GENIUS FORUMS

Bilby wrote:To what degree should the Middle-East wars implicate ordinary Americans and Australians?

Ideally, it shouldn't, but ideally there would be no wars in the first place.

Bilby wrote:What exactly, is our individual responsibility here?

I'm not the best person to address that question - I haven't studied the situation carefully enough. From what I understand though, we (but more particularly, the USA) have been firm supporters of the state of Israel and implicitly (at least in the eyes of some Muslims) of any subjugation which that state undertakes against the Palestinians and neighbouring Arab states.

Bilby wrote:Where is the open declaration of war and where are the protagonists plainly identified?

There is no declaration of war that I know of but I don't see what relevance that has. Identified by whom? You seem to identify one of the protagonists as "Muslims", Leyla seems to identify another as "Jews". Then you've also been talking about "the West" and in particular "Australia". So they seem to have been plainly identified at least in this thread, although as I wrote in my first post (and as you seemed to agree), "plain" identification of such a group as Muslims is not really possible - the same applies to Jews.

Bilby wrote:Are Australians, for instance, at war with Islam, and has there been an explicit reason given for this? Which Islam are we at war with – the nation of Islam or the religion of Islam? Doesn’t a declaration of war usually involve the aggressor declaring at least who they are?

We are not at war with Islam.

Bilby wrote:Is there a statement of facts which plainly sets out our complicity in the war between the Arab and the Jew? What exactly, have we, the western world, done to deserve acts of terrorism against us in our own homelands?

Those are questions that I imagine Leyla is far more qualified to answer than me and I hope that she does so for my benefit as much as for yours.

Bilby wrote:Laird, you really haven’t thought of any situations where it would be useful to discriminate?

Not against Muslims as an entire group. Have you? I invited you to share any that you might have - shall I take it that you have declined my invitation or that you simply can't think of any yourself?

Bilby wrote:How many instances of terrorism are acceptable to you?

Zero.

Bilby wrote:I’m a little incredulous if you genuinely believe that Islam honours women. Muslim women clamouring for change are often subject to death threats. I don’t think it’s a simple thing for them to do.

And I think that your representation of the situation is too simple. For a woman with a strong Islamic sense of sexual morality, the protection afforded by the traditions of her religion - e.g. modest and unrevealing clothing; chaperoning - might be very comforting and supportive. The honour is in the affording to women of special protection from immoral crimes, given the more vulnerable nature of femininity. In the West, our sexual morality is "looser", but who's to say what's ultimately better? Personally I suffer a great deal of conflict over this. Part of me believes that the West doesn't go far enough - that we should encourage polyamoury as the norm, as a common expression of affection between even friends - and part of me believes that sexuality is a sacred gift that should be used very sparingly. So I like the idea that different parts of the world are exploring different approaches.

Earlier, I wrote:

I shall provide you with a list of these questions to give you another opportunity to show just how important to you “creative thinking and open-minded, rational enquiry into the nature of racism and whether it is warranted” is.

I have decided against doing this.

If Bilby’s interest in creative thinking and open-minded, rational enquiry, et cetera, is not as shallow as her morality, she will do it herself.

Leyla, your argument reminds me of the lawyers creed:

If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither, pound the table.

And, naturally, only the defendant's counsel attempts to cover up the facts presented and focus on the noisy bits.

Leyla Shen wrote:And, naturally, only the defendant's counsel attempts to cover up the facts presented and focus on the noisy bits.

Well defendant Leyla, you know what they say about those who act as their own lawyer.

At the risk of making this an even more Worldly Matters type thread, I found some background music for this thread.

I agree with previous suggestions that this has gone off-topic, and we’ve probably exhausted the Muslim issue anyway. I did originally say that the belief that racism is always wrong is due for a re-think. Times have changed since the 1950’s when the civil rights movement came into being and with it the ideology of tolerance. Our world has to adapt as we might find that retaining outmoded views, no matter how idealistic they are, can actually be counter-productive to our interests.

This thread has illustrated why world peace won’t be attainable sometime soon. We badly needed a starting point, a fundamental principle that we could all agree on, and then move on. I was trying to establish one fundamental principle, being: that terrorism is wrong. I was surprised that even this simple and universal principle wasn’t accepted by the board.

We have to set ground rules. If we refuse to denounce terrorism outright, and if we allow moral concessions because one side is seen to be the underdog, then eventually the other side will seek to make up ground by resorting to terrorism as well. Even war has rules of engagement and principles of fairness and decency. If it is seen that the world tolerates terrorism, then there is no longer any moral reason why one side, but not another, can resort to terrorism. The world would soon become unliveable.

The second principle that needs to be agreed on is really an appeal to common sense. All people form perceptions from the world around them. It is quite possible for the same stimuli to create a completely different perception in two people. Both Leyla and I can see exactly the same news footage, and Leyla will see happy, smiling children where I see children starving to death. The problem isn’t the inherent bias of the news, but how we manipulate the incoming data to fit in with our world-view. The mind can be amazing nimble in distorting reality to suit our prejudices, and we all have prejudices. If we never accept that news is news, then everyone’s perceptions are suspect. No-one’s opinion matters because there’s no consensus on what constitutes reality. So news is always hearsay, propaganda, public relations, everything but what it is – news.

So if these two principles could find acceptance: firstly, that we must denounce terrorism with absoluteness with no quarter given to anyone, and secondly, that news is by nature factual, then we can move on to a more rational enquiry on whether racism is sometimes warranted.

Bilby, I want to provide a concession to you to start with: I have further considered the idea of discrimination against Muslims and I can accept as legitimate discrimination against Muslims: boarding aeroplanes and presentation at large-scale sporting events. Is that what you were hoping for?

Bilby wrote:I was trying to establish one fundamental principle, being: that terrorism is wrong.

I have to call bullshit on you. As far as I can see, the fundamental principle that you were trying to establish was: "discrimination is right". Be that as it may, however, I thoroughly agree with your (revised) principle.

Bilby wrote:I was surprised that even this simple and universal principle wasn’t accepted by the board.

Continue to put it in those terms and you may be pleasantly surprised by how many people do accept it.

Bilby wrote:The second principle that needs to be agreed on is really an appeal to common sense. All people form perceptions from the world around them. It is quite possible for the same stimuli to create a completely different perception in two people. Both Leyla and I can see exactly the same news footage, and Leyla will see happy, smiling children where I see children starving to death.

No one likes to see their fellow souls being bled of life. Not Muslims, not Christians, not athiests. If I'm wrong then I don't know what human is.

Bilby wrote:So if these two principles could find acceptance: firstly, that we must denounce terrorism with absoluteness with no quarter given to anyone,

You will find no dissension from me.

Bilby wrote:and secondly, that news is by nature factual, then we can move on to a more rational enquiry on whether racism is sometimes warranted.

Racism is always (by definition, as I spelt out in my last post) unjustified, and never warranted. Bilby: pull yourself together. You're throwing the word racism around like it's neutral. Cluestick: it's not. Racism involves the belief that one race is superior to another. As far as I have seen, this belief is never warranted.

Ironic.

Pauline Hanson wrote:The problem isn’t the inherent bias of the news, but how we manipulate the incoming data to fit in with our world-view. The mind can be amazing nimble in distorting reality to suit our prejudices, and we all have prejudices.

Indeed. And yet again, you provide a perfect example of it for the discerning eye to see.

Earlier, I wrote:

Actually, that is especially representative of typical Western media reporting, but what it does is give bigger hints than usual as to the nature of news reporting. I say it’s a shocking piece of news reporting--but a perfect example of slap-together PR. The next thing (aside from the astute observation you have already made) is, for instance, this sentence:

Quote from an article Katy posted:Despite the neglect, troops found shelves filled with food and new clothes in the facility, according to the report.

Oh, those poor, damaged troops. Despite all that disgusting neglect, they still somehow managed to find shelves filled with food and new clothes? Poor, poor things…

And, what report do they refer to in this sentence, specifically--from whom?

I caught a glimpse on telly just 30 mins ago of some of those teary-eyed troops with laughing and happy orphans. Warms the cockles of one’s kind little heart, don’t it?

Further, Hanson (supported in the background by Elizabeth‘s patriotically heaving cleavage and fluffy pom-poms) in her last post twisted it due to her prejudice as follows:

Both Leyla and I can see exactly the same news footage, and Leyla will see happy, smiling children where I see children starving to death.

Definitely anyone who sees children starving to death here is insane. Here’s a still from the same orphanage in the news clip--minus the teary eyed US troops (which could just as easily have been, say, the generous Iraqi strangers, their friends and neighbours) seen on telly:

Iraq's orphans left to the kindness of strangers

Article excerpt:

With four years of war having cannibalised much of the Iraqi government, volunteers have begun providing vital social services at their own expense, relying on the generosity of friends and neighbours.

Laird wrote:Bilby, I want to provide a concession to you to start with: I have further considered the idea of discrimination against Muslims and I can accept as legitimate discrimination against Muslims: boarding aeroplanes and presentation at large-scale sporting events.

What? Are you seriously suggesting that Muslims should undergo more security before boarding planes, if allowed to board at all? And how do you tell for sure that someone is a Muslim so that you can discriminate against them? I'd rather have equal security measures myself. And what's with the presentations at large scale sporting events? If a Muslim wanted to sing our national anthem at the Superbowl, I would not have a problem with that. I can't imagine any way that a Muslim could do any worse at a major sporting event than Janet Jackson did at the Superbowl. (caution - some mild nudity on link) Or is she Muslim? If so, that wasn't exactly a burkha she was sporting...

Leyla Shen wrote:supported in the background by Elizabeth‘s patriotically (edit - I do not wish to repeat the offensive words, and I am officially filing a complaint with the administration of this board for that comment)

Now you've gone too far Leyla. That is an extremely vile, degrading, sexist remark.

Leyla Shen wrote:

Both Leyla and I can see exactly the same news footage, and Leyla will see happy, smiling children where I see children starving to death.

Definitely anyone who sees children starving to death here is insane.

Okay, my coaching whistle is off and I'm jumping in here. Did you actually look at the link Katy posted with your eyes? It's worth posting again: Link originally posted by Katy. Here's a clue that they were emaciated - one could easily count the vertebrae in their backs. Although it is possible (though unlikely) that they could stage the children tied to their cribs by their ankles while laying on the floor amongst piles of feces, there is no way to "stage" vertebrae. Yes, at the end of the video, they showed some smiling children - like that one with the obviously emaciated tibia dangling as the soldier was carrying him, and in the pictures of the obviously different setting which was reported as being a week after being transferred to a different facility where they actually fed the children and they were no longer being starved to death - but if you could not see the emaciation in the footage, you need to have your eyes checked and perhaps some glasses will fix the problem.

with bold added to part of what Leyla Shen wrote:Here’s a still from the same orphanage in the news clip--minus the teary eyed US troops (which could just as easily have been, say, the generous Iraqi strangers, their friends and neighbours) seen on telly:

Iraq's orphans left to the kindness of strangers

Article excerpt:

With four years of war having cannibalised much of the Iraqi government, volunteers have begun providing vital social services at their own expense, relying on the generosity of friends and neighbours.

No, it was not the same orphanage. It did not look the same as the one at the begining of the footage, and also from the article you linked:

The severely disabled children have since been moved to another clean, well-lit orphanage nearby, with smiling social workers, sun-drenched rooms, ceiling fans, and stuffed animals.

And the article you linked started off with:

The shocking pictures of neglect that emerged from a grisly state-run Baghdad orphanage this week revealed the Iraqi government's inability to care for some of its most vulnerable citizens.

and another tidbit from the article you linked:

Medics initially feared at least one of the boys was dead.

He had "thousands of flies covering his body, unable to move any part of his body, you know we had to actually hold his head up and tilt his head to make sure that he was okay," Gibson said.

"The only thing basically that was moving was his eyeballs," he added.

"Flies in the mouth, in the eyes, in the nose, ears, eating all the open wounds from sleeping on the concrete."

The caretaker of the orphanage is on the run.

Leyla, by your obvious total disregard for the sum of the evidence, I suspect there is no reasoning with you on this subject.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:What? Are you seriously suggesting that Muslims should undergo more security before boarding planes, if allowed to board at all? And how do you tell for sure that someone is a Muslim so that you can discriminate against them? I'd rather have equal security measures myself.

Yeah, OK, I can go with that.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:And what's with the presentations at large scale sporting events? If a Muslim wanted to sing our national anthem at the Superbowl, I would not have a problem with that.

"Presentation" was an imprecise word to use. I meant being in the queue to enter the stadium and having extra security checks made against you as you present your ticket, but again now that I think about it I agree with your argument (as expressed for plane-boarding) that equally enhanced security measures are better.

So Bilby, we can't seem to find any situations where discrimination against Muslims is useful after all. Can you think of any?

I wrote:

Further, Hanson (supported in the background by Elizabeth‘s patriotically heaving cleavage and fluffy pom-poms) in her last post twisted it due to her prejudice as follows:

Elizabeth replied:

Now you've gone too far Leyla. That is an extremely vile, degrading, sexist remark.

I think it’s a perfectly apt metaphor, myself. You don’t think I really thought you were sitting at home heaving your cleavage at the PC whilst shaking a pair of pom poms, do you? In my view, you have been doing nothing but making displays of song and dance from the sidelines and drawing attention for it. You even go so far as to make the claim that you are “coaching” the game.

I don’t recognise your coaching qualifications and would never engage you in such a capacity.

But, whilst we’re on the subject, what is it you personally find so extremely vile and degrading about heaving cleavage and fluffy pom poms? Does it, say, remind you of a piece of meat?

Notwithstanding the above, I am utterly sympathetic to your quandary here:

Elizabeth wrote:Are you seriously suggesting that Muslims should undergo more security before boarding planes, if allowed to board at all? And how do you tell for sure that someone is a Muslim so that you can discriminate against them?

~

Elizabeth wrote:No, it was not the same orphanage.

That’s right, that’s my point: it wasn’t the same orphanage. I never once even alluded to such an idea. That connection was never made in my mind. The connection in my post is US troops--not “the same orphanage.” Read my post carefully in its entirety, Elizabeth. Here is an important part of it:

Bilby: Both Leyla and I can see exactly the same news footage, and Leyla will see happy, smiling children where I see children starving to death.

Excerpt from (my) referenced post: "I caught a glimpse on telly just 30 mins ago of some of those teary-eyed troops with laughing and happy orphans. Warms the cockles of one’s kind little heart, don’t it?"

Your emotions have the better of you. I have assumed (obviously incorrectly) that everyone is emotionally stable enough to see that there are two orphanages involved and make the distinction between them without my having to qualify every statement I make with "this comment is about the disgustingly neglectful orphanage" or "this comment is about the well-run orphanage funded by charitable Iraqis." Do I really have to do that, Elizabeth?

Leyla, by your obvious total disregard for the sum of the evidence, I suspect there is no reasoning with you on this subject.

I think you ought to calmly and seriously review the events in this discussion.

Still, both you and Bilby make a fine display of the ramifications of "toxic certainty."

[Edited in relevant emphasis]

Further:

Elizabeth wrote:Are you seriously suggesting that Muslims should undergo more security before boarding planes, if allowed to board at all? And how do you tell for sure that someone is a Muslim so that you can discriminate against them?

The problem here, obviously, is that not all Muslims are terrorists and not all terrorists are Muslim; and that trying to pidgeon-hole Muslims as such is THEREFORE problematic.

I mean, seriously, does it really take genius to see that?

Leyla Shen wrote:That’s right, that’s my point: it wasn’t the same orphanage. I never once even alluded to such an idea.

6-7 text lines from the bottom,

Leyla Shen wrote:Here’s a still from the same orphanage in the news clip

- emphasis added

Leyla Shen wrote:Read my post carefully in its entirety, Elizabeth.

Read your own post carefully.

Leyla Shen wrote:That connection was never made in my mind.

Then you need to learn to type what is on your mind more accurately.

Some of the children have lost their parents to the war, but Hassan says that the majority have been orphaned by divorce, with the collapse of Iraqi society replicating itself in an increasing number of broken homes.

Apart from the good "Christian" values shown by Husham Hassan. lol, yes only Christians own the value of care for others not of their family :) , the above was the most interesting bit of that article.

Why is divorce resulting in orphans? I guess due to poverty the males leave the home, and the women are not allowed to work, even if there was work, so therefore they must let the children go.

Bilby writes:

. . . . that terrorism is wrong. I was surprised that even this simple and universal principle wasn’t accepted by the board.

Quotes, please for everyone who defended terrorism. Or are you confusing arguments against Muslim prejudice as arguments for terrorism . . . ? That's some deep-seated confusion you're soaking in.

Bilby: The problem isn’t the inherent bias of the news, but how we manipulate the incoming data to fit in with our world-view. The mind can be amazing nimble in distorting reality to suit our prejudices, and we all have prejudices.

Except for, apparently, the unusual life-form known as journalists.

Bilby: then we can move on to a more rational enquiry on whether racism is sometimes warranted.

Laird is correct in throwing down the bullshit card on you for this. You've not been answering any number of the challenges to your rationale, but come back again and again in intellectual mitigation of the thorn in your side regarding Muslims.

Bilby, it is a fearful world indeed. Perhaps you should accept that your feelings on this issue are just that - strong, deep feelings - and stop trying to dress them up as "reasoned discussion." You've been presented with lots of reasoning in return against any wisdom in pre-judgment of "race" (Muslims), but are unable to address it. This should tell you something.

Leyla's "emotionalism" surrounds some cogent reasoning; your 'cogent reasoning' is protecting a whole heap of hate and fear inside of it.

Here's the most amazing thing: You wish a reasoned discussion of racial prejudice in order to support it's existence and potential use. The very people you are trying to fight would be very glad to hear that. They, too, think that pre-judgment about a whole 'race' of westerners is the way to go. Been working really well, hasn't it.

And well Elizabeth, you've stepped over a year or two of women-are-unconscious; women are only for breeding; women are flighty fools; women cannot properly reason; women can never be geniuses, etc. . . . . but it took a comment about cleavage and pompoms for you to cry foul regarding sexism on the forum.

jesus h. christ.

well, it's a start I guess . . . .

Bimbo wrote:

Then you need to learn to type what is on your mind more accurately.

Not really. That particular "same orphanage" comment was deliberately penned (after the actual quote was so badly misrepresented) just so I could watch you fall on your stupid face again.

Thanks for that. :)

So Bilby, we can't seem to find any situations where discrimination against Muslims is useful after all. Can you think of any?

For me it is "Personality". I will continue to discriminate against Muslims. For instance, if I was a small businesman, I would never employ a practising Muslim. If I was an alderman on a council, I would pay them no heed if they asked for special rights and I would try and keep them off the council (as with any group - give them an inch and they'll take a mile).

I think the percentage of Muslims that are arseholes is at least double that of the Western world. They are far more arrogant, hot tempered, demanding, conniving, blaming of others for their own groups mistakes and stupid, than any other group I know of (apart from aboriginies). Quite simply they are more childlike. Now while perhaps all of that that stems from poverty and the history of their countries in relation to the West and tribal fighting, the fact that it is getting worse is mostly due to their inane religion. Their religion makes its people subservient to tradition, and this subservience is making Arabic Muslims redundant in the modern world. Their time has passed. Asian Muslims may have a chance.

That the above is completely racist doesn't bother me at all. Discrimination is good FOR WEALTHY COUNTRIES like Australia as it forces people from external countries to adapt to fit into and work for the new country. The rich do not adapt to the ways of the poor and ignorant.

I wondered whether it would be a good idea to no longer refer directly to Muslims, Christians or Jews in this thread, and just refer generally to “everyone” or side a and side b, if it needs to get to that. This topic was really designed as a philosophical rather than a political question.

Laird, you ask me: “So Bilby, we can't seem to find any situations where discrimination is useful after all. Can you think of any?” but then you indicate that a certain race should undergo more security before boarding planes. Isn’t this racial discrimination?

Do we all agree that terrorism is wrong? There’s no problem with this, from anyone? So terrorism is absolutely wrong, and should be reviled world-wide, with no exceptions and no quarter given to anyone. Does everyone agree with this?

Laird, I also asked you before: How many instances of terrorism are acceptable to you? And you answered zero. I’m assuming you’re not just paying lip service in stating your opposition to terrorism. What then, to you, are reasonable community actions in averting terrorism? You indicated previously that racial discrimination, at airports anyway, is acceptable as a means of enhancing national security. I just want to verify that this is your view so far. I appreciate your honesty here.

Elizabeth, I really value your input in this thread. You have a rational, intelligent mind, even if I’m the only one who appreciates it here.

Pye, privately, journalists are just as prejudiced as the rest of us. But the news isn’t prejudiced. Our response to the news can be prejudiced, but you can’t blame the news for that. I can’t debate with someone who claims that the news isn’t factual, because where can I go from there? Most of my perceptions are from the news. Do you seriously believe that western news is inherently false? This is really a ludicrous position and as I said before, a cop-out. Can you provide one actual instance of western news being falsified with respect to what we’re discussing here? Just one instance?

I want you, or anyone, to specify exactly any question raised in this thread that I haven’t answered.

Pye wrote:women are only for breeding

Hang on! Who ever said this? Most of them can cook too....

Anyhoo, can someone, anyone, please explain to me the significance of the orphanage story? Other than an exercise in exposing subtle propaganda, I see no relevance to it whatever. And Bibly, you continually falsely conflate holding a value opposition or disagreement with an opposing ideology with prejudice. It's not prejudice, it's just a different perspective. What constraints we might seek to place on those we oppose is a rather treacherous theme to explore. I'll come back to my original complaint: I see far too many instances of composition fallacy in what's being expressed here. That leads to unjust prejudice, not warranted and natural opposition.

Bilby wrote:Do we all agree that terrorism is wrong? There’s no problem with this, from anyone? So terrorism is absolutely wrong, and should be reviled world-wide, with no exceptions and no quarter given to anyone. Does everyone agree with this?

I certainly agree that terrorism is wrong, but I suspect I have a different take on what terrorism is than you. For example, when you attack and invade a nation that has not harmed you and has no capacity to harm you, and do so with a strategem gliby designated "shock and awe" - that is terrorism. When you put in place completely unwarranted and too far reaching sanctions against a nation - over an entire decade - and thousands of people (many of them children) starve and die, that is terrorism. Some pissy little orphanage means nothing in comparison.

Laird, I also asked you before: How many instances of terrorism are acceptable to you? And you answered zero. I’m assuming you’re not just paying lip service in stating your opposition to terrorism. What then, to you, are reasonable community actions in averting terrorism?

I say internment camps! Worked great in WW11. Round up anyone who identifies as Muslim and lock them up in camps for the duration of the war on terror. And if we run out of room we'll just shoot the rest. They're just Muslims, after all; it's not like they really belong here.

You indicated previously that racial discrimination, at airports anyway, is acceptable as a means of enhancing national security. I just want to verify that this is your view so far. I appreciate your honesty here.

We won't need measures like this if they're all locked up in internment camps. Plus, think of all the Xian converts we'll get when we announce the measure. The Churches will love it.

[...]privately, journalists are just as prejudiced as the rest of us. But the news isn’t prejudiced.

This notion is utterly ludicrous. Your naivette on this matter is quite disturbing.

I want you, or anyone, to specify exactly any question raised in this thread that I haven’t answered.

Well, for one thing, you have not detailed the misogyny inherent in Islam, you have simply asserted it as a thing that it automatically known and true.

Leyla Shen wrote:Bimbo wrote:

Can we drop this sort of thing from the discussion? It's not helping.

I’m not so sure about that. From what I’ve seen on this thread, I’m currently thinking of embracing racism myself. How many opportunities do you give to a race of people who can’t even comprehend it’s own native language and ideas, cleanly presented:

Dan: And Bibly, you continually falsely conflate holding a value opposition or disagreement with an opposing ideology with prejudice. It's not prejudice, it's just a different perspective. What constraints we might seek to place on those we oppose is a rather treacherous theme to explore. I'll come back to my original complaint: I see far too many instances of composition fallacy in what's being expressed here. That leads to unjust prejudice, not warranted and natural opposition.

However, since I respect your Muslimness, I shall give the request some consideration and see how you are responded to this time.

A meaningful response will come, Inshallah!

I’m not so sure about that. From what I’ve seen on this thread, I’m currently thinking of embracing racism myself.

It is abundantly obvious you don't need to. You are already racist against Jews, and if you don't think the average Muslim is more racist than the average Westerner, think again.