< 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Do Muslims want to Assimilate?

 
sojourner
 
Avatar
 
 
sojourner
Total Posts:  5970
Joined  09-11-2012
 
 
 
01 June 2016 19:30
 
After_The_Jump - 01 June 2016 05:40 PM

You’ve yet to articulate a logical explanation for why or how crossing that line of criminality somehow now removes from the discussion for that item the basic tenets of ‘assimilation’.


As I said, I consider that semantic haggling. I also said this in my response to Icehorse. Call it whatever you want, of course I don’t condone criminal behavior. My response to Icehorse was, again, based on the idea that responding with “Well that’s illegal anyways” is equivalent to claiming “moral equivalency”. The only way that makes sense is if you equate “illegal” with, I don’t know “printed in a flyer somewhere”. To me, if I say “illegal”, it should be clear that I am cordoning that behavior off as decidedly not ok, not saying the equivalent of “Ah well, I mean, someone once wrote an editorial about how they don’t like that kind of thing, so whatevs.” But to be honest, it’s hard for me to even get a sense of where you guys are coming from on this one, so perhaps this is some kind of worldview incompatibility. I think my concept of “law” is just different than yours. Maybe I do have an inner realist after all.

 
 
After_The_Jump
 
Avatar
 
 
After_The_Jump
Total Posts:  538
Joined  31-01-2016
 
 
 
01 June 2016 21:39
 

@ N.L.

My response to Icehorse was, again, based on the idea that responding with “Well that’s illegal anyways” is equivalent to claiming “moral equivalency”.

It didn’t appear to me that the claim of ‘moral equivalence’ had to do with you saying ‘well that’s illegal anyways’ but rather with you having never acknowledged the difference in approach that various belief systems take to the phenomenon of violent coercion to enforce public dress codes. That appeared to be Icehorse’s (repeated) point in your exchange - that there’s a difference in the way self identifying members of various religious affiliations see that particular issue. Instead of acknowledging that, you’ve spent several posts now saying there’s no issue to discuss because it’s not a matter of assimilation but rather a matter of legality. The difference Icehorse is citing remains a difference regardless of if you want to call it assimilation or if you want to call it legality.

 
sojourner
 
Avatar
 
 
sojourner
Total Posts:  5970
Joined  09-11-2012
 
 
 
01 June 2016 22:02
 
After_The_Jump - 01 June 2016 09:39 PM

@ N.L.

My response to Icehorse was, again, based on the idea that responding with “Well that’s illegal anyways” is equivalent to claiming “moral equivalency”.

It didn’t appear to me that the claim of ‘moral equivalence’ had to do with you saying ‘well that’s illegal anyways’ but rather with you having never acknowledged the difference in approach that various belief systems take to the phenomenon of violent coercion to enforce public dress codes. That appeared to be Icehorse’s (repeated) point in your exchange - that there’s a difference in the way self identifying members of various religious affiliations see that particular issue. Instead of acknowledging that, you’ve spent several posts now saying there’s no issue to discuss because it’s not a matter of assimilation but rather a matter of legality. The difference Icehorse is citing remains a difference regardless of if you want to call it assimilation or if you want to call it legality.


You’re looking for a fight over non-issues. Peace out.

 
 
After_The_Jump
 
Avatar
 
 
After_The_Jump
Total Posts:  538
Joined  31-01-2016
 
 
 
02 June 2016 05:35
 

@ N.L.

You’re looking for a fight over non-issues.

I’m conversing with you about the text from the pages of this thread - nothing more, nothing less. It’s an objectively truthful statement that you haven’t yet acknowledged the difference Icehorse identified, even after he rephrased his question specifically in a way that isolated the difference in mention.

Peace out

Sure thing.

 
sojourner
 
Avatar
 
 
sojourner
Total Posts:  5970
Joined  09-11-2012
 
 
 
02 June 2016 05:59
 
After_The_Jump - 02 June 2016 05:35 AM

@ N.L.

You’re looking for a fight over non-issues.

I’m conversing with you about the text from the pages of this thread - nothing more, nothing less. It’s an objectively truthful statement that you haven’t yet acknowledged the difference Icehorse identified, even after he rephrased his question specifically in a way that isolated the difference in mention.

Peace out

Sure thing.


I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in saying you were picking a fight. If you really don’t understand that my saying “that’s illegal” is a condemnation of an act (outside, again, of a few circumstances that fall at the boundaries of progressive politics, like the Civil Rights movement) and consider ‘mere’ references to the rule of law the same as ‘not acknowledging’ a point, then I am kinda alarmed. 


But again, I assume you’re just picking a fight. I hope.

 
 
After_The_Jump
 
Avatar
 
 
After_The_Jump
Total Posts:  538
Joined  31-01-2016
 
 
 
02 June 2016 06:10
 

@ N.L.

If you really don’t understand that my saying “that’s illegal” is a condemnation of an act

It’s not that I don’t understand that this is what you’re saying; it’s that the question you were asked had nothing to do with whether or not you condemned forced coercion of a public dress code. So, while I understand the response you’re offering, the response you’re offering isn’t in any way a relevant response to the question you were asked.

Thus, as I said already: I’m conversing with you about the text on the pages of this thread. That text very clearly shows that the question you were asked wasn’t about whether or not you condemned the act in mention; the question you were asked was about the difference in the way various religious groups approach the act in mention. And, as I stated, the objective truth is that you’ve yet to acknowledge that difference.

[ Edited: 02 June 2016 07:49 by After_The_Jump]
 
sojourner
 
Avatar
 
 
sojourner
Total Posts:  5970
Joined  09-11-2012
 
 
 
02 June 2016 07:55
 
After_The_Jump - 02 June 2016 06:10 AM

That text very clearly shows that the question you were asked wasn’t about whether or not you condemned the act in mention; the question you were asked was about the difference in the way various religious groups approach the act in mention. And, as I stated, the objective truth is that you’ve yet to acknowledge that difference.

 


This was my response:

 

icehorse - 28 May 2016 10:44 AM

In which case is the probability of violent coercion being used to mandate clothing most likely?

icehorse - 31 May 2016 11:14 AM

Let me rephrase the question: In this country, behind closed doors, which of those groups is most likely to enact violent coercion to enforce public dress codes? Not black and white, most likely.

NL. - 31 May 2016 10:58 AM

Regarding the statistics for violence related to gender norms among fundamentalists groups, I have no idea what those look like,


Since no one provided me with further data, no, I did not have a basis for further comment. I’m supposed to respond based on some knee-jerk stereotype like “X group probably beats their wives, am I right!”? Um, no. Again, I think you are really stretching for arguments here, so this seems like you itching for a fight, not a dialogue. Catch you later in another thread, I guess.

 
 
After_The_Jump
 
Avatar
 
 
After_The_Jump
Total Posts:  538
Joined  31-01-2016
 
 
 
02 June 2016 08:04
 

@ N.L.

Since no one provided me with further data, no, I did not have a basis for further comment

And yet, you did continue to offer further comment - comments which went in multiple tangential directions all posed as a response to the original question.

And as far as further data: some of the polling data on the beliefs of various religious groups has been provided to you here and in many, many other threads. If large percentages of a given population poll as saying they believe forced coercion of a public dress code is warranted, then that would strongly suggest a difference compared to other groups who don’t. Whether or not someone actually has to use physical violence doesn’t need to be the measuring stick because just the threat of violence can have quite meaningful impacts on people’s behavior. And, we have more than enough evidence to suggest one particular religious affiliation uses the threat of violence to force coercion of a public dress code more so than other religious groups. You’ve arbitrarily dismissed the data supporting this point on other threads so it doesn’t surprise me that you act as if you haven’t been presented with it here as well. 

So, again, we’re back to your refusal to acknowledge the difference in the way various religious groups approach the act in mention - which, again, was the point all along. Thus, the whole implied ‘moral equivalence’ thing.

[ Edited: 02 June 2016 08:09 by After_The_Jump]
 
sojourner
 
Avatar
 
 
sojourner
Total Posts:  5970
Joined  09-11-2012
 
 
 
02 June 2016 13:20
 
After_The_Jump - 02 June 2016 08:04 AM

@ N.L.

Since no one provided me with further data, no, I did not have a basis for further comment

And yet, you did continue to offer further comment - comments which went in multiple tangential directions all posed as a response to the original question.

And as far as further data: some of the polling data on the beliefs of various religious groups has been provided to you here and in many, many other threads. If large percentages of a given population poll as saying they believe forced coercion of a public dress code is warranted, then that would strongly suggest a difference compared to other groups who don’t. Whether or not someone actually has to use physical violence doesn’t need to be the measuring stick because just the threat of violence can have quite meaningful impacts on people’s behavior. And, we have more than enough evidence to suggest one particular religious affiliation uses the threat of violence to force coercion of a public dress code more so than other religious groups. You’ve arbitrarily dismissed the data supporting this point on other threads so it doesn’t surprise me that you act as if you haven’t been presented with it here as well. 

So, again, we’re back to your refusal to acknowledge the difference in the way various religious groups approach the act in mention - which, again, was the point all along. Thus, the whole implied ‘moral equivalence’ thing.


This is some semantic fantasy you’ve concocted in your head by shifting goalposts (“violence” to “maybe people feel threatened”, saying calling something “illegal” is “not acknowledging”, which I still find disturbing although in this case I assume it’s because you try to wiggle your way out of every contradiction, not because you actually don’t believe the law exists) and referring to ‘data’ that you claim exists somewhere in the ether but haven’t actually provided. Of course I am concerned when any group is at a higher risk of something harmful, much as I dislike stereotyping at all. I’m concerned that children born into lower socioeconomic households are at a higher risk for crime; that soldiers have a higher risk of suicide; that gay men have a higher risk of HIV infection, children in the Catholic Church were presumably at a higher risk of abuse before the recent scandal, and so on. I have no problem talking about relative risk when it comes from a place of genuine concern. If I saw data saying that this or that factor - religion, employment status, disability, whatever - was linked to domestic abuse, yes, I have no problem saying that should be addressed, whoever we’re talking about. This idea of “refusal” on my part is the same frigging Crossfire fantasy we keep coming back to. You seem determined to turn even areas of hypothetical agreement into standoffs.


Btw… don’t get me wrong, it’s not that I am totally against semantic fantasies. It’s just that mine usually involve universal oneness because of something about predicates that I can’t quite remember now, except somehow there would be cotton candy and ice cream in the oneness even though that would require non-oneness but it would just make sense because reasons. I consider yours more esoteric, but to each his own.

 
 
After_The_Jump
 
Avatar
 
 
After_The_Jump
Total Posts:  538
Joined  31-01-2016
 
 
 
02 June 2016 14:01
 

@ N.L.

This is some semantic fantasy you’ve concocted in your head by shifting goalposts

Perhaps a review of who moved the goalposts would be helpful here.

Here was the original question you were asked:

Remembering that the OP is about assimilation (or perhaps less onerously integration), we could look at several religious groups:

- Amish
- Orthodox Jewish
- Islamic

In which case is the probability of violent coercion being used to mandate clothing most likely?

That’s a rather straight forward question. Your response was this:

Maybe this is another semantic debate, but I don’t think “assimilate” = “follow the law”. Regarding the statistics for violence related to gender norms among fundamentalists groups, I have no idea what those look like, but to me it’s a non sequitur because beating someone for not dressing the way you like (outside of maybe a few extreme situations - if you saw a naked man running towards a group of children you’d probably get some leeway if you knocked them over, I’d think) is illegal in this country, so it’s not a matter of cultural mores.It’s illegal for everyone, period, so whether or not people plan on adopting that particular custom isn’t really on the table

Goalpost move #1: the commenter who created this thread clearly highlighted Europe as the country of focus, and yet you moved the goalposts to “this country”.

Goalpost move #2: The commenter didn’t ask you about legality or whether or not you condoned the act in mention; he asked you about a difference in the way various religious groups approached the act. Yet, you moved the goalposts to legality.

Goalpost move #3: You initially clearly and directly said the data was a ‘non-sequitur’ in your eyes, yet you moved the goalposts back to the data once your other goalpost moves were identified.

Since then, you’ve made statements like this:

If you really don’t understand that my saying “that’s illegal” is a condemnation of an act… and consider ‘mere’ references to the rule of law the same as ‘not acknowledging’ a point, then I am kinda alarmed.

And most recently this:

saying calling something “illegal” is “not acknowledging”

When no one on this thread has accused you of not condemning the act in mention. The question posed to you was about the difference in the way various religious cultures approach the topic of forced (or violent, in the second iteration of the question) coercion of a public dress code, yet you still seem inclined to act as if the question posed to you was *actually* about whether or not you condone the act itself.

Moving on:

“violence” to “maybe people feel threatened”

If you’re unfamiliar with the lexicon of the domains you’re providing commentary for, that doesn’t make me guilty of moving goalposts. The kind of forced coercion of public dress code we’re discussing here generally falls into two primary domains - one being domestic violence and one being child abuse. In both of those domains, it’s common knowledge that ‘violence’ doesn’t just mean physically hitting someone. So, back to the whole ‘moving goalposts’ thing. Someone asked you about forced coercion of public dress code, and you hyperbolically moved the goalposts to: ““X group probably beats their wives, am I right!”?” No, not right - forced or violent coercion takes on many different forms, many of which aren’t an act of physically ‘beating’ someone. And the ones which don’t include physically hitting someone are much, much harder to verify, thus don’t get reported and/or substantiated nearly as often.

So, if you’re concerned with the goalposts moving, I’d politely suggest you remedy the issue by putting them back where you found them. Start with just the 4 or 5 I’ve identified here and your concerns should be quelled substantially.

and referring to ‘data’ that you claim exists somewhere in the ether but haven’t actually provided.

Icehorse provided a link in his original comment which cited four different data sources, the primary one being Koopman’s work from 2013. Machine Thought made the process even easier by pasting into two of his comments two graphs from Koopman’s work. I provided a link to a rather large survey done by Pew. And, as I mentioned (and as I’m certain you’re aware) on other threads of this forum I and others have provided to you literally dozens of data points which outline the rather stark differences of belief within Muslim populations as compared to the rest of the world.

Btw… don’t get me wrong, it’s not that I am totally against semantic fantasies.

No need to try to sell me on this point - I’ve seen more than enough evidence to suggest you’re not against semantic fantasies.

 

 

 

 

 

[ Edited: 02 June 2016 14:17 by After_The_Jump]
 
sojourner
 
Avatar
 
 
sojourner
Total Posts:  5970
Joined  09-11-2012
 
 
 
02 June 2016 16:20
 
After_The_Jump - 02 June 2016 02:01 PM

Perhaps a review of who moved the goalposts would be helpful here.
Here was the original question you were asked:
That’s a rather straight forward question. Your response was this:
Goalpost move #1: the commenter who created this thread clearly highlighted Europe as the country of focus, and yet you moved the goalposts to “this country”.
Goalpost move #2: The commenter didn’t ask you about legality or whether or not you condoned the act in mention; he asked you about a difference in the way various religious groups approached the act. Yet, you moved the goalposts to legality.
Goalpost move #3: You initially clearly and directly said the data was a ‘non-sequitur’ in your eyes, yet you moved the goalposts back to the data once your other goalpost moves were identified.
Since then, you’ve made statements like this:
And most recently this:
When no one on this thread has accused you of not condemning the act in mention. The question posed to you was about the difference in the way various religious cultures approach the topic of forced (or violent, in the second iteration of the question) coercion of a public dress code, yet you still seem inclined to act as if the question posed to you was *actually* about whether or not you condone the act itself. Moving on: If you’re unfamiliar with the lexicon of the domains you’re providing commentary for, that doesn’t make me guilty of moving goalposts. The kind of forced coercion of public dress code we’re discussing here generally falls into two primary domains - one being domestic violence and one being child abuse. In both of those domains, it’s common knowledge that ‘violence’ doesn’t just mean physically hitting someone. So, back to the whole ‘moving goalposts’ thing. Someone asked you about forced coercion of public dress code, and you hyperbolically moved the goalposts to: ““X group probably beats their wives, am I right!”?” No, not right - forced or violent coercion takes on many different forms, many of which aren’t an act of physically ‘beating’ someone. And the ones which don’t include physically hitting someone are much, much harder to verify, thus don’t get reported and/or substantiated nearly as often.
So, if you’re concerned with the goalposts moving, I’d politely suggest you remedy the issue by putting them back where you found them. Start with just the 4 or 5 I’ve identified here and your concerns should be quelled substantially.
Icehorse provided a link in his original comment which cited four different data sources, the primary one being Koopman’s work from 2013. Machine Thought made the process even easier by pasting into two of his comments two graphs from Koopman’s work. I provided a link to a rather large survey done by Pew. And, as I mentioned (and as I’m certain you’re aware) on other threads of this forum I and others have provided to you literally dozens of data points which outline the rather stark differences of belief within Muslim populations as compared to the rest of the world.
No need to try to sell me on this point - I’ve seen more than enough evidence to suggest you’re not against semantic fantasies.


You sound stressed. I suggest a walk in nature, or listening to relaxing music, or staring at videos of gay French Canadians asking blonde women who they really are on Vive in a language you completely don’t understand. The first one is weirdly specific, I know, but I find these are all good ways to sort of absorb positive emotion from the surrounding environment when need be. If that doesn’t work, well, I guess you are free to keep word hurricane-ing me on message boards. I’m here to help. wink

 
 
After_The_Jump
 
Avatar
 
 
After_The_Jump
Total Posts:  538
Joined  31-01-2016
 
 
 
02 June 2016 16:34
 

@ N.L.

It seems you’ve taken to providing a textbook example An ad-hominem fallacy. If at any point you’d like to address the actual content of my last post, I’d be happy to re-engage in the dialogue. My last post contained point-by-point responses, so it shouldn’t be that hard to do. Of course, you’re always free to obfuscate with ad-hominem banter though.

[ Edited: 02 June 2016 18:48 by After_The_Jump]
 
Dennis Campbell
 
Avatar
 
 
Dennis Campbell
Total Posts:  19789
Joined  20-07-2007
 
 
 
02 June 2016 17:07
 
After_The_Jump - 02 June 2016 04:34 PM

@ N.L.

It seems you’ve taken to providing a textbook example of what an ad-hominem fallacy looks like. If at any point you’d like to address the actual content of my last post, I’d be happy to re-engage in the dialogue. My last post contained point-by-point responses, so it shouldn’t be that hard to do. Of course, you’re always free to obfuscate with ad-hominem banter though.

NL is the Queen of Obliviations

 
 
sojourner
 
Avatar
 
 
sojourner
Total Posts:  5970
Joined  09-11-2012
 
 
 
02 June 2016 18:28
 
Dennis Campbell - 02 June 2016 05:07 PM
After_The_Jump - 02 June 2016 04:34 PM

@ N.L.

It seems you’ve taken to providing a textbook example of what an ad-hominem fallacy looks like. If at any point you’d like to address the actual content of my last post, I’d be happy to re-engage in the dialogue. My last post contained point-by-point responses, so it shouldn’t be that hard to do. Of course, you’re always free to obfuscate with ad-hominem banter though.

NL is the Queen of Obliviations


And you’re the king of supporting people using Donald Trump logic when it suits your prejudices, a habit that annoys me because it brings back unfortunate childhood memories. However, you are 800 years old so I’m more understanding in your case. I assume it was still legal to just shoot an arrowhead at outsiders or beat them with bronze age tools when you were young.


Hope you’re enjoying your new digs, btw. I daresay you sound almost… cheery... at times now. (Don’t worry, I won’t tell anyone.) wink

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  6677
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
02 June 2016 19:54
 

ATJ -

Thank you for putting some considerable effort into trying to get NL to stay on point.

NL - What ATJ just experienced with you is something I’ve experienced with you countless times. While I don’t really think you’re a fan of misogyny, it often appears to me that you’re willing to throw Muslim women under the bus so as not to be “Islamophobic”. You often appear to me to be the poster child for MCPC cultural suicide.

 
 
 < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›