used in Isis recruitment propaganda. If Condell was a little more significant I'm sure he would be too.

Probability. It really is a side-track, so I'll try to be brief. Supernatural beings in the context of this debate are metaphysical - all major gods have a metaphysical element. Therefore, no, it would not be reasonable to look around for evidence, any more than you would look around for evidence of free will. Of course, you could look for evidence for specific interpretations of metaphysical beings ("my god always leaves this empirical evidence at location X"), but upon not finding any, it would only affect the probability of that particular interpretation, in particular the creation of evidence. And because it's all untestable and unmathematical, you end up using Bayesian probability (ring any bells?) - otherwise known as subjective probability, and is not often used in mathematics. It's saying nothing more than 'With my unique interpretation of just the evidence that I have found and am willing to accept, I feel confident in guessing X'. You would and could be no more right than anyone else. No, it's not impossible to put a number on it, it's just entirely arbitrary because it depends on how you have weighed up the probability of all those prior assumptions (the probability that a god would leave evidence that we can find, the probability that most humans alive believe in monotheism, etc, etc etc). Therefore, I would repeat, talking about probability when discussing theism or atheism makes no sense. It's no more meaningful to say 'God probably does exist' than it is to say 'The Nightwatch scientifically is the most beautiful painting'. It's just the misuse of a certain term. It's an attempt to gain credibility by appealing to mathematical or scientific knowledge which simply has nothing to say.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (551 days ago)

The tendency to 'ramp it up' is human nature. Debates between people who are passionate about what they believe tend to get heated.

"They feel they can't get by with simple quiet belief, they have to take it up a level." I don't think it works like that. Passionate people feel they can't get their ideas across, so blood begins to boil. Result, the level creeps up. I've seen you do that, and I know that I do. We have begun a thread on something, and after a few back and forths you start calling me a bigot and ignorant of whatever we're talking about. I'm not offended. Why should I be? You are just getting angry because you're passionate about your ideas but I keep disagreeing. It's not your fault you're human.

"With the Greer issue ..." I think the social justice movement sprouting in universities today, like the recent triggergate at Oxford, is focused in the wrong direction. Social justice is not "everybody should be nice to me because I'm no more than a snowflake and I might break". It should be "I should be nice to everybody because we are all more than snowflakes and together we will be stronger."

So when you consider that "everybody" necessarily means extreme diversity, then it is divisive not to allow other points of views to be vented. It's the opposite to free speech. It provides the fodder for Donald Trump to thrive by tapping into bottled up anger and fear. And arguably the most worrying consequence - we are creating a generation of our brightest university educated kids who are totally ill-equiped to cope with the difficult future we know is coming - climate change, mass migration, global corruption, cyber security, etc. The world is going to be very crowded with very scared people looking to a very bleak future. We don't need a generation of snowflakes. We need passionate young people who will fight to put the world on a better and less destructive path. After all, it's their future. They will be living it.

"Probability ..." In pragmatic philosophy, it's OK to consider the metaphysical as no more than interesting ideas. It's like a cat contemplating the existence of the stock market. Coincidently, the cat would be correct - the stock market does actually exist - but in pragmatic philosophy, it's OK for the cat to argue - there's no way I can know if the stock markets exists, or if it is affecting anything I'm familiar with, so unless anything changes, as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't exist. It's just an interesting idea.

If you can't compare the chances of which is more likely to be reality - a universe with or one without a metaphysical supreme being, then it makes sense to ignore the metaphysical god until there's a reason not to.

Pragmatic philosophy states: the metaphysical is imagination until there is something to show it is not. So don't live your life by it because chances are you're following the wrong god. Or you could be just wasting your time. But hey, if no one is getting hurt, then fine. Problem is, people are getting hurt.

Original comment

The tendency to 'ramp it up' is human nature. Debates between people who are passionate about what they believe tend to get heated.

"They feel they can't get by with simple quiet belief, they have to take it up a level." I don't think it works like that. Passionate people feel they can't get their ideas across, so blood begins to boil. Result, the level creeps up. I've seen you do that, and I know that I do. We have begun a thread on something, and after a few back and forths you start calling me a bigot and ignorant of whatever we're talking about. I'm not offended. Why should I be? You are just getting angry because you're passionate about your ideas but I keep disagreeing. It's not your fault you're human.

"With the Greer issue ..." I think the social justice movement sprouting in universities today, like the recent triggergate at Oxford, is focused in the wrong direction. Social justice is not "everybody should be nice to me because I'm no more than a snowflake and I might break". It should be "I should be nice to everybody because we are all more than snowflakes and together we will be stronger."

So when you consider that "everybody" necessarily means extreme diversity, then it is divisive not to allow other points of views to be vented. It's the opposite to free speech. It provides the fodder for Donald Trump to thrive by tapping into bottled up anger and fear. And arguably the most worrying consequence - we are creating a generation of our brightest university educated kids who are totally ill-equiped to cope with the difficult future we know is coming - climate change, mass migration, global corruption, cyber security, etc. The world is going to be very crowded with very scared people looking to a very bleak future. We don't need a generation of snowflakes. We need passionate young people who will fight to put the world on a better and less destructive path. After all, it's their future. They will be living it.

"Probability ..." In pragmatic philosophy, it's OK to consider the metaphysical as no more than interesting ideas. It's like a cat contemplating the existence of the stock market. Coincidently, the cat would be correct - the stock market does actually exist - but in pragmatic philosophy, it's OK for the cat to argue - there's no way I can know if the stock markets exists, or if it is affecting anything I'm familiar with, so unless anything changes, as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't exist. It's just an interesting idea.

If you can't compare the chances of which is more likely to be reality - a universe with or one without a metaphysical supreme being, then it makes sense to ignore the metaphysical god until there's a reason not to.

Pragmatic philosophy states: the metaphysical is imagination until there is something to show it is not. So don't live your life by it because chances are you're following the wrong god. Or you could be just wasting your time. But hey, if no one is getting hurt, then fine. Problem is, people are getting hurt.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PA (550 days ago)

It's more frustration than anger. I've thought you were a bigot from early on, before I even started commenting, but perhaps it takes a few rounds of your cyclical logic for me to loosen my tongue. I know plenty of bigots, it's not a deal-breaker for me, and I'd be surprised if you'd deny that label. What I will say, is that I never set out to deliberately offend or alienate, whereas people like Condell and other extremists would I'm sure see that as a point of pride - they see it as their right to deliberately offend (not disprove) those they think are wrong - I see it as entirely counterproductive. We have beliefs, passionate or otherwise, but we always choose how to treat those who disagree with us.

Greer - I think the people starting the petition would agree with you. They were saying that everybody should be nice to everybody as it would make us stronger, and transexual people may feel undermined or even disempowered by a figure like Greer getting extra attention for her views. I still don't see how on earth starting a petition against one speech is divisive - there's no community that Greer represents, no generalisations were made, and there's no 'Them vs Us' mentality that oozes from Condell. In general I would cite students who try to take action as the ones who are passionate, the ones who are trying to fight against that destructive path you talk about. They are not apathetic or scared to pipe up and challenge perceived hatred. Ultimately Greer is still free to vent her opinions, along with neo-Nazis and wooly liberals, and individual communities are entitled to have a democratic vote on who they want to offer a platform to. I think that's fine, and I think democracy worked - Greer still got her spotlight.

Well you've moved away from probability, which is a wise decision. However, "Pragmatic philosophy states: the metaphysical is imagination until there is something to show it is not"... I wish you wouldn't try to use philosophical terms. Pragmatic philosophy is a thing already, and that's not what it states. It actually states that we understand concepts (including atheism) according to their effects and their practical consequences. Therefore to a genuine pragmatic philosopher, the theory that there is no deity anywhere in the universe is as empty as the claim that there is. Both are speculations that don't necessarily have any bearing on how we live. In fact, famously, pragmatist philosophy is more likely to end up with a Pascal's Wager type scenario in which it makes sense to believe in the metaphysical.

Oh the cat and the stock market - you're proud of that one aren't you? I would hone it by suggesting religion is the London Stock Exchange and atheism is the Royal Exchange. They can't both be true but there's no way for the cat to know which, no way for it to understand their implications, and neither seems to affect the the cat's existence, so it is simply unknowing. 'In pragmatic philosophy', your cat doesn't plump for one unknowable speculation over another, and live as if that is no doubt the case. It is unconcerned, and it lives as if neither, either or both were true - it is agnostic, it is nescient; it is an equal disbeliever in all possibilities. You want to present atheism as the default position with the available evidence, but you neglect the fact that it is still a speculation on a metaphysical state of affairs, and that fervent atheists look at the same wordly evidence and come to a different conclusion. It is simply another interpretation.

I agree that people getting hurt is some kind of cut-off point, just like the anti-religion persecution by Stalin, the anti-Muslim persecution by Buddists, or the anti-clergy atrocities in the Cristero War. But those are the extremes of any belief set, and up until that point, we have to let moderate atheists and secularists quietly grow their goatees and chunter, and moderate Muslims and Christians quietly pray to their gods and recite verse. Unfortunately, the zealots wish to deny the very existence of this overwhelming mass of moderates. People like Condell use the extremes to try and characterise the entire 'other' belief set, and that causes those moderates to become more radical, in some cases to take up arms, and that causes people to get hurt. Condell is part of the same problem as Trump, as Thundercat, as al Baghdadi but he's not canny enough to realise.

Original comment

It's more frustration than anger. I've thought you were a bigot from early on, before I even started commenting, but perhaps it takes a few rounds of your cyclical logic for me to loosen my tongue. I know plenty of bigots, it's not a deal-breaker for me, and I'd be surprised if you'd deny that label. What I will say, is that I never set out to deliberately offend or alienate, whereas people like Condell and other extremists would I'm sure see that as a point of pride - they see it as their right to deliberately offend (not disprove) those they think are wrong - I see it as entirely counterproductive. We have beliefs, passionate or otherwise, but we always choose how to treat those who disagree with us.

Greer - I think the people starting the petition would agree with you. They were saying that everybody should be nice to everybody as it would make us stronger, and transexual people may feel undermined or even disempowered by a figure like Greer getting extra attention for her views. I still don't see how on earth starting a petition against one speech is divisive - there's no community that Greer represents, no generalisations were made, and there's no 'Them vs Us' mentality that oozes from Condell. In general I would cite students who try to take action as the ones who are passionate, the ones who are trying to fight against that destructive path you talk about. They are not apathetic or scared to pipe up and challenge perceived hatred. Ultimately Greer is still free to vent her opinions, along with neo-Nazis and wooly liberals, and individual communities are entitled to have a democratic vote on who they want to offer a platform to. I think that's fine, and I think democracy worked - Greer still got her spotlight.

Well you've moved away from probability, which is a wise decision. However, "Pragmatic philosophy states: the metaphysical is imagination until there is something to show it is not"... I wish you wouldn't try to use philosophical terms. Pragmatic philosophy is a thing already, and that's not what it states. It actually states that we understand concepts (including atheism) according to their effects and their practical consequences. Therefore to a genuine pragmatic philosopher, the theory that there is no deity anywhere in the universe is as empty as the claim that there is. Both are speculations that don't necessarily have any bearing on how we live. In fact, famously, pragmatist philosophy is more likely to end up with a Pascal's Wager type scenario in which it makes sense to believe in the metaphysical.

Oh the cat and the stock market - you're proud of that one aren't you? I would hone it by suggesting religion is the London Stock Exchange and atheism is the Royal Exchange. They can't both be true but there's no way for the cat to know which, no way for it to understand their implications, and neither seems to affect the the cat's existence, so it is simply unknowing. 'In pragmatic philosophy', your cat doesn't plump for one unknowable speculation over another, and live as if that is no doubt the case. It is unconcerned, and it lives as if neither, either or both were true - it is agnostic, it is nescient; it is an equal disbeliever in all possibilities. You want to present atheism as the default position with the available evidence, but you neglect the fact that it is still a speculation on a metaphysical state of affairs, and that fervent atheists look at the same wordly evidence and come to a different conclusion. It is simply another interpretation.

I agree that people getting hurt is some kind of cut-off point, just like the anti-religion persecution by Stalin, the anti-Muslim persecution by Buddists, or the anti-clergy atrocities in the Cristero War. But those are the extremes of any belief set, and up until that point, we have to let moderate atheists and secularists quietly grow their goatees and chunter, and moderate Muslims and Christians quietly pray to their gods and recite verse. Unfortunately, the zealots wish to deny the very existence of this overwhelming mass of moderates. People like Condell use the extremes to try and characterise the entire 'other' belief set, and that causes those moderates to become more radical, in some cases to take up arms, and that causes people to get hurt. Condell is part of the same problem as Trump, as Thundercat, as al Baghdadi but he's not canny enough to realise.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (550 days ago)

"Greer ..." SJWs don't think everybody should be nice to everybody, they think everybody should nice to them. I think they need to grow up.

"Pragmatic philosophy is a thing already ..." Originally I said "practical philosophy". You changed it to pragmatic philosophy so I just stuck with it. I didn't know it was already a thing. I'll go back to practical philosophy so you know that it's just my way of saying common sense.

"Oh the cat and the stock market ... I would hone it by suggesting religion is the London Stock Exchange and atheism is the Royal Exchange." That wouldn't make sense. Atheism is the lack of religion, so if religion is the London Stock Market, then atheism is NOT the London Stock Market ie. god doesn't exist.

"'In pragmatic philosophy', your cat doesn't plump for one unknowable speculation over another, and live as if that is no doubt the case. It is unconcerned, and it lives as if neither, either or both were true - it is agnostic, it is nescient; it is an equal disbeliever in all possibilities." I've said before - atheists are agnostics, it's just a matter of degree. Atheists live unconcerned about god, but if god did convincingly pop up tomorrow, they would believe. I guarantee it. Any atheist who does not change their mind in the face of irrefutable evidence is not a true atheist, because atheists don't choose what to believe in, they just follow the evidence. So far there's nothing to follow.

Original comment

"Greer ..." SJWs don't think everybody should be nice to everybody, they think everybody should nice to them. I think they need to grow up.

"Pragmatic philosophy is a thing already ..." Originally I said "practical philosophy". You changed it to pragmatic philosophy so I just stuck with it. I didn't know it was already a thing. I'll go back to practical philosophy so you know that it's just my way of saying common sense.

"Oh the cat and the stock market ... I would hone it by suggesting religion is the London Stock Exchange and atheism is the Royal Exchange." That wouldn't make sense. Atheism is the lack of religion, so if religion is the London Stock Market, then atheism is NOT the London Stock Market ie. god doesn't exist.

"'In pragmatic philosophy', your cat doesn't plump for one unknowable speculation over another, and live as if that is no doubt the case. It is unconcerned, and it lives as if neither, either or both were true - it is agnostic, it is nescient; it is an equal disbeliever in all possibilities." I've said before - atheists are agnostics, it's just a matter of degree. Atheists live unconcerned about god, but if god did convincingly pop up tomorrow, they would believe. I guarantee it. Any atheist who does not change their mind in the face of irrefutable evidence is not a true atheist, because atheists don't choose what to believe in, they just follow the evidence. So far there's nothing to follow.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PA (549 days ago)

"SJWs don't think everybody should be nice to everybody, they think everybody should nice to them" - Sure, but the students organising the petition were trying to get Greer to be nice to transgender people - they weren't transgender themselves.

"Atheism is the lack of religion, so if religion is the London Stock Market, then atheism is NOT the London Stock Market ie. god doesn't exist." The Royal Exchange IS 'not the LSE' - it's the alternative. This is such a basic point: Atheism, particularly the type that you believe in, is not just a lack of religion or a lack of belief - that's just a semantic quibble that atheists use to shut down debate. In reality, it is the active and positive belief that the universe exists in a certain way, and you've said plenty on other threads to support this. I suppose the atheism that trees, cheese and chimneypots have is arguably a lack of belief or religion, and yet a lack of belief in atheism too - the atheism that you and Dawkins have is not. The reason the new analogy doesn't make sense to you is because it refutes that atheism is a default position, and instead presents it as a comparable way of interpreting the world. It is directly analagous: Humans definitely have some way of organising money (in the same way that matter is definitely organised into a universe), and it is either LSE system (organised with a god), or a Royal Exchange system (organised without). It has to be one, it can't be both, but your cat can't really understand the implications of either - that's why it's agnostic, and not atheist or theist.

"Any atheist who does not change their mind in the face of irrefutable evidence is not a true atheist, because atheists don't choose what to believe in, they just follow the evidence." Maybe you'd like it if that were true, maybe it even feels true to you, but it isn't. Atheists are just as good at cherry-picking their evidence as theists are: "If god did convincingly pop up tomorrow, (atheists) would believe. I guarantee it". A lot rides on 'convincingly' - atheists are sold on the fact that there are no deities, and so even if a deity was ever the simplest solution to a phenomenum they witnessed, they are doomed by confirmation bias to put it down to other explanations or to describe it in other terms. Similarly, theists have invested in the thought there is a god, and they would say 'if god someone did convincingly prove god doesn't exist tomorrow, we would stop believing'. Of course, in practice, both are likely to be wrong, and both go to lengths to maintain their beliefs.

And no, of course atheists aren't agnostics. Some maybe, but they are not the same. I call myself agnostic because I disbelieve in theism as much as I disbelieve in atheism. Can atheists say the same? Agnostics (and your cat) live as though any one of the conceptions of the universe is true; atheists live as though only one (atheism) is true.

Original comment

"SJWs don't think everybody should be nice to everybody, they think everybody should nice to them" - Sure, but the students organising the petition were trying to get Greer to be nice to transgender people - they weren't transgender themselves.

"Atheism is the lack of religion, so if religion is the London Stock Market, then atheism is NOT the London Stock Market ie. god doesn't exist." The Royal Exchange IS 'not the LSE' - it's the alternative. This is such a basic point: Atheism, particularly the type that you believe in, is not just a lack of religion or a lack of belief - that's just a semantic quibble that atheists use to shut down debate. In reality, it is the active and positive belief that the universe exists in a certain way, and you've said plenty on other threads to support this. I suppose the atheism that trees, cheese and chimneypots have is arguably a lack of belief or religion, and yet a lack of belief in atheism too - the atheism that you and Dawkins have is not. The reason the new analogy doesn't make sense to you is because it refutes that atheism is a default position, and instead presents it as a comparable way of interpreting the world. It is directly analagous: Humans definitely have some way of organising money (in the same way that matter is definitely organised into a universe), and it is either LSE system (organised with a god), or a Royal Exchange system (organised without). It has to be one, it can't be both, but your cat can't really understand the implications of either - that's why it's agnostic, and not atheist or theist.

"Any atheist who does not change their mind in the face of irrefutable evidence is not a true atheist, because atheists don't choose what to believe in, they just follow the evidence." Maybe you'd like it if that were true, maybe it even feels true to you, but it isn't. Atheists are just as good at cherry-picking their evidence as theists are: "If god did convincingly pop up tomorrow, (atheists) would believe. I guarantee it". A lot rides on 'convincingly' - atheists are sold on the fact that there are no deities, and so even if a deity was ever the simplest solution to a phenomenum they witnessed, they are doomed by confirmation bias to put it down to other explanations or to describe it in other terms. Similarly, theists have invested in the thought there is a god, and they would say 'if god someone did convincingly prove god doesn't exist tomorrow, we would stop believing'. Of course, in practice, both are likely to be wrong, and both go to lengths to maintain their beliefs.

And no, of course atheists aren't agnostics. Some maybe, but they are not the same. I call myself agnostic because I disbelieve in theism as much as I disbelieve in atheism. Can atheists say the same? Agnostics (and your cat) live as though any one of the conceptions of the universe is true; atheists live as though only one (atheism) is true.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (548 days ago)

"SJWs don't think everybody should be nice to everybody, they think ... Sure, but the students organising the petition were trying to get Greer to be nice to transgender people - they weren't transgender themselves." SJWs definition of everybody is everybody who thinks like them. Germaine Greer apparently is not included in "everybody". That's not nice.

"Atheism is not just a lack of religion or a lack of belief ... In reality, it is the active and positive belief that the universe exists in a certain way, and you've said plenty on other threads to support this." Yes exactly. In reality, atheists actively follow the evidence. Best evidence so far is Big Bang, not Allah, or Thor, or cats from a different universe.

"I call myself agnostic because I disbelieve in theism as much as I disbelieve in atheism." What, is that 50/50? You are now introducing probability when you said I couldn't? I wish you'd make your mind up.

Original comment

"SJWs don't think everybody should be nice to everybody, they think ... Sure, but the students organising the petition were trying to get Greer to be nice to transgender people - they weren't transgender themselves." SJWs definition of everybody is everybody who thinks like them. Germaine Greer apparently is not included in "everybody". That's not nice.

"Atheism is not just a lack of religion or a lack of belief ... In reality, it is the active and positive belief that the universe exists in a certain way, and you've said plenty on other threads to support this." Yes exactly. In reality, atheists actively follow the evidence. Best evidence so far is Big Bang, not Allah, or Thor, or cats from a different universe.

"I call myself agnostic because I disbelieve in theism as much as I disbelieve in atheism." What, is that 50/50? You are now introducing probability when you said I couldn't? I wish you'd make your mind up.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PA (548 days ago)

Your Greer example still makes no sense, even when you attempt to provide a new Walter definition of what 'SJW's think. They were unsuccessfully attempting to exclude a single person. If that's the best example you can summon to reflect how the liberal lefties are as divisive as Pat Condell (who divides more communities than I could fit into my last comment), your comparison is weak in the extreme.

You still don't understand probability. Comparing two things ('as much as'), is nothing to do with probability. I disbelieve in theism AND I disbelieve in atheism. That's not 50 / 50, because probability has no grounding with those sorts of beliefs.

Right, good, so atheism is not a lack of belief, it's a positive belief that the universe exists in a certain way - (I will count the days until you next claim that atheism is a lack of belief). And I will repeat (for the umpteenth time), that the Big Bang Theory does not exclude the possibility of a theistic universe. I mean for Pete's sake, the theory *was thought up by a Catholic minister *.

You say you follow the evidence - theists say you don't (including plenty of scientists), and many agnostics (including plenty of scientists) say you illogically follow a lack of evidence, not evidence itself, and come to just another unsupported unscientific speculative belief. Sometimes, it's not even the result of action - it's the result of lazy second-hand rhetoric, a limited understanding of key information, or even indoctrination - just the same as some religion. Sometimes it's also the result of a more deep-seated bias based on xenophobia...

Original comment

Your Greer example still makes no sense, even when you attempt to provide a new Walter definition of what 'SJW's think. They were unsuccessfully attempting to exclude a single person. If that's the best example you can summon to reflect how the liberal lefties are as divisive as Pat Condell (who divides more communities than I could fit into my last comment), your comparison is weak in the extreme.

You still don't understand probability. Comparing two things ('as much as'), is nothing to do with probability. I disbelieve in theism AND I disbelieve in atheism. That's not 50 / 50, because probability has no grounding with those sorts of beliefs.

Right, good, so atheism is not a lack of belief, it's a positive belief that the universe exists in a certain way - (I will count the days until you next claim that atheism is a lack of belief). And I will repeat (for the umpteenth time), that the Big Bang Theory does not exclude the possibility of a theistic universe. I mean for Pete's sake, the theory *was thought up by a Catholic minister *.

You say you follow the evidence - theists say you don't (including plenty of scientists), and many agnostics (including plenty of scientists) say you illogically follow a lack of evidence, not evidence itself, and come to just another unsupported unscientific speculative belief. Sometimes, it's not even the result of action - it's the result of lazy second-hand rhetoric, a limited understanding of key information, or even indoctrination - just the same as some religion. Sometimes it's also the result of a more deep-seated bias based on xenophobia...

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (547 days ago)

You are trying too hard.

I walk into the kitchen and look around. I see no cat. I conclude there is no cat in the kitchen and act accordingly.

If a cat walks in, I will conclude that there is a cat in the kitchen and act accordingly.

Atheism is no more complicated than that. I don't think I can simplify it any further. Sorry.

Original comment

You are trying too hard.

I walk into the kitchen and look around. I see no cat. I conclude there is no cat in the kitchen and act accordingly.

If a cat walks in, I will conclude that there is a cat in the kitchen and act accordingly.

Atheism is no more complicated than that. I don't think I can simplify it any further. Sorry.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PA (547 days ago)

Close but not quite.

An atheist walks into the kitchen and see no cat. He concludes that therefore it is must be scientifically proven that cats can't enter kitchens, that there are no cats in any kitchens anywhere in the world and never have been, and he acts accordingly. As this thread turns out, it also looks as though in some cases the atheist was raised with an irrational prejudice against cats and cat-lovers, and therefore wasn't ever amenable to rational debate in the first place.

The agnostic meanwhile walks into the same kitchen, sees no cat and concludes that he doesn't know if there's a cat or where the cat is, but that maybe there are cats in other kitchens - who knows?

The theist says the cat is just in the cupboard and if we could all shut up for a moment we would hear it.

That's about as simple as I can make it.

Anyway, I know it won't hit home with you. I've been given an insight into where these thoughts of yours probably come from and you can't bring yourself to show otherwise. Quite some rationalisation process you've been through to deal with those attitudes. I don't envy you one bit.

If you're ever happy to condemn racism and thereby make it clear your beef is genuinely with the religion rather than the race of the followers, let me know. Until then, we simply have no common ground of fairness and rationality from which to debate, and I'm out.

Original comment

Close but not quite.

An atheist walks into the kitchen and see no cat. He concludes that therefore it is must be scientifically proven that cats can't enter kitchens, that there are no cats in any kitchens anywhere in the world and never have been, and he acts accordingly. As this thread turns out, it also looks as though in some cases the atheist was raised with an irrational prejudice against cats and cat-lovers, and therefore wasn't ever amenable to rational debate in the first place.

The agnostic meanwhile walks into the same kitchen, sees no cat and concludes that he doesn't know if there's a cat or where the cat is, but that maybe there are cats in other kitchens - who knows?

The theist says the cat is just in the cupboard and if we could all shut up for a moment we would hear it.

That's about as simple as I can make it.

Anyway, I know it won't hit home with you. I've been given an insight into where these thoughts of yours probably come from and you can't bring yourself to show otherwise. Quite some rationalisation process you've been through to deal with those attitudes. I don't envy you one bit.

If you're ever happy to condemn racism and thereby make it clear your beef is genuinely with the religion rather than the race of the followers, let me know. Until then, we simply have no common ground of fairness and rationality from which to debate, and I'm out.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (547 days ago)

I could care a less about race.

Original comment

I could care a less about race.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (547 days ago)

Of course I condemn racism. I define racism as supremacism. When you call me a racist, I don't see any supremacist tendencies in me. You'll just have to take my word for it.

When you call Thundercat racist, I don't see any supremacist tendencies in his words, so I'm reluctant to judge.

You think religion and race are separate. I agree with you, and so does Thundercat. Yet when I or Thundercat criticise a religion you call us racist. It doesn't make sense. Are you aware that the angrier you get, the sloppier you get. Just pointing it out so you know.

I think you judge too much and too early. My holy grail is not to judge at all, just understand. Of course that's impossible, we are human after all, but I think it's a good direction. Judge less, understand more.

A UKIP supporter who hates the Bulgarian family who just moved in next door, is a different type of racist. His racism is born out of fear and ignorance. Education and familiarity will help reduce this type of racism, but have no effect on supremacists. Maybe we need new words to describe different forms of racism? Then the not-so-brights will be less confused and not lump it all into one bag, like you keep trying to do. A "racist" UKIP supporter is not a lesser supremacist. As I said, racism is more nuanced than you appreciate.

No doubt you think Donald Trump is racist. I wouldn't use that word. I don't think Trump thinks Mexicans and Chinese are somehow inferior races or cultures, or deserving the status of dogs. I think he just sees them as rivals, and he's pissed off because they are kicking his (America's) ass. You wouldn't call a football match between USA and Mexico a "racist confrontation". He didn't say Mexicans are rapists and criminals. He said Mexicans are sending us their rapists and criminals - like it's a clever strategic move to beat America in the battle of economics. Just because he is wrong and an idiot, doesn't mean he's a racist. Or maybe he is, but he's not a supremacist. He's yet another type of racist.

You accuse me of tarnishing all Muslims with one brush. Stop tarnishing all racists with one brush. At least be consistent.

Your racism is born from good intentions - which is also different from supremacism. You just can't stop stoking the fire.

To my mind, a society that is free from racism is one where race is not at the forefront of anyone's mind while they are going about their normal business. If we just stopped talking about racism, it would fizzle out. Not overnight, maybe over a few decades as older hardcore racists die out and people become more familiar and comfortable with different cultures without fear of the PC police watching over their every thought, and the media whipping up hatred.

My advice to you. Just grow up and stop judging people you know very little about. That's what racists do. You're too old to be a social justice warrior. And also, you're not very good at analogies. Best avoid them.

Original comment

Of course I condemn racism. I define racism as supremacism. When you call me a racist, I don't see any supremacist tendencies in me. You'll just have to take my word for it.

When you call Thundercat racist, I don't see any supremacist tendencies in his words, so I'm reluctant to judge.

You think religion and race are separate. I agree with you, and so does Thundercat. Yet when I or Thundercat criticise a religion you call us racist. It doesn't make sense. Are you aware that the angrier you get, the sloppier you get. Just pointing it out so you know.

I think you judge too much and too early. My holy grail is not to judge at all, just understand. Of course that's impossible, we are human after all, but I think it's a good direction. Judge less, understand more.

A UKIP supporter who hates the Bulgarian family who just moved in next door, is a different type of racist. His racism is born out of fear and ignorance. Education and familiarity will help reduce this type of racism, but have no effect on supremacists. Maybe we need new words to describe different forms of racism? Then the not-so-brights will be less confused and not lump it all into one bag, like you keep trying to do. A "racist" UKIP supporter is not a lesser supremacist. As I said, racism is more nuanced than you appreciate.

No doubt you think Donald Trump is racist. I wouldn't use that word. I don't think Trump thinks Mexicans and Chinese are somehow inferior races or cultures, or deserving the status of dogs. I think he just sees them as rivals, and he's pissed off because they are kicking his (America's) ass. You wouldn't call a football match between USA and Mexico a "racist confrontation". He didn't say Mexicans are rapists and criminals. He said Mexicans are sending us their rapists and criminals - like it's a clever strategic move to beat America in the battle of economics. Just because he is wrong and an idiot, doesn't mean he's a racist. Or maybe he is, but he's not a supremacist. He's yet another type of racist.

You accuse me of tarnishing all Muslims with one brush. Stop tarnishing all racists with one brush. At least be consistent.

Your racism is born from good intentions - which is also different from supremacism. You just can't stop stoking the fire.

To my mind, a society that is free from racism is one where race is not at the forefront of anyone's mind while they are going about their normal business. If we just stopped talking about racism, it would fizzle out. Not overnight, maybe over a few decades as older hardcore racists die out and people become more familiar and comfortable with different cultures without fear of the PC police watching over their every thought, and the media whipping up hatred.

My advice to you. Just grow up and stop judging people you know very little about. That's what racists do. You're too old to be a social justice warrior. And also, you're not very good at analogies. Best avoid them.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (546 days ago)

Another classic Walter redefinition - Racism is supremacism ? If you only define racism as open supremacism and are willing to accept everything leading up to it, then I guess I can call a black man a n* in your presence, so long as I don’t suggest I am superior.

And your holy grail is not to judge at all - " just understand "??? You ask me to stop judging people I know little about ?? They were laugh out loud moments, thanks. Oh wow. Do you really have such low self-awareness that you consider yourself to be non-judgmental or understanding? Seriously ? Honestly, in every thread you are judging someone - usually an entire group of people – and making sweeping generalisations instead of understanding diversity. Whether it's Japanese people, Mexicans, republicans, climate change deniers, university students, communists, capitalists – and of course your favourite, Muslims. Moreover, as we have seen, you fiercely defend your right to be offensively judgmental, to the extent that you start squealing 'Political correctness!! Political correctness!!' every time you feel that right is being infringed. Non-judgmental!!! You’re a hoot.

You see me attacking racism as 'tarnishing racists with the same brush' in the same way your attacks on Muslims are tarnishing them; You don’t mind people generalising about race and religion, but NEVER generalise about racists. Have you actually thought about that or did you just write something silly when you felt under pressure? Let me explain: By calling the people I am tarnishing ‘racists’, you are excusing my attacks - because the very descriptor 'racist' describes the totality of the behaviour I am condemning. OK? This is compared to Muslims, where you are usually trying to attack specific Muslims that behave in a certain way or specific beliefs, but you are tarnishing anyone who identifies as a Muslim, including those who you would admit don’t do the things you are criticising. Get it? Good grief, basic stuff. I am normally paid to explain this sort of stuff to young people, and it’s usually a lot easier than this. Besides, I repeat yet again, “Of course there are different levels of racism, but using obvious racial slurs means you are on the spectrum.”

You now use my racism claim as your own distraction technique – as if I hadn't been addressing your attacks on the religion itself! I was trying to understand where such entrenched and bizarre assumptions come from. He first brought up the racist term on a thread about Islam, not race, but can you bring yourself to criticise him? If he hadn’t let the cat out of the bag and used a term that only refers to ethnicity, then racism would never have been a part of this discussion, and you would never have found yourself awkwardly defending it. I can see why you’d agree with his hostilities towards Islam, but if race really wasn’t an issue for you, I don’t know why you wouldn’t happily condemn that racist exclamation of his…. unless… of course… OK. Bingo. If you spend time defending types of racism, don’t whine when you’re put in their tent.

Demonstrably, when you specifically condemn a religion and leave race out of it, I respond accordingly. I have replied to literally every criticism you have regurgitated on Islam, in detail From thread to thread, I have used my study and experience to laboriously explain different schisms, differences in scripture and the varying authority of different texts; I have highlighted what are common Islamic beliefs that may be representative and what are very rare beliefs that are not; I have corrected fundamental errors in translation or understanding and provided the more common variants in Arabic and their context; I have explained basic errors in logic with reference to clear mathematical concepts and scientific theory; I have challenged the inaccurate assumptions that back up your bias. I am no Muslim, I have nothing invested in Islam, yet I have still comprehensively replied to each and every point you make with facts you can corroborate, and until the introduction of ethnic insults, targeted your arguments themselves. But no, you don't want to have to deal with any of that do you? You would just rather throw the dolly out of the pram because I called you racist!! And you tell me to grow up?! Hah! I know there are long-established valid concerns about Islam that don’t require generalisations - yet you miss them by a country mile, preferring silly populist assumptions, xenophobia hysteria, and cyclical reasoning.

As before, I can't say I'm particularly concerned about what you consider sloppy – it usually simply reflects what you don’t understand, logically and semantically. Part of what I am paid for is my writing and textual analysis (albeit a little more formal than this), and I’m afraid I value my publishers’ and employer’s criticisms a little more highly than yours. Apologies. If you study nothing else, I would really recommend you study a course in Reason & Argument. This would give you a grounding in predicate logic that allows you to break down analogies and arguments allowing you to see whether they are logically valid – even using symbols where necessary, removing your emotional ties to the content of certain premises or conclusions. Don’t worry, it’s more maths than philosophy. Sure, you don’t like my analogies because they don’t confirm your bias, but if you were ever to allow yourself an inch of objectivity and an independent yardstick (predicate logic), you’d see what I was talking about.

If we're giving each other advice, I’ll have a go. To use the vernacular, grow a pair . Racism won't 'fizzle out' if cowards don't challenge it, both when they see it in others and in themselves – just be more honest with yourself. Secondly, please be open to education . I suspect you were disillusioned with your studies (kindly assuming you had any) but increasingly your attitudes have come across as being based on a lack of understanding or inaccurate generalisations, both of which would be alleviated were you to spend more time learning or even just speaking to people with different views. Fear and ignorance, as you said. Expand your knowledge; you’re never too old – whether that’s world religion, science or logic. Finally, and this is a clincher, don’t be afraid to question things and think for yoursel f. I mean really question things, not just question the things you don’t agree with. I know it's reassuring for you to swallow and regurgitate clichés like ' SJWs ' and ' political correctness ' - perhaps it gives you a sense of security you may not otherwise have - but seriously, you can't just fling about these lazy labels that have been fed to you without thought. Similarly, you constantly try to defer to people you deem to be experts, whether it's quotes, perfunctory video clips, random straw polls, or amusingly even Wikipedia. I challenge you to try and absorb information yourself and understand, then use your own words and your own reasoning, and when two of your beliefs conflict, or when one conflicts with the world you see, you’ll just have to choose - ie. think for yourself and hold yourself accountable. Give it a go.

“Walt” you are a mass of contradictions: You claim to hate people being judgmental, but you say all Muslims are ‘ retarded ’, etc. etc. etc. You hate political correctness, but you think people should use the gendered toilet according to how they look so as not to offend anyone or ‘cause a commotion’. You condemn racism, but will happily step in to defend someone using notorious ethnic slurs. Endless examples. Basically, you’re a man with specific concerns, yet you talk in absolute truths and generalisations. Everything has to fit into your pigeon-holes – and when the world you see doesn’t, you end up literally redefining it and endlessly tweaking rather than having to look at yourself or change your ideas. I could go on all day, but I honestly feel you have shown a certain intellectual vulnerability which I forget. I’m not bully, so suffice to say I think when you get your head around your own beliefs and quell that confused dissonance, it will enable others to understand you better. Good luck.

ReplyVote up (101)down (63)
Original comment

Another classic Walter redefinition - Racism is supremacism ? If you only define racism as open supremacism and are willing to accept everything leading up to it, then I guess I can call a black man a n* in your presence, so long as I don’t suggest I am superior.

And your holy grail is not to judge at all - " just understand "??? You ask me to stop judging people I know little about ?? They were laugh out loud moments, thanks. Oh wow. Do you really have such low self-awareness that you consider yourself to be non-judgmental or understanding? Seriously ? Honestly, in every thread you are judging someone - usually an entire group of people – and making sweeping generalisations instead of understanding diversity. Whether it's Japanese people, Mexicans, republicans, climate change deniers, university students, communists, capitalists – and of course your favourite, Muslims. Moreover, as we have seen, you fiercely defend your right to be offensively judgmental, to the extent that you start squealing 'Political correctness!! Political correctness!!' every time you feel that right is being infringed. Non-judgmental!!! You’re a hoot.

You see me attacking racism as 'tarnishing racists with the same brush' in the same way your attacks on Muslims are tarnishing them; You don’t mind people generalising about race and religion, but NEVER generalise about racists. Have you actually thought about that or did you just write something silly when you felt under pressure? Let me explain: By calling the people I am tarnishing ‘racists’, you are excusing my attacks - because the very descriptor 'racist' describes the totality of the behaviour I am condemning. OK? This is compared to Muslims, where you are usually trying to attack specific Muslims that behave in a certain way or specific beliefs, but you are tarnishing anyone who identifies as a Muslim, including those who you would admit don’t do the things you are criticising. Get it? Good grief, basic stuff. I am normally paid to explain this sort of stuff to young people, and it’s usually a lot easier than this. Besides, I repeat yet again, “Of course there are different levels of racism, but using obvious racial slurs means you are on the spectrum.”

You now use my racism claim as your own distraction technique – as if I hadn't been addressing your attacks on the religion itself! I was trying to understand where such entrenched and bizarre assumptions come from. He first brought up the racist term on a thread about Islam, not race, but can you bring yourself to criticise him? If he hadn’t let the cat out of the bag and used a term that only refers to ethnicity, then racism would never have been a part of this discussion, and you would never have found yourself awkwardly defending it. I can see why you’d agree with his hostilities towards Islam, but if race really wasn’t an issue for you, I don’t know why you wouldn’t happily condemn that racist exclamation of his…. unless… of course… OK. Bingo. If you spend time defending types of racism, don’t whine when you’re put in their tent.

Demonstrably, when you specifically condemn a religion and leave race out of it, I respond accordingly. I have replied to literally every criticism you have regurgitated on Islam, in detail From thread to thread, I have used my study and experience to laboriously explain different schisms, differences in scripture and the varying authority of different texts; I have highlighted what are common Islamic beliefs that may be representative and what are very rare beliefs that are not; I have corrected fundamental errors in translation or understanding and provided the more common variants in Arabic and their context; I have explained basic errors in logic with reference to clear mathematical concepts and scientific theory; I have challenged the inaccurate assumptions that back up your bias. I am no Muslim, I have nothing invested in Islam, yet I have still comprehensively replied to each and every point you make with facts you can corroborate, and until the introduction of ethnic insults, targeted your arguments themselves. But no, you don't want to have to deal with any of that do you? You would just rather throw the dolly out of the pram because I called you racist!! And you tell me to grow up?! Hah! I know there are long-established valid concerns about Islam that don’t require generalisations - yet you miss them by a country mile, preferring silly populist assumptions, xenophobia hysteria, and cyclical reasoning.

As before, I can't say I'm particularly concerned about what you consider sloppy – it usually simply reflects what you don’t understand, logically and semantically. Part of what I am paid for is my writing and textual analysis (albeit a little more formal than this), and I’m afraid I value my publishers’ and employer’s criticisms a little more highly than yours. Apologies. If you study nothing else, I would really recommend you study a course in Reason & Argument. This would give you a grounding in predicate logic that allows you to break down analogies and arguments allowing you to see whether they are logically valid – even using symbols where necessary, removing your emotional ties to the content of certain premises or conclusions. Don’t worry, it’s more maths than philosophy. Sure, you don’t like my analogies because they don’t confirm your bias, but if you were ever to allow yourself an inch of objectivity and an independent yardstick (predicate logic), you’d see what I was talking about.

If we're giving each other advice, I’ll have a go. To use the vernacular, grow a pair . Racism won't 'fizzle out' if cowards don't challenge it, both when they see it in others and in themselves – just be more honest with yourself. Secondly, please be open to education . I suspect you were disillusioned with your studies (kindly assuming you had any) but increasingly your attitudes have come across as being based on a lack of understanding or inaccurate generalisations, both of which would be alleviated were you to spend more time learning or even just speaking to people with different views. Fear and ignorance, as you said. Expand your knowledge; you’re never too old – whether that’s world religion, science or logic. Finally, and this is a clincher, don’t be afraid to question things and think for yoursel f. I mean really question things, not just question the things you don’t agree with. I know it's reassuring for you to swallow and regurgitate clichés like ' SJWs ' and ' political correctness ' - perhaps it gives you a sense of security you may not otherwise have - but seriously, you can't just fling about these lazy labels that have been fed to you without thought. Similarly, you constantly try to defer to people you deem to be experts, whether it's quotes, perfunctory video clips, random straw polls, or amusingly even Wikipedia. I challenge you to try and absorb information yourself and understand, then use your own words and your own reasoning, and when two of your beliefs conflict, or when one conflicts with the world you see, you’ll just have to choose - ie. think for yourself and hold yourself accountable. Give it a go.

“Walt” you are a mass of contradictions: You claim to hate people being judgmental, but you say all Muslims are ‘ retarded ’, etc. etc. etc. You hate political correctness, but you think people should use the gendered toilet according to how they look so as not to offend anyone or ‘cause a commotion’. You condemn racism, but will happily step in to defend someone using notorious ethnic slurs. Endless examples. Basically, you’re a man with specific concerns, yet you talk in absolute truths and generalisations. Everything has to fit into your pigeon-holes – and when the world you see doesn’t, you end up literally redefining it and endlessly tweaking rather than having to look at yourself or change your ideas. I could go on all day, but I honestly feel you have shown a certain intellectual vulnerability which I forget. I’m not bully, so suffice to say I think when you get your head around your own beliefs and quell that confused dissonance, it will enable others to understand you better. Good luck.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (546 days ago)

sure your right pops but whose gonna read all that??
anyway your wasting your time. when someone like walterego says you shouldnt judge people you know litle about you know he is either trolling you or has lost all touch with realty.

ReplyVote up (101)down (66)
Original comment

sure your right pops but whose gonna read all that??
anyway your wasting your time. when someone like walterego says you shouldnt judge people you know litle about you know he is either trolling you or has lost all touch with realty.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (543 days ago)

There's too much to respond to, so I'll just make a few random comments.

Surely text analysis involves more than just jumping to the first thing that comes to mind? If I say "Islam is evil", am I thinking all Muslims are evil? If I said "Google is evil", am I thinking all Google employees are evil? You'll never know - so don't judge people when you know nothing about them. Better still, don't judge people at all.

I don't judge you, I criticise your actions. I have never labelled you as a racist, or bigot, or ignorant, or whatever (I don't think). Why should I? I know nothing about you. You might be a cat posing as a human for all I know.

If you call a black man a nigger in my presence I wouldn't care. It's not really even a question of context. If you were a "hip hop" dude and it was a term of endearment, then obviously no problem. But if you were spouting hatred, then big deal - you are one of the x% of racists in the world. I thought they existed, and now I know they do.

If you want to change a racist's views, calling him racist does nothing. If it makes you feel better, then take it out on a punchbag instead. From his point of view, YOU are wrong for whatever reason he cares to make up.

Nobody likes to be wrong so we dig in and our positions become more entrenched. Human brains are masters of self-delusion. Optical illusions show that - trust me, those lines are not really moving, our brains are messing with us. I'm pretty sure our brains treat "facts" the same way. If they don't fit what we already believe is true, then our brains expertly manipulate them until they do. I don't think I'm racist for saying Islam is evil, after all, Muslims are not a race. That logic circle works for me. You no doubt have a different logic circle that works for you that proves I'm racist.

Judge less, understand more. When trying to understand something, the accepted wisdom is to find out more about what you're trying to understand. Makes sense doesn't it. The more you know, the better the position you're in to make sense of whatever you're trying to make sense of. But it's easy to miss the big picture, to "not see the wood from the trees". Sometimes it's better to zoom out, rather than delve into further detail. It's about perspectives.

In the case of racism, if you zoom out, you see that no one is born racist. If we teach our children that "racists are bad" and that "nigger" is an insult that should never be used - when they feel the need to insult someone who happens to be of a different race (disputes do happen in real life), then a race insult could well come to mind. Why wouldn't it - if you want to insult someone, and you have been taught that "nigger" is a very insulting word, why not use it. Does that make you think that black people are inferior? Probably not. If we didn't talk about racism, then when a person wants to insult someone who happens to be of a different race, "nigger" won't even come to mind. He'll probably call you "mofokochbrocapitali stcock".

I think if we stop talking about racism, it will fizzle out over time, because children won't learn that race, along with sexuality, gender and ginger hair, is common currency when judging other people. But can we just stop talking about racism? Probably not. It's a bit like me saying "don't think of an elephant".

"I can't say I'm particularly concerned about what you consider sloppy". How do you jump from "I define racism as supremacism" to "If you only define racism as open supremacism and are willing to accept everything leading up to it, …" ? For someone who analyses text for a living, that's sloppy. Stop jumping to conclusions based on only a few words.

"Finally, and this is a clincher, don’t be afraid to question things and think for yourself." Funnily, I was going to give you the same advice when the opportunity came up, but you beat me to it. I was going to suggest - read less, think more. It's as if your whole thinking is confined within the books you've read. Need a new idea, read another book. Nothing wrong with that, only you physically can't read that many books in one lifetime.

Walter definitions on the other hand, are a form of "thinking for myself". If you don't have a book to fall back on, then you have to think for yourself. Try it.

Original comment

There's too much to respond to, so I'll just make a few random comments.

Surely text analysis involves more than just jumping to the first thing that comes to mind? If I say "Islam is evil", am I thinking all Muslims are evil? If I said "Google is evil", am I thinking all Google employees are evil? You'll never know - so don't judge people when you know nothing about them. Better still, don't judge people at all.

I don't judge you, I criticise your actions. I have never labelled you as a racist, or bigot, or ignorant, or whatever (I don't think). Why should I? I know nothing about you. You might be a cat posing as a human for all I know.

If you call a black man a nigger in my presence I wouldn't care. It's not really even a question of context. If you were a "hip hop" dude and it was a term of endearment, then obviously no problem. But if you were spouting hatred, then big deal - you are one of the x% of racists in the world. I thought they existed, and now I know they do.

If you want to change a racist's views, calling him racist does nothing. If it makes you feel better, then take it out on a punchbag instead. From his point of view, YOU are wrong for whatever reason he cares to make up.

Nobody likes to be wrong so we dig in and our positions become more entrenched. Human brains are masters of self-delusion. Optical illusions show that - trust me, those lines are not really moving, our brains are messing with us. I'm pretty sure our brains treat "facts" the same way. If they don't fit what we already believe is true, then our brains expertly manipulate them until they do. I don't think I'm racist for saying Islam is evil, after all, Muslims are not a race. That logic circle works for me. You no doubt have a different logic circle that works for you that proves I'm racist.

Judge less, understand more. When trying to understand something, the accepted wisdom is to find out more about what you're trying to understand. Makes sense doesn't it. The more you know, the better the position you're in to make sense of whatever you're trying to make sense of. But it's easy to miss the big picture, to "not see the wood from the trees". Sometimes it's better to zoom out, rather than delve into further detail. It's about perspectives.

In the case of racism, if you zoom out, you see that no one is born racist. If we teach our children that "racists are bad" and that "nigger" is an insult that should never be used - when they feel the need to insult someone who happens to be of a different race (disputes do happen in real life), then a race insult could well come to mind. Why wouldn't it - if you want to insult someone, and you have been taught that "nigger" is a very insulting word, why not use it. Does that make you think that black people are inferior? Probably not. If we didn't talk about racism, then when a person wants to insult someone who happens to be of a different race, "nigger" won't even come to mind. He'll probably call you "mofokochbrocapitali stcock".

I think if we stop talking about racism, it will fizzle out over time, because children won't learn that race, along with sexuality, gender and ginger hair, is common currency when judging other people. But can we just stop talking about racism? Probably not. It's a bit like me saying "don't think of an elephant".

"I can't say I'm particularly concerned about what you consider sloppy". How do you jump from "I define racism as supremacism" to "If you only define racism as open supremacism and are willing to accept everything leading up to it, …" ? For someone who analyses text for a living, that's sloppy. Stop jumping to conclusions based on only a few words.

"Finally, and this is a clincher, don’t be afraid to question things and think for yourself." Funnily, I was going to give you the same advice when the opportunity came up, but you beat me to it. I was going to suggest - read less, think more. It's as if your whole thinking is confined within the books you've read. Need a new idea, read another book. Nothing wrong with that, only you physically can't read that many books in one lifetime.

Walter definitions on the other hand, are a form of "thinking for myself". If you don't have a book to fall back on, then you have to think for yourself. Try it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PA (538 days ago)

‘Judge less understand more’ . That’s an excellent motto that I wish you would live by. ‘The more you know, the better the position you’re in’ – precisely, which is why it’s baffling to see you make really very basic errors about religion and Islam and use them to judge billions of people you will never meet. I correct those errors where I can and yet you almost make a point of not wanting to learn about Islam. You know enough, apparently, to judge the whole religion, and to label all its followers as ‘retards’ etc. etc. ‘Judge less, understand more.’

The thing about ‘logic circles’ as you call them, is that logic is objective. That’s the whole point – it’s like maths, hence why I was recommending you learn some predicate logic. You can break down an argument into constituent parts or symbols and the conclusion either logically follows from its premises or it doesn’t. Yours often don’t, and that’s before we start to analyse whether your premises are correct, or whether for example you’re having to create new and subjective definitions for your arguments to work. A really quick example of mine that you don’t like:

P – ‘Race’ is defined as ‘A group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc” (OD)
P - ‘Racist’ is defined as ‘A person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races,’ (OD)
P – ‘Islam’ sometimes includes a shared ‘culture, history, language’.
C – Therefore, criticisms of Islam can sometimes be defined as racist.

Unfortunately for you, that is logically valid. It seems unsurprising to me. To dispute the conclusion, you have to dispute one of the premises (and probably write to the Oxford Dictionary). Alternatively, you can accept the conclusion and say yes, criticisms of Islam might sometimes be racist… but not our criticisms, not things like ‘sand monkey’, because….

It’s peculiar that you continually revert to ‘you think I’m racist because I criticise Islam’ . I’m going to say this one more time: Criticising Islam is not necessarily racist. It may be based on racism, and it can be racist (as above) but it is not necessarily racist in itself. However, calling people ‘sand monkeys ’ is racist, and being apathetic about racist terminology reveals a complicity and that implies some sort of racism as well. Your verbose apologism for racist behaviour is pretty remarkable and I don't think it's unfair of me to speculate on your emotional motives.

I have had enough debate with people with embedded xenophobic views to know that there’s little point explaining to you why racism is unacceptable, but demonstrably, if we don’t talk about racism, it will not disappear. We know this because racism existed long before we had a word for it (less than 120 years I think), and long before we saw it as a bad thing, and not only did it not disappear, it became so prevalent it was institutionalised, cultural, and completely normal - we founded empires on it no less. Rationally, we need to point out where criticism is not based on actions or choices, but is instead an emotional and irrational bigotry against something that cannot be changed. As someone who proclaims to be rational and scientific, you should understand that. For example, if someone I work with refuses to do business with Arabs, I would like to know whether he has valid commercial reasons or whether they are just presumptuous generalisations about their race and culture. That kind of stuff is important.

Textual analysis. This is a great example of what you consider sloppy: “How do you jump from "I define racism as supremacism" to "If you only define racism as open supremacism and are willing to accept everything leading up to it, …" ?” Let’s have a look: “If you only define racism as supremacism and are willing to accept everything leading up to it” is what is known as a conditional statement – that’s the ‘if’ part. The first clause is a given, because it follows the definition of racism that you gave, and the second part (“willing to accept everything leading up to it”) is a fairly unsurprising conclusion drawn from your refusal to condemn any racist language or behaviour that isn’t overtly supremacist. You hate me pointing out the rather ugly or bizarre inferences that can be logically pulled from your text – but sloppy reading it is not. Textual analysis is founded on inference and interpretation.

I’m afraid that you rather misunderstand the nature of text-based study too. It is not about learning texts – and it’s not as if reading a text renders you unable to have your own ideas - it’s about understanding them and forming your own opinions, and ‘thinking for yourself’. If you get good at it, you even get to publish your own ideas. The original knowledge from the text is just the first step (check out Bloom’s higher order thinking skills). The reading part actually just gives you more to think about, and exposes you to a wider range of carefully thought out viewpoints. That alone would do you a world of good. It’s a little tragic that you seem to think that reading is the alternative to thinking for yourself, but it does explain a lot about some of your views.

I always try to understand why people have stubborn attitudes. Often, even when you plug the gaps in their knowledge, they maintain the same attitudes. Occasionally though, they say things that betray a deeper more emotional basis for their beliefs and I think whenever you find someone at this point, the penny drops and you have to accept they are not really open to reason and move along. I have no right to feel disappointed, but I had been treating your arguments as something they’re not. Lesson learned.

Original comment

‘Judge less understand more’ . That’s an excellent motto that I wish you would live by. ‘The more you know, the better the position you’re in’ – precisely, which is why it’s baffling to see you make really very basic errors about religion and Islam and use them to judge billions of people you will never meet. I correct those errors where I can and yet you almost make a point of not wanting to learn about Islam. You know enough, apparently, to judge the whole religion, and to label all its followers as ‘retards’ etc. etc. ‘Judge less, understand more.’

The thing about ‘logic circles’ as you call them, is that logic is objective. That’s the whole point – it’s like maths, hence why I was recommending you learn some predicate logic. You can break down an argument into constituent parts or symbols and the conclusion either logically follows from its premises or it doesn’t. Yours often don’t, and that’s before we start to analyse whether your premises are correct, or whether for example you’re having to create new and subjective definitions for your arguments to work. A really quick example of mine that you don’t like:

P – ‘Race’ is defined as ‘A group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc” (OD)
P - ‘Racist’ is defined as ‘A person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races,’ (OD)
P – ‘Islam’ sometimes includes a shared ‘culture, history, language’.
C – Therefore, criticisms of Islam can sometimes be defined as racist.

Unfortunately for you, that is logically valid. It seems unsurprising to me. To dispute the conclusion, you have to dispute one of the premises (and probably write to the Oxford Dictionary). Alternatively, you can accept the conclusion and say yes, criticisms of Islam might sometimes be racist… but not our criticisms, not things like ‘sand monkey’, because….

It’s peculiar that you continually revert to ‘you think I’m racist because I criticise Islam’ . I’m going to say this one more time: Criticising Islam is not necessarily racist. It may be based on racism, and it can be racist (as above) but it is not necessarily racist in itself. However, calling people ‘sand monkeys ’ is racist, and being apathetic about racist terminology reveals a complicity and that implies some sort of racism as well. Your verbose apologism for racist behaviour is pretty remarkable and I don't think it's unfair of me to speculate on your emotional motives.

I have had enough debate with people with embedded xenophobic views to know that there’s little point explaining to you why racism is unacceptable, but demonstrably, if we don’t talk about racism, it will not disappear. We know this because racism existed long before we had a word for it (less than 120 years I think), and long before we saw it as a bad thing, and not only did it not disappear, it became so prevalent it was institutionalised, cultural, and completely normal - we founded empires on it no less. Rationally, we need to point out where criticism is not based on actions or choices, but is instead an emotional and irrational bigotry against something that cannot be changed. As someone who proclaims to be rational and scientific, you should understand that. For example, if someone I work with refuses to do business with Arabs, I would like to know whether he has valid commercial reasons or whether they are just presumptuous generalisations about their race and culture. That kind of stuff is important.

Textual analysis. This is a great example of what you consider sloppy: “How do you jump from "I define racism as supremacism" to "If you only define racism as open supremacism and are willing to accept everything leading up to it, …" ?” Let’s have a look: “If you only define racism as supremacism and are willing to accept everything leading up to it” is what is known as a conditional statement – that’s the ‘if’ part. The first clause is a given, because it follows the definition of racism that you gave, and the second part (“willing to accept everything leading up to it”) is a fairly unsurprising conclusion drawn from your refusal to condemn any racist language or behaviour that isn’t overtly supremacist. You hate me pointing out the rather ugly or bizarre inferences that can be logically pulled from your text – but sloppy reading it is not. Textual analysis is founded on inference and interpretation.

I’m afraid that you rather misunderstand the nature of text-based study too. It is not about learning texts – and it’s not as if reading a text renders you unable to have your own ideas - it’s about understanding them and forming your own opinions, and ‘thinking for yourself’. If you get good at it, you even get to publish your own ideas. The original knowledge from the text is just the first step (check out Bloom’s higher order thinking skills). The reading part actually just gives you more to think about, and exposes you to a wider range of carefully thought out viewpoints. That alone would do you a world of good. It’s a little tragic that you seem to think that reading is the alternative to thinking for yourself, but it does explain a lot about some of your views.

I always try to understand why people have stubborn attitudes. Often, even when you plug the gaps in their knowledge, they maintain the same attitudes. Occasionally though, they say things that betray a deeper more emotional basis for their beliefs and I think whenever you find someone at this point, the penny drops and you have to accept they are not really open to reason and move along. I have no right to feel disappointed, but I had been treating your arguments as something they’re not. Lesson learned.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (538 days ago)

Non- muslims have absolutely no obligation to learn about muslim ways.

We go by what we see.

What we see is not good, my advice to any muslim, stop being aholes around the world and maybe youll get more respect.

Original comment

Non- muslims have absolutely no obligation to learn about muslim ways.

We go by what we see.

What we see is not good, my advice to any muslim, stop being aholes around the world and maybe youll get more respect.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (538 days ago)

QED

ReplyVote up (101)down (54)
Original comment

QED

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (533 days ago)
Latest comment:

"Textual analysis is founded on inference and interpretation" Well, you're the expert, but you did get a Walter definition very wrong. I know because I'm Walter.

You went from: "I define racism as supremacism" to "If you only define racism as open supremacism and are willing to accept everything leading up to it, …" You are assuming that I'm willing to accept everything leading up to racism, when that doesn't even make sense. You are trying to shoehorn in morality where there is none. Definitions don't have morality embedded in them. The Oxford Dictionary defines racism as "Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior", not "Terrible prejudice, appalling discrimination, or monstrous antagonism directed against the suffering people of a different race based on the deluded belief that one’s own race is far superior". In this case it's not sloppy reading, it's sloppy interpretation. I'm curious, what type of text do you analyse?

"I’m afraid that you rather misunderstand the nature of text-based study too." Actually I wasn't generalising. It seems to me that when YOU defend a point, it's always by name-dropping. I'm not sure I've noticed an original thought. There's plenty of activity going on inside your head but it's from a very fixed perspective. I think if you gagged your PC gene, zoomed out and viewed the world as an alien studying humans, you'll come to better conclusions. Seriously, zooming out and viewing racism from the point of view of an alien studying humans, is a great way to get a neutral perspective - essential if you want to better understand such an emotion-fuelled topic.

Original comment
Latest comment:

"Textual analysis is founded on inference and interpretation" Well, you're the expert, but you did get a Walter definition very wrong. I know because I'm Walter.

You went from: "I define racism as supremacism" to "If you only define racism as open supremacism and are willing to accept everything leading up to it, …" You are assuming that I'm willing to accept everything leading up to racism, when that doesn't even make sense. You are trying to shoehorn in morality where there is none. Definitions don't have morality embedded in them. The Oxford Dictionary defines racism as "Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior", not "Terrible prejudice, appalling discrimination, or monstrous antagonism directed against the suffering people of a different race based on the deluded belief that one’s own race is far superior". In this case it's not sloppy reading, it's sloppy interpretation. I'm curious, what type of text do you analyse?

"I’m afraid that you rather misunderstand the nature of text-based study too." Actually I wasn't generalising. It seems to me that when YOU defend a point, it's always by name-dropping. I'm not sure I've noticed an original thought. There's plenty of activity going on inside your head but it's from a very fixed perspective. I think if you gagged your PC gene, zoomed out and viewed the world as an alien studying humans, you'll come to better conclusions. Seriously, zooming out and viewing racism from the point of view of an alien studying humans, is a great way to get a neutral perspective - essential if you want to better understand such an emotion-fuelled topic.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (547 days ago)

OK, if I walk into the kitchen and see no cat, but I do see some sheba - I think "Where's Tsuki?"

That's as simple as I can make it

Original comment

OK, if I walk into the kitchen and see no cat, but I do see some sheba - I think "Where's Tsuki?"

That's as simple as I can make it

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Tsuki Tsuki (547 days ago)

I'm here! I can see an atheist, but he can't see me. Is that bad?

And there's definitely no Sheba.

I must be in the wrong kitchen. Where are you?

Original comment

I'm here! I can see an atheist, but he can't see me. Is that bad?

And there's definitely no Sheba.

I must be in the wrong kitchen. Where are you?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (553 days ago)

I don't care about Islam, it's social justice warriors that really wind me up.

Original comment

I don't care about Islam, it's social justice warriors that really wind me up.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
It's Okay To Be Smart - A brief history of time
It's Okay To Be Smart - A brief history of time
It's Okay To Be Smart - Talk with your inner climate conscience
It's Okay To Be Smart - Talk with your inner climate conscience
It's Okay To Be Smart - Doomsday Machines
It's Okay To Be Smart - Doomsday Machines
Veritasium - The real moral dilemma of self-driving cars
Veritasium - The real moral dilemma of self-driving cars
Is space a thing?
Is space a thing?