‹ First  < 3 4 5 6 7 >  Last ›
 
   
 

It’s offensive to NOT wear a Hijab? Shame on Miss Michigan?

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7118
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
21 July 2019 15:46
 
icehorse - 21 July 2019 03:21 PM
Jefe - 21 July 2019 12:22 PM
icehorse - 21 July 2019 12:00 PM
Jefe - 21 July 2019 10:21 AM
icehorse - 21 July 2019 10:03 AM

As for being alt-right, man, talk about a false dilemma sort of argument. Are you implying that if one is critical of Islam then one must also be alt-right?

If one walks the walk, and talks the talk, tho?

Likes ben shaprio and jordan peterson.  Uses alt-right talking points and newsbites frequently…
Had a laundry list of alt-right points you whipped out a few times…

/shrug.  Maybe you aren’t, but you don’t seem to mind utilizing their material.

I agree with some of their points, disagree with others. I take each argument on its own merit. Do you? Or is it easier for you to just use ill defined categories do your thinking for you?

I’m going to need you to provide examples of my letting ‘ill-defined categories to do my thinking for me’ to respond to this.

Start with your own post #49


Quoted below for reference:

Jefe - 21 July 2019 10:21 AM
icehorse - 21 July 2019 10:03 AM

As for being alt-right, man, talk about a false dilemma sort of argument. Are you implying that if one is critical of Islam then one must also be alt-right?

If one walks the walk, and talks the talk, tho?

Likes ben shaprio and jordan peterson.  Uses alt-right talking points and newsbites frequently…
Had a laundry list of alt-right points you whipped out a few times…

/shrug.  Maybe you aren’t, but you don’t seem to mind utilizing their material.

In what way am I allowing ‘ill-defined categories to do my thinking for me’ here?

I will note that each of the points I make about your posts (shapiro, peterson, talking-points, newsbites, and the laundry list) are accurate and gleened from your post history, and can be quoted for you if you like.  So if you use the alt-right folks and their points, but aren’t alt-right, what does that make you? Asking for clarification.

 
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  706
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
21 July 2019 16:20
 
icehorse - 21 July 2019 03:20 PM
mapadofu - 21 July 2019 12:34 PM
icehorse - 21 July 2019 12:02 PM
nonverbal - 21 July 2019 10:34 AM
icehorse - 21 July 2019 10:10 AM

map, one of your definitions: “Bigotry:  the fact of having and expressing strong, unreasonable beliefs and disliking other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life: religious/racial bigotry.”

I’m dubious of most religions. But to varying degrees. There are billions of people with different beliefs, that I’m fine with. But the 800 million Islamic fundamentalists and the Christian extremists, I find to be very worrisome.

How do you document this number?

Islamic fundamentalists are those who think some form of Sharia is a good idea. From that definition, all you have to do is look at the results of large, world-wide polls of Muslims.

This makes me think that the 800 million figure was pulled out of the air.

i will give you a few google-able clues:

- there are 1.6 billion Muslims - or is it 1.8?
- find the 2013 Pew poll on Muslims and Sharia

If anything, I think you’ll find that I’m being conservative when I conclude that only 50% think sharia is the way to go.

So you’re willing to just make up figures instead of bothering to try to be factually correct.  Same sloppy attitude towards the truth as exemplified by the title of this thread.

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7657
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
21 July 2019 20:58
 
Jefe - 21 July 2019 03:46 PM
icehorse - 21 July 2019 03:21 PM
Jefe - 21 July 2019 12:22 PM
icehorse - 21 July 2019 12:00 PM
Jefe - 21 July 2019 10:21 AM
icehorse - 21 July 2019 10:03 AM

As for being alt-right, man, talk about a false dilemma sort of argument. Are you implying that if one is critical of Islam then one must also be alt-right?

If one walks the walk, and talks the talk, tho?

Likes ben shaprio and jordan peterson.  Uses alt-right talking points and newsbites frequently…
Had a laundry list of alt-right points you whipped out a few times…

/shrug.  Maybe you aren’t, but you don’t seem to mind utilizing their material.

I agree with some of their points, disagree with others. I take each argument on its own merit. Do you? Or is it easier for you to just use ill defined categories do your thinking for you?

I’m going to need you to provide examples of my letting ‘ill-defined categories to do my thinking for me’ to respond to this.

Start with your own post #49


Quoted below for reference:

Jefe - 21 July 2019 10:21 AM
icehorse - 21 July 2019 10:03 AM

As for being alt-right, man, talk about a false dilemma sort of argument. Are you implying that if one is critical of Islam then one must also be alt-right?

If one walks the walk, and talks the talk, tho?

Likes ben shaprio and jordan peterson.  Uses alt-right talking points and newsbites frequently…
Had a laundry list of alt-right points you whipped out a few times…

/shrug.  Maybe you aren’t, but you don’t seem to mind utilizing their material.

In what way am I allowing ‘ill-defined categories to do my thinking for me’ here?

I will note that each of the points I make about your posts (shapiro, peterson, talking-points, newsbites, and the laundry list) are accurate and gleened from your post history, and can be quoted for you if you like.  So if you use the alt-right folks and their points, but aren’t alt-right, what does that make you? Asking for clarification.

I’m a person who considers each argument on its own merits, independent of whether the idea is generally considered to be of one category or another. So Peterson has some good arguments. So does Shapiro, and E. Warren, and Bernie Sanders, and Sam Harris, and so on. I don’t think it makes me a member of any easy category like “alt-right”.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7657
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
21 July 2019 21:00
 
mapadofu - 21 July 2019 04:20 PM
icehorse - 21 July 2019 03:20 PM
mapadofu - 21 July 2019 12:34 PM
icehorse - 21 July 2019 12:02 PM
nonverbal - 21 July 2019 10:34 AM
icehorse - 21 July 2019 10:10 AM

map, one of your definitions: “Bigotry:  the fact of having and expressing strong, unreasonable beliefs and disliking other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life: religious/racial bigotry.”

I’m dubious of most religions. But to varying degrees. There are billions of people with different beliefs, that I’m fine with. But the 800 million Islamic fundamentalists and the Christian extremists, I find to be very worrisome.

How do you document this number?

Islamic fundamentalists are those who think some form of Sharia is a good idea. From that definition, all you have to do is look at the results of large, world-wide polls of Muslims.

This makes me think that the 800 million figure was pulled out of the air.

i will give you a few google-able clues:

- there are 1.6 billion Muslims - or is it 1.8?
- find the 2013 Pew poll on Muslims and Sharia

If anything, I think you’ll find that I’m being conservative when I conclude that only 50% think sharia is the way to go.

So you’re willing to just make up figures instead of bothering to try to be factually correct.  Same sloppy attitude towards the truth as exemplified by the title of this thread.

When we’re talking about 1.6 or 1.8 BILLION people, and polls of 40,000 people across 38ish countries, I think getting to a number like 50% is about the best anyone can do. How would you propose to do much better than that? Tell me how you’d be less “sloppy”, because my guess is that you had no friggin’ idea.

 
 
DEGENERATEON
 
Avatar
 
 
DEGENERATEON
Total Posts:  191
Joined  14-09-2017
 
 
 
21 July 2019 21:51
 

They should have a “World Yarmulke Day” and try to get the muslim majority countries to recognize the millions of Jews that choose to wear that accessory.  Just try one on for a spell and feel empowered.

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7118
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
21 July 2019 22:16
 
icehorse - 21 July 2019 08:58 PM
Jefe - 21 July 2019 03:46 PM
icehorse - 21 July 2019 03:21 PM
Jefe - 21 July 2019 12:22 PM
icehorse - 21 July 2019 12:00 PM
Jefe - 21 July 2019 10:21 AM
icehorse - 21 July 2019 10:03 AM

As for being alt-right, man, talk about a false dilemma sort of argument. Are you implying that if one is critical of Islam then one must also be alt-right?

If one walks the walk, and talks the talk, tho?

Likes ben shaprio and jordan peterson.  Uses alt-right talking points and newsbites frequently…
Had a laundry list of alt-right points you whipped out a few times…

/shrug.  Maybe you aren’t, but you don’t seem to mind utilizing their material.

I agree with some of their points, disagree with others. I take each argument on its own merit. Do you? Or is it easier for you to just use ill defined categories do your thinking for you?

I’m going to need you to provide examples of my letting ‘ill-defined categories to do my thinking for me’ to respond to this.

Start with your own post #49


Quoted below for reference:

Jefe - 21 July 2019 10:21 AM
icehorse - 21 July 2019 10:03 AM

As for being alt-right, man, talk about a false dilemma sort of argument. Are you implying that if one is critical of Islam then one must also be alt-right?

If one walks the walk, and talks the talk, tho?

Likes ben shaprio and jordan peterson.  Uses alt-right talking points and newsbites frequently…
Had a laundry list of alt-right points you whipped out a few times…

/shrug.  Maybe you aren’t, but you don’t seem to mind utilizing their material.

In what way am I allowing ‘ill-defined categories to do my thinking for me’ here?

I will note that each of the points I make about your posts (shapiro, peterson, talking-points, newsbites, and the laundry list) are accurate and gleened from your post history, and can be quoted for you if you like.  So if you use the alt-right folks and their points, but aren’t alt-right, what does that make you? Asking for clarification.

I’m a person who considers each argument on its own merits, independent of whether the idea is generally considered to be of one category or another. So Peterson has some good arguments. So does Shapiro, and E. Warren, and Bernie Sanders, and Sam Harris, and so on. I don’t think it makes me a member of any easy category like “alt-right”.

Hence the ‘maybe you aren’t’ comment.
However, embracing so many of their talking points does leave your status in question.

 

 
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  706
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
22 July 2019 07:04
 

Ice, you missed your chance to “show me up” by finding, re-reading, and describing the Pew study: https://www.pewforum.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

Which indicates that more for most of the countries assessed more than 70% of the respondents want Sharia law (though there are some some significant qualifications in the “
Muslims Who Favor Making Sharia Official Law” section).

But anyway, my point is not about the accuracy the 800 million figure, it is about the fact that in this thread all that you had provided was hand waving.  I’ve realized that my comments here have been made under the assumption that we’re trying to have an intellectually honest and rigorous discussion, and that maybe you’re aiming for something different.

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7657
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
22 July 2019 07:19
 
mapadofu - 22 July 2019 07:04 AM

Ice, you missed your chance to “show me up” by finding, re-reading, and describing the Pew study: https://www.pewforum.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

Which indicates that more for most of the countries assessed more than 70% of the respondents want Sharia law (though there are some some significant qualifications in the “
Muslims Who Favor Making Sharia Official Law” section).

But anyway, my point is not about the accuracy the 800 million figure, it is about the fact that in this thread all that you had provided was hand waving.  I’ve realized that my comments here have been made under the assumption that we’re trying to have an intellectually honest and rigorous discussion, and that maybe you’re aiming for something different.

how was the 800 million figure hand waving? it was based on reading polls and taking some extrapolations. Let’s say the real number is 700 million or 900 million. From an intellectually honest position, wouldn’t that be a distinction without a difference?

Also, here’s a link to an article with both of the deleted tweets:

tweets

[ Edited: 22 July 2019 07:32 by icehorse]
 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7657
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
22 July 2019 07:32
 
DEGENERATEON - 21 July 2019 09:51 PM

They should have a “World Yarmulke Day” and try to get the muslim majority countries to recognize the millions of Jews that choose to wear that accessory.  Just try one on for a spell and feel empowered.

+1

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7657
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
22 July 2019 07:35
 

Jefe:

Hence the ‘maybe you aren’t’ comment.

Seems like a dodge, but I’m happy to move on.

Jefe:

However, embracing so many of their talking points does leave your status in question.

Interesting sentence. Again, it appears to me that you want to put me into a nice tidy category, that in your mind I need to have a “status”. Why is that? To me the most natural conclusion is that if you - Jefe - can put someone into a category, then you can stop thinking about the merits of individual arguments.

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3411
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
22 July 2019 09:20
 
icehorse - 22 July 2019 07:35 AM

Jefe:

Hence the ‘maybe you aren’t’ comment.

Seems like a dodge, but I’m happy to move on.

Jefe:

However, embracing so many of their talking points does leave your status in question.

Interesting sentence. Again, it appears to me that you want to put me into a nice tidy category, that in your mind I need to have a “status”. Why is that? To me the most natural conclusion is that if you - Jefe - can put someone into a category, then you can stop thinking about the merits of individual arguments.

If the shoe fits, wear it.  Stop trying to convince yourself and others that you are a centrist and a supporter of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UHHR), as you have done on other threads, while consistently contradicting its principles, and as Jefe pointed out here, using alt-right talking points and news bites.

Some time ago, when I criticized you for labelling and pigeon-holing those who disagree with you, you replied with, “sorry nuanced conversations cannot happen without categorizations and labels” (your words).  As you clearly are not opposed to labelling others, I suggest the better approach is to directly respond to Jefe’s polite challenge rather than deflecting.

 

 
 
lynmc
 
Avatar
 
 
lynmc
Total Posts:  477
Joined  03-08-2014
 
 
 
22 July 2019 09:27
 
DEGENERATEON - 21 July 2019 09:51 PM

They should have a “World Yarmulke Day” and try to get the muslim majority countries to recognize the millions of Jews that choose to wear that accessory.  Just try one on for a spell and feel empowered.

Not Yarmulkes!  Aren’t they symbolic of the enslavement of male minds?

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7118
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
22 July 2019 10:00
 
icehorse - 22 July 2019 07:35 AM

Jefe:

Hence the ‘maybe you aren’t’ comment.

Seems like a dodge, but I’m happy to move on.

Jefe:

However, embracing so many of their talking points does leave your status in question.

Interesting sentence. Again, it appears to me that you want to put me into a nice tidy category, that in your mind I need to have a “status”. Why is that? To me the most natural conclusion is that if you - Jefe - can put someone into a category, then you can stop thinking about the merits of individual arguments.

...but not really happy to move on?

If you ever catch me not considering merits of individual arguments in my posts, please let me know.
I don’t know about you, but I feel like I’m examining both the merits of the argument here and assessing the poster making that argument.  We may not agree on some things, but that, to me, doesn’t mean I don’t give the issues significant thought before venturing an opinion. And I think we can illustrate from the breakout thread you walked away from, that I’m willing to do additional research to ensure my position is evidence based and not just random cogitation…

 

 

 
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1807
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
22 July 2019 10:22
 
Jan_CAN - 22 July 2019 09:20 AM
icehorse - 22 July 2019 07:35 AM

Jefe:

Hence the ‘maybe you aren’t’ comment.

Seems like a dodge, but I’m happy to move on.

Jefe:

However, embracing so many of their talking points does leave your status in question.

Interesting sentence. Again, it appears to me that you want to put me into a nice tidy category, that in your mind I need to have a “status”. Why is that? To me the most natural conclusion is that if you - Jefe - can put someone into a category, then you can stop thinking about the merits of individual arguments.

If the shoe fits, wear it.  Stop trying to convince yourself and others that you are a centrist and a supporter of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UHHR), as you have done on other threads, while consistently contradicting its principles, and as Jefe pointed out here, using alt-right talking points and news bites.

Some time ago, when I criticized you for labelling and pigeon-holing those who disagree with you, you replied with, “sorry nuanced conversations cannot happen without categorizations and labels” (your words).  As you clearly are not opposed to labelling others, I suggest the better approach is to directly respond to Jefe’s polite challenge rather than deflecting.

These certainly are trying times for categorizers of political stance. I disagree with some of icy’s notions about Muslims, but mildly. I can’t see him as an alt-righter or even as a traditional conservative.

Hannah, maybe the following question qualifies as something approaching a valid partisan test for Americans, at least:

Would you be in favor of retroactively disqualifying Ilhan Omar’s citizenship if it were to become clear to respected professional investigators that she’d gained U.S. citizenship fraudulently? Would you remove her congressional status and perhaps (possibly depending on numerous family-oriented factors) send her back to where she came from? Does fraudulent behavior count against a person with an otherwise entirely valid refugee claim?

https://theminnesotasun.com/2018/10/26/ilhan-omars-alleged-marriage-to-brother-occurred-at-time-of-massive-immigration-fraud/

(I’ll hope I’m not, as of this post, considered to be a goddamn conservative!)

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3411
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
22 July 2019 11:34
 
nonverbal - 22 July 2019 10:22 AM

These certainly are trying times for categorizers of political stance. I disagree with some of icy’s notions about Muslims, but mildly. I can’t see him as an alt-righter or even as a traditional conservative.

Hannah, maybe the following question qualifies as something approaching a valid partisan test for Americans, at least:

Would you be in favor of retroactively disqualifying Ilhan Omar’s citizenship if it were to become clear to respected professional investigators that she’d gained U.S. citizenship fraudulently? Would you remove her congressional status and perhaps (possibly depending on numerous family-oriented factors) send her back to where she came from? Does fraudulent behavior count against a person with an otherwise entirely valid refugee claim?

https://theminnesotasun.com/2018/10/26/ilhan-omars-alleged-marriage-to-brother-occurred-at-time-of-massive-immigration-fraud/

(I’ll hope I’m not, as of this post, considered to be a goddamn conservative!)

(Hannah hasn’t posted for a while.)

I try not to categorize people in general, but I do expect people to own up to what they say and to be challenged if they(we) contradict themselves.  And to not have different standards for others than for themselves.  I don’t perceive icehorse’s nature as fitting in with the hatefulness that I associate with the alt-right, but some of his stated views lean in a direction that is worrisome and that I think he should be examining carefully.

I don’t know how to assess the linked article – a lot of potentially damaging allegations, no facts or proof provided, and a distinct possibility that it is a smear campaign directed by her enemies in high places.  Even if the allegations are proven false, it could be damaging.  When there is found to be a fraud committed in the citizenship process, I imagine it is a complicated legal procedure to determine if citizenship should be revoked, depending on the nature of the fraud, motives, etc.

 

 
 
‹ First  < 3 4 5 6 7 >  Last ›