"Let us be more pointed. Students, stars, media movers, academics: They are always saying they want debate, but they don't. They want their vision imposed. They want to win. And if the win doesn't come quickly, they'll rush the stage, curse you out, attempt to intimidate."...
...call you racist, homophobic, bigoted, Islamophobic, or a Nazi, a fascist, a warmonger, etc., etc., etc.
And that pretty much renders pointless any further attempt at debate. But that's the goal I suppose: End the debate quickly by assigning labels to your opponent, then high-five yourself, pat yourself on the back and congratulate yourself on winning the debate.
11 comments:
Six: As you know, I consider this behavior deplorable. Nadir employs some of these tactics, such as calling people "racist" if they advocate a tight border, but as far as I know he does not support shouting people down.
A night or two ago one of the righties on talk TV who had excoriated these airheads for shouting down the Minute Man speaker was excoriating whatever university for employing that prof who just made the news for assigning his class to purchase and read a comprising essays -- including one by him -- that accuses Bush of orchestrating 911. Don't you join me in supporting that professor's employment security? If Bush did conduct 911, then surely you and I want it exposed. If he did not, what do we have to fear from anybody incorrectly asserting a falsehood that we are surely smart enough to see through?
I only call people racist when they exhibit racist behavior or use racist speech. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Six acts as if he has never called anyone an Islamofascist. Paul talks as if he has never said Iraqis lack civilization. I believe all of us here (save Farmer Tom) are probably guilty of name calling at some point or another.
Don't act like it just happens from the left. You guys are just as guilty, if not moreso.
Nadir: When I call people a name, I justify it with facts and logic. I don't just toss out the name. You, on the other hand, toss out names regularly without any justification. For example, you called the Minute Men racists and thugs, but you did not support this with any facts. When I challanged you to justify this, you posted an article from a socialist website in which the writer demonstrated that some of the Minute Men were racists. Demonstrating that some Minute Men are racists does not come close to justifying a claim that "the MM are racist."
The label "thug" never got justified, unless you consider that a fitting charactoriztion for somebody who carries a gun to defend himself from a criminal who might be carrying a gun. You have produced not even an unsubstantiated claim by any illegal immigrants that MM have beaten them. So how do you justify calling them "thugs"?
Six justifies his use of his term, "islamofascist" as well. He uses this to describe people who proclaim islam as their guiding force in imposing their religious views on other people by means of violence.
Six and I do not disparage assigning labels so long as the label gets justified. You have called Bush a "racist." Based on what? Opposition to affirmative action? That does not and cannot prove that a person is a racist.
What we object to is you and others labeling a person or an idea with a charactorization, and then not justifying the charactorization. This is a substitution of argument for name-calling; it is name-calling without substance.
"When I challanged you to justify this, you posted an article from a socialist website in which the writer demonstrated that some of the Minute Men were racists."
Pointing out that the website is socialist doesn't refute the claim that some of the men are racist, and I conceded this point.
You have no evidence that Iraqis lack civilization. In fact, every definition of civilization shows they have one of the oldest in the world.
Your characterizations of Islam as a backward religion shows a lack of understanding and a presence of bigotry. You express admiration for Fareed Zakaria and other so-called "moderate muslims" and then you berate their religion.
You guys are constantly spewing Islamophobic rants, and just because you back them up with evidence that a small minority of extremists are just that... extremists, is no reason to condemn an entire religion. That is bigotry.
I believe the Minutemen's motives are based more on race than anything else. If they were worried about immigration as a whole, they would be in airports around the country, and they would be in IMS offices investigating people who overstay their visas. Most undocumented workers enter the country legally and then stay once their visas expire. Why aren't the Minutemen attacking those people?
I think the Minutemen's words demonstrate that they are looking for people to shoot. This makes them thugs.
Why do you guys support them?
What are you afraid of?
=====Nadir=====
Pointing out that the website is socialist doesn't refute the claim that some of the men are racist, and I conceded this point
===============
I never said that the nature of the website refuted the claim of the website... did I?
========Nadir=========
You have no evidence that Iraqis lack civilization. In fact, every definition of civilization shows they have one of the oldest in the world.
==================
The ancient Iraqi civilizatinos are all gone; no memberss of those civilizations live. In my criticism of Iraqis I have always stated that in ancient days Iraqis created two or three civilizations.
In our lengthy discourse on "civilization", modern Iraqis shia and non-Kurdish sunni qualify only for the barest minimum requirement: they are literate and keep records. If we apply any of the robust meanings of the term, and apply subjectivity that includes our interpretation of "advancement", then surely the Kurdish Iraqis qualify. They rule themselves, their government derives from the people, they follow agreed-upon rules that include respect for each other's liberty and ownership of their own ideas, bodies, and property.
Outside of this Kurdish region, where various gangs of criminals and religious fanatics kill, torture, destroy, and steal in order to establish dominance, no form of civilization dominates. In Iran, a very backwards form of civilization dominates, one charactorized by religious clergy dictating personal conduct. This does represent a civilization, just not an advanced one. Thousands of years ago, and even a thousand years ago, the people there maintianed a civilization that was indeed advanced... for its day (as all civilizations just be judged).
I think you are a racist, Nadir, because you appear to hold non-white people immune to criticism, but your criticism of white people knows no bounds or lack of enthusiasm. Thus you seem to have a race stipulation in evaluating cultures. You also seem to regard white people as a master race, who contol all facets of the modern world.
==========Nadir=========
Your characterizations of Islam as a backward religion shows a lack of understanding and a presence of bigotry. You express admiration for Fareed Zakaria and other so-called "moderate muslims" and then you berate their religion.
=========================
I have a brain, I use it, and I have standards. I also am not a racist. Combining all these factors leads me to assess various aspects of humanity, including its cultures and religions. I consider all religions to represent "backwards" methods for describing the world and offering rules for living. They are based on superstitions, fairy tales, and supernatural revelation that require the rest of us to believe on faith.
At face value, without considering how people at any given time are implimenting them, the three main religions at play here -- christianity, judiasm, and islam -- have some severe problems. I think christianity has fewer problems than the other two. Judiasm is inherently racist, as I have pointed out many times. In its holy book, the Talmud/ Old Testiment, god successfully commands various people to commit barbaric acts. The religion revers these acts, though they were common acts at the time.
Christianity -- in the form of the gospels of Jesus -- improved upon the god of the Tulmud. Jesus did not commit acts of barbarism, nor did he command others to do so. To the contrary, he preached against several acts that at the time were common, and which today we would consider barbaric. Following the example of the Tulmud's god, we humans would commit violent acts whenever god commands us. Following the example of Jesus, no voilence would occur. I dare say that following Jesus' example, Bush would not have invaded Iraq. Jesus did offer some nutty claims, such as consigning us to hell if we don't accept him, though we can interpret this to mean merely "behave with non-violence, forgiveness, and disregard for earthly comfort, or you will create a hell for yourself." That makes sense to me, and is very profound, in my judgement. Subsequent people created a religion out of Jesus' teachings, and these people invented all manner of non-sense, including notions that I consider to represent backwards steps.
Then came Islam, in which Mohammad sought to take people backwards, indeed. Following Mohammad's teaching, violence must occur until all humans on earth either adhere to islam, or submit to rule by muslims. Mohammad, like many Tulmadic heros, practiced murder, war, rape, etc. And he advocated it -- and demanded if -- of his adherents. He was a very bizarre charactor whose biography as depicted in the koran qualifies him as a truly aweful and despicable person, by my judgement. I have the same opinion of many Talmadic heroes, including David, who executed all the people of Canaan.
All of these religious leaders were non-white. All have white and non-white followers in the modern world. In the modern world, only one of these religions has a major problem with people imposing it on other people, and using it to mandate massive amounts of violence and other forms of conduct that I consider to be savage, beastial, brutal, and tyrantical.
There does exist many muslims who do not interpret islam in the modern context as mandating any of these behaviors. I respect those people, because I only care about conduct. If they claim to practice islam, but if they do not practice the violence and subjugation commanded by Mohammad, then I respect them. My brain and lack of predjudice and bigotry, however, cannot permit me to respect Mohammad, or to hold all people who ever existed -- including those who founded religions -- in equivalent regard.
==========Nadir=========
You guys are constantly spewing Islamophobic rants, and just because you back them up with evidence that a small minority of extremists are just that... extremists, is no reason to condemn an entire religion. That is bigotry.
=======================
Bigotry has a few definitions: Intollerance, irrational hatred or suspicion of a particular group, and prejudice. My criticsm of Islam includes no bigotry, except perhaps "intollerance", in that I do not tollerate intollerance, and I consider Islam to be premaced on intollerance, bigotry, and prejudice. When practicioners of Islam impliment these charactoristics, I do not tollerate the attending actions. I formerly practiced prejudice towards islam: prior to studying it, I thought that it was founded on peace and salvation, similar to christianity, and I respected it. However, once I actually studied Islam, I learned otherwise. My disapproval of it -- even my hatred of Mohammad's conduct -- is based on raionality, not irrationality. I have a somewhat similar view of Judaism, which I also do not inherently respect and consider based upon racism.
Nadir, please provide me any reason to not detest Mohammad and his advocacy any less than I detest Robert E. Lee and Bull Conners and their advocacy. I assert that only bigotry -- namely, prejudice -- on your part justifies your own respect for Mohammad and the religion that he created.
I have 100% toleration for peole who call themselves muslims and who follow any of its non-violent customs. I do support violence in the name of freedom, self-rule, security, and personal liberty. I can find no reason to believe that any anti-US forces in Iraq act out of desire for such, or reason to doubt that the actions of US forces in Iraq at out of desire for anything else. If the anti-US forces lay down their arms, I am certain that Iraqis will have these features; I am certain that if US forces lay down their's no Iraqis outside of Kurdistan will.
=========Nadir============
I believe the Minutemen's motives are based more on race than anything else. If they were worried about immigration as a whole, they would be in airports around the country, and they would be in IMS offices investigating people who overstay their visas. Most undocumented workers enter the country legally and then stay once their visas expire. Why aren't the Minutemen attacking those people?
==========================
The Minute Men are specifically interested in the hundreds of thousands of people who violate the US-Mexcian border annually. Little or none of this occurs at the US-Canadian border. If they were racist, they would also fight all the Indians and Asians entering the US legally to work at high-paying jobs, and then stay illegally, as you point out. The MM reside in areas that are overwhelmed not by Indians and Chinese working for engineering companies, but by Mexican illegal immigrants who utilized services paid for by working people's taxes. These areas also have crime commited not by Indian and Chinese immigrants and their children, but by illegal Mexican immigrants and their children.
They want the US borders to be controlled. Not because non-crackers are crossing it, but because people are crossing it illegally, and many of these people are causing problems. They want US citizens to determine via democratic means how many people, and which people, cross their borders, and when. What people on earth do not want this for their own country? Mexico has such a policy, and Mexicans demand this. You are aware of a simlilar problem at Mexico's southern border. The MM want the same thing that the southern Mexicans want; are the South Mexicans racist?
=====Nadir===========
I think the Minutemen's words demonstrate that they are looking for people to shoot. This makes them thugs.
=====================
You thinking that somebody is looking for somebody to shoot certainly doesn't make anybody a thug! The minute men are attempting to compel law enforcement officials to enforce a law, and to assist them by documenting the breaking of a law. If the minute men start executing law breakers merely for breaking a law, that would make them vigilantes. Would it make them thugs? I certianly believe that the Taliban are thugs when they enforce their various retarded laws. How about enforcing laws that I respect -- laws promulgated via democratic means?
I certainly would call the MM uncivilized if they start executing people for illegally crossing international borders. I would call them backwards. I would also call them murderers. But if you look up the word "thug", I don't think that this would apply.
Here's one for you: I think it is uncivilized to have laws but to refuse to enforce them. If you don't like the law, then over turn it. If Bush wants the US-Mexican border to have no rules, then he should democratically overturn them.
===========Nadir========
Why do you guys support them? What are you afraid of?
========================
I support the MM because I support citizens taking control of their own communities.
I fear citizens of other nations dictating the immigration policies of the US. If one million Mexicans are to enter the US, I want that to be with the consent of US citizens as expressed by democratic formal processes.
Post a Comment