‹ First  < 4 5 6 7 8 >  Last ›
 
   
 

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

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7713
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
22 July 2019 11:42
 
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.

I’m going to proceed as if you’re asking for clarifications in good faith:

- I don’t recall declaring that I was a centrist, but perhaps I have, and I do think I am, although we could have different definitions. I might call myself a “classic liberal”, largely the way Bill Maher would define a classic liberal. E.g. free speech is more important than not being offensive.

- As for the whole “alt-right” label, I think it would be far more productive to discuss specific arguments that you think would fall into the “alt-right” category? So, what arguments have I made that you would categorize as “alt-right”?

- What universal human rights principles do you think I argue against?

- As for nuanced conversations, I try to label and categorize ideas, not people. if you think I sometimes err in that regard, let me know.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7713
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
22 July 2019 11:47
 
Jefe - 22 July 2019 10:00 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.

...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…

I certainly develop opinions about posters, and I’m sure that those opinions sometimes color my responses, but I try to avoid that.

As for the breakout thread, I didn’t mean for you to think I’d abandoned it. It seemed as though we tried for a few cycles to debate the topic, but that we were debating different points. It seemed like a topic where we had tacitly agreed to disagree. But I can revisit that if you want - it was interesting.

 
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1864
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
22 July 2019 11:52
 
Jan_CAN - 22 July 2019 11:34 AM
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.

I’m sorry, Jan. My defective brain confused your name—not “me.”

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7135
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
22 July 2019 12:14
 
icehorse - 22 July 2019 11:47 AM

As for the breakout thread, I didn’t mean for you to think I’d abandoned it. It seemed as though we tried for a few cycles to debate the topic, but that we were debating different points. It seemed like a topic where we had tacitly agreed to disagree. But I can revisit that if you want - it was interesting.

That’s weird.  It seemed to me that you had formed an opinion based on a non-expert, non-evidenced position, and when evidence contrary to your position was presented to you, you first doubled-down on your opinion, and then strolled away.

 
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  734
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
22 July 2019 12:14
 
icehorse - 22 July 2019 07:19 AM
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

Posts 55 and 59 read to me as hand waving; you did not point to the specific information that backed up your claim.

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7713
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
22 July 2019 12:17
 
mapadofu - 22 July 2019 12:14 PM
icehorse - 22 July 2019 07:19 AM
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

Posts 55 and 59 read to me as hand waving; you did not point to the specific information that backed up your claim.

That brings up an interesting general question - should we always provide citations for such claims proactively? My proposal would be to consider that such claims are made in good faith and ask for citations if interested.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7713
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
22 July 2019 12:22
 
Jefe - 22 July 2019 12:14 PM
icehorse - 22 July 2019 11:47 AM

As for the breakout thread, I didn’t mean for you to think I’d abandoned it. It seemed as though we tried for a few cycles to debate the topic, but that we were debating different points. It seemed like a topic where we had tacitly agreed to disagree. But I can revisit that if you want - it was interesting.

That’s weird.  It seemed to me that you had formed an opinion based on a non-expert, non-evidenced position, and when evidence contrary to your position was presented to you, you first doubled-down on your opinion, and then strolled away.

I know it’s a tangent but: My bigger point was not that I have any special expertise, but that this seems to be a topic (vaccination schedules), for which we’re supposed to 100% trust an industry with a mediocre track record about an extremely profitable part of their business.

I almost think sometimes the industry cultivates anti-vaxxers as a sort of false flag: “Nothing to see here folks, only nut-jobs would dare question even the most minor details of how we run this aspect of our for-profit business.

But again, I claim no expertise on the complex topic of vaccination schedules.

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7135
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
22 July 2019 12:40
 
icehorse - 22 July 2019 12:22 PM
Jefe - 22 July 2019 12:14 PM
icehorse - 22 July 2019 11:47 AM

As for the breakout thread, I didn’t mean for you to think I’d abandoned it. It seemed as though we tried for a few cycles to debate the topic, but that we were debating different points. It seemed like a topic where we had tacitly agreed to disagree. But I can revisit that if you want - it was interesting.

That’s weird.  It seemed to me that you had formed an opinion based on a non-expert, non-evidenced position, and when evidence contrary to your position was presented to you, you first doubled-down on your opinion, and then strolled away.

I know it’s a tangent but: My bigger point was not that I have any special expertise, but that this seems to be a topic (vaccination schedules), for which we’re supposed to 100% trust an industry with a mediocre track record about an extremely profitable part of their business.

I almost think sometimes the industry cultivates anti-vaxxers as a sort of false flag: “Nothing to see here folks, only nut-jobs would dare question even the most minor details of how we run this aspect of our for-profit business.

But again, I claim no expertise on the complex topic of vaccination schedules.

Not only do you claim no expertise, you actively avoid gaining any through research or increased understanding of the topic - ignoring evidence that runs contrary to your opinion. 

To the best of my understanding:
1) There is no ‘mediocre track record’ of the efficacy of vaccines in fighting curable diseases for which they have been developed. (See polio, small pox, diptheria, MMR, Hepatitis X, etc…)
2) There is no ‘mediocre track record’ of US health care as pertaining to fighting curable diseases - unless there is an outbreak of those diseases - mostly (backed by evidence) caused by the unvaccinated. (A vast majority of those vaccinated meet statistical expectations of immunity resulting from those vaccinations.)
3) The evidence suggests that the US schedules are not that different from the European schedules you referenced in attempt to back up your opinion that there are too many vaccines in the US schedule. (See the breakout thread for references to compared schedules.)

See also your own descriptions of how you came to form your opinion. (self-admittedly a non expert who just looked at the number of scheduled vaccinations, without analyzing the data…or incorporating the data provided you into your analysis…)

/shrug

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7713
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
22 July 2019 12:58
 

still missing the point (re: vaccines), which is why I stopped posting on the other thread.

 
 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6421
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
22 July 2019 17:07
 
GAD - 21 July 2019 11:33 AM
Jb8989 - 21 July 2019 11:20 AM

Interesting. I have some thoughts:

Socioeconomic factors are not the legal cause of black and black crime in America, but they are significant contributing factors to the desperation that promotes criminal behavior like selling drugs and robbing people. Saying something like “fix your community first” conflates the two and blames black people for some things that are way out of their control. That’s not smart to say - especially for someone being paid to be fake, even if it was a good faith error in logic. Is it worth losing your job? Does it automatically make her racist?

When she condemned hijabs, she missed that head scarves are actually really fashionable, and making them more fashionable would likely diminish their religious symbolism; a cause she would probably support. So she may sound backwards, but she certainly had her freedom to disparage hijabs on a college campus in a tweet. Additionally, Ms. World is not totally removed from state and federal funding and scholarship. I imagine there’s a good case for Ms. World using their policy over-broadly to infringe on her right to say screw hijabs. The optics of having a contestant who doesn’t like Muslim women was too scary for Ms. World, even though Hijabs are not Muslim women.

Fair enough, but her opinion that hijabs are repression of women is as valid as those who here who say they are not, and her opinion is supported by Islam while theirs is not.

The hijab, guarded chastity and lowered gazes are hard to defend from an equality perspective, but mad muslims wear them for unrelated reasons, too, like simple religious celebration or a feeling of purity v. being a sex symbol. I’m probably religious pandering here, but lumping it all into subjugation probably just makes Muslim women feel more subjugated.

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7135
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
22 July 2019 17:54
 
icehorse - 22 July 2019 12:58 PM

still missing the point (re: vaccines), which is why I stopped posting on the other thread.

Pretty sure I got the point exactly right.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17798
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
22 July 2019 18:10
 
Jb8989 - 22 July 2019 05:07 PM
GAD - 21 July 2019 11:33 AM
Jb8989 - 21 July 2019 11:20 AM

Interesting. I have some thoughts:

Socioeconomic factors are not the legal cause of black and black crime in America, but they are significant contributing factors to the desperation that promotes criminal behavior like selling drugs and robbing people. Saying something like “fix your community first” conflates the two and blames black people for some things that are way out of their control. That’s not smart to say - especially for someone being paid to be fake, even if it was a good faith error in logic. Is it worth losing your job? Does it automatically make her racist?

When she condemned hijabs, she missed that head scarves are actually really fashionable, and making them more fashionable would likely diminish their religious symbolism; a cause she would probably support. So she may sound backwards, but she certainly had her freedom to disparage hijabs on a college campus in a tweet. Additionally, Ms. World is not totally removed from state and federal funding and scholarship. I imagine there’s a good case for Ms. World using their policy over-broadly to infringe on her right to say screw hijabs. The optics of having a contestant who doesn’t like Muslim women was too scary for Ms. World, even though Hijabs are not Muslim women.

Fair enough, but her opinion that hijabs are repression of women is as valid as those who here who say they are not, and her opinion is supported by Islam while theirs is not.

The hijab, guarded chastity and lowered gazes are hard to defend from an equality perspective, but mad muslims wear them for unrelated reasons, too, like simple religious celebration or a feeling of purity v. being a sex symbol. I’m probably religious pandering here, but lumping it all into subjugation probably just makes Muslim women feel more subjugated.

Yet Islam = submission [to god], but there is no god, Islam was invented and written and dictated by men, so really it submission to man [men].

 
 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6421
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
23 July 2019 05:02
 
GAD - 22 July 2019 06:10 PM
Jb8989 - 22 July 2019 05:07 PM
GAD - 21 July 2019 11:33 AM
Jb8989 - 21 July 2019 11:20 AM

Interesting. I have some thoughts:

Socioeconomic factors are not the legal cause of black and black crime in America, but they are significant contributing factors to the desperation that promotes criminal behavior like selling drugs and robbing people. Saying something like “fix your community first” conflates the two and blames black people for some things that are way out of their control. That’s not smart to say - especially for someone being paid to be fake, even if it was a good faith error in logic. Is it worth losing your job? Does it automatically make her racist?

When she condemned hijabs, she missed that head scarves are actually really fashionable, and making them more fashionable would likely diminish their religious symbolism; a cause she would probably support. So she may sound backwards, but she certainly had her freedom to disparage hijabs on a college campus in a tweet. Additionally, Ms. World is not totally removed from state and federal funding and scholarship. I imagine there’s a good case for Ms. World using their policy over-broadly to infringe on her right to say screw hijabs. The optics of having a contestant who doesn’t like Muslim women was too scary for Ms. World, even though Hijabs are not Muslim women.

Fair enough, but her opinion that hijabs are repression of women is as valid as those who here who say they are not, and her opinion is supported by Islam while theirs is not.

The hijab, guarded chastity and lowered gazes are hard to defend from an equality perspective, but mad muslims wear them for unrelated reasons, too, like simple religious celebration or a feeling of purity v. being a sex symbol. I’m probably religious pandering here, but lumping it all into subjugation probably just makes Muslim women feel more subjugated.

Yet Islam = submission [to god], but there is no god, Islam was invented and written and dictated by men, so really it submission to man [men].

Yeah but they don’t know that. They’re convinced it’s all real. And that they can personally offend GoB with their clothes.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7713
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
23 July 2019 08:56
 

If “you must try on a hijab” day is okay, how about “you must try on a burqa” day?

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17798
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
23 July 2019 09:06
 
Jb8989 - 23 July 2019 05:02 AM
GAD - 22 July 2019 06:10 PM
Jb8989 - 22 July 2019 05:07 PM
GAD - 21 July 2019 11:33 AM
Jb8989 - 21 July 2019 11:20 AM

Interesting. I have some thoughts:

Socioeconomic factors are not the legal cause of black and black crime in America, but they are significant contributing factors to the desperation that promotes criminal behavior like selling drugs and robbing people. Saying something like “fix your community first” conflates the two and blames black people for some things that are way out of their control. That’s not smart to say - especially for someone being paid to be fake, even if it was a good faith error in logic. Is it worth losing your job? Does it automatically make her racist?

When she condemned hijabs, she missed that head scarves are actually really fashionable, and making them more fashionable would likely diminish their religious symbolism; a cause she would probably support. So she may sound backwards, but she certainly had her freedom to disparage hijabs on a college campus in a tweet. Additionally, Ms. World is not totally removed from state and federal funding and scholarship. I imagine there’s a good case for Ms. World using their policy over-broadly to infringe on her right to say screw hijabs. The optics of having a contestant who doesn’t like Muslim women was too scary for Ms. World, even though Hijabs are not Muslim women.

Fair enough, but her opinion that hijabs are repression of women is as valid as those who here who say they are not, and her opinion is supported by Islam while theirs is not.

The hijab, guarded chastity and lowered gazes are hard to defend from an equality perspective, but mad muslims wear them for unrelated reasons, too, like simple religious celebration or a feeling of purity v. being a sex symbol. I’m probably religious pandering here, but lumping it all into subjugation probably just makes Muslim women feel more subjugated.

Yet Islam = submission [to god], but there is no god, Islam was invented and written and dictated by men, so really it submission to man [men].

Yeah but they don’t know that. They’re convinced it’s all real. And that they can personally offend GoB with their clothes.

Just as the men who invented god wanted it smile

 
 
‹ First  < 4 5 6 7 8 >  Last ›