Steroid wrote:Because if I do, then I want to hear sympathy equally for those who are complaining about ground zero Cordoba 51.
Why? I don't categorically sympathize with people who complain; I do sympathize with victims of harassment, racism, and religious prejudice. This is not a "double standard" in any objectionable sense of the term. Is there some other criterion under which I should sympathize with the Park51 protesters?
And is it your contention that there is no instance where an American has been the victim of such harassment, racism, or prejudice from a Muslim? I think we differ in this view as I believe it is equally unsympathetic to be prejudiced in favor of your own religion as it is to be prejudiced against another. A religion is an idea and not one that need be defended rationally. So to be fair, I believe it is wrong to be prejudiced against any idea, not just religious ones. So if saying, "I believe in Allah" engenders prejudice, and saying, "I think it is wrong to believe in Allah" does not, I do object to that as a double standard.
Might makes right much?
Might doesn't make right, but it defines it. If, in the real world, doing right results in less might, then either the world is unjust or the definition of right is incorrect.
The Great Hippo wrote:
Steroid wrote:Yes. If I am wrong (and being wrong here can be easily conflated with having different goals or different estimates on how to achieve similar goals), he is better served by acting right and taking a material advantage over me, putting me in the position of either having to change my view or lag behind him.
2 + 2 = 4. Regardless of how you package this truth--insultingly or politely, through word or through deed--it remains true
. The fact that you would turn your nose up in the face of truth becaues you don't like the wrapping paper is... pretty incredible.
But if I did work from 2+2!=4, I could easily be convinced of the truth the first time my equations didn't balance or some structure I build fell down. I would not need a counselor from another land to tell me the Truth; the real world would do it. Now, in political matters, there is a far less clear Truth. If a Muslim believes that we mean to Christianize their land (which is where this whole thing started), I don't expect him to take my word for it; I expect him to be skeptical, because I in turn am skeptical of anyone who evinces a political position as regards my land.
Steroid wrote:If he is rational, I meet him with reason. If he is violent I meet him with violence. If he is bigoted I meet him with bigotry. I can not think of a greater justification than to meet people in kind.
So your whole description justifying bigotry in the face of every Muslim was BS?
It is not so much BS as a position I hold in reserve as last resort if I cannot achieve understanding. If I face what I consider to be untenable bigotry, I see no reason not to pass it along. I would hope that such an eventuality need never be reached because my position is understood and accepted.
But you've already established that you're more interested in sounding correct than being correct.
I would say rather that I'm more interested in being correct in theory than in practice, because I think that over the long term, practice reflects theory.
mythago wrote:If you live in the US, you might want to reacquaint yourself with the First Amendment, and with some of the writings of the Framers in regards to religious freedom. You will not find any language saying "....but this ONLY applies to groups that also agree to do the same everywhere in the world!" (Which is a good thing, because Christians would find themselves SOL.)
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that I am contending that Congress may make law respecting the free exercise of religion of groups that do not make such laws? I do not believe I have said that.
Second, you seem to have this bizarre notion that there is a Muslim hive mind, such that if Wahhabis in Saudia Arabia are intolerant (in violation of their own faith's teachings), then it's totally cool to shit on moderate, pro-tolerance Muslims in America.
No, I do not have that notion. I do have two positions that I think you could confuse from springing from that notion:
1. That it is permissible only to, as you put it, shit on intolerance by decrying the intolerance per se, and not on the other aspects of what it is the intolerant person is basing his intolerance on.
2. That I personally disagree with aspects of Islam that have nothing to do with tolerance, freedom, prejudice, or politics. I disagree with Islam culturally, and wish to act against the ideology wherever it flourishes.
Malice wrote:What you're complaining about is not the existence of a double standard, but the existence of a standard--an ideological basis (outlined by TGB) for deciding which actions actually merit complaint, and which complaints therefore merit sympathy.
I'm not complaining; I'm asking what the standard is. If the standard comprises prejudice against a religion but not against disliking the religion, it's a bad, and I contend double, standard.
So, no, we can't, because that's crazy. The irrational unhappiness of people who, through ignorance, associate evil acts with people who had nothing to do with those acts, is not equally deserving of our sympathy and respect as the rational unhappiness of people who, through the ignorance of others, are targeted unfairly for extra searches at the airport. There's no such thing as "outrage relativism."
But is it equal to the unhappiness of those same people when I, a private citizen unrelated to the TSA keep my eye on them specifically at the airport? Or when I disparage their religion by depicting the prophet or similar acts that bring about outrage?