Let's Have Another Argument about Islam

[Walkie]

I didn't want to hijack the Trump thread with this.  Nor overwhelm  my British issues thread too much.  Islam is highly relevantt in Britain, but it's not the only issue. if anyone wants to check what's been said over there, here's the link to the thread. And if anyone wants to link to other previous discussions, or copy-and-paste from them, do go ahead.

I'm gonnajust  take it from here:

And Walkie--I defend Islam because few others seem to. I believe in freedom of religion. I believe they have the same right to believe in whatever they want as do the rest of us. I believe the idea that blaming millions of people for the crimes of a group of fanatics is preposterous. A lot of bad things have been done in the name of religion, be it Christianity, Islam or something else, but I would blame the Muslims for ISIS as little as I would blame the medieval peasants for the Crusaders.

As for believing, I don't. I think this is it, it's what we get. When we are gone, we are gone for good.

/steps down from the soapbox

I'm sure most of us believe in freedom of religion. The modern day problem with Islam is that all-too-many practicitioners don't believe in freedom of religion , nor any of the other freedoms we cherish, and they are willing to back up their beliefs with extreme violence.

It's not a question of "Who do we blame?" but "What's the solution?" We need to anayse this situation , pin down whatever psycho-socio-political forces are creating it, and find a peaceful soluution to the problem...fast.  But we can't even have a dialogue about it without seriously  putting forward the obvious pri=oposition that islam, itself, is a cause of the proplem.   Maybe that;'s wrong, Odeon, but tearing into people with strawman arguments like "You  can't blame millions of people for the crimes of a group of fanatics " is -to use your word-  preposterous. That's to stall the discussion, not push it forward.

And it's not a "group of fanatics" , it's numerous littl;e  pockets of fanatics all over the world, who seemingly have nothing in common with each other besides self-identifying as Muslim.  If they all buggerered off and joined ISIS, that might simplify things, but they don't. Indeed, our (British) authorities are actively preventing the British ones from doing so.

I don't have the exact statistics, but I'm sure the people who've ben murdered by Muslims just  for being non-Muslim, the wrong sort of Muslim, Muslim apostate, Christian,  etc have far exceeded the Muslims who've been murdered just for being Muslim. The rest of us have, to the greatest extent you could expect,  remained peaceful,  tolerant, and completely cognisant and respectful  of the fact that not all Muslim people are the same

Prejudice against Muslims is not the problem. Muslim prejudice against everybody else is the problem.

I don't know what the solution is, but if if it turned out to entail restricting the religion freedom of Muslims, I would reluctantly accept that as far better than the alternative of doing nothing at all. Can you, Odeon come up with a better solution?  All you've done so far is deny there's a problem, in effect.  I don't think you're doing the moderat Muslims any favours . A lot of those moderate Muslims are living in fear of their lives; and not just in the Middle East , but in the peaceful tolerant countries they run to for refuge, because  guess what? The intolerant  sort of Muslims just follow them in through the door.

[odeon]

Yes, I do have a better solution:

Let's not act as recruiters for ISIS and other nutters by polarising the situation to "us" and "them". It's what they want, it's how they grow in numbers. There was a time not too long ago when another group of people was similarly used by populist leaders; the whole thing ended with millions of people murdered.

And it's not a strawman, and it's not just me saying it. Historians and sociologists have been pointing it out for years--the similarities are scary, to say the least, which is why I do think this discussion does belong in the Trump topic. Topics derail here all the time, but this one actually didn't.

I tell you what is a stawman, though:

Prejudice against Muslims is not the problem. Muslim prejudice against everybody else is the problem.

You don't present any evidence or numbers whatsoever, you simply postulate the above and go from there, suggesting that that pretty much the only thing that keeps you safe, relatively speaking, is MI5.

Here's a graphic that pains a slightly different picture (for the drama, I picked on showing people killed in terrorist attacks in western Europe since 1970):



While "Islam inspired" terrorism appears to dominate the last few years, I find it difficult to accept your strawman because it would imply that Islam has changed radically in the last few years. Didn't that Muslim prejudice exist before or did they just not know how to build bombs?

Me, I would say that something happened. If I were a historian, I would suggest things like the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, that helped radicalise some Muslims and explain the change. Does this mean that the whole religion has changed? No. Look at the big blue areas from 1970 and onwards. What happened there? I'm not going to be patronising here--I'm sure you know your recent history as well as I do.

Usually, the the populist websites provide data stating how this or that number of Muslims think violence against civilians can or cannot be justified; the interwebz are full of them. Me, I always ask myself, how many westerners think the same, and so I had to google it. It turns out the numbers are about the same--approximately the same percentage of Muslims and Americans reject the use of violence against civilians in any situation, according to Gallup data studied by American professor John Esposito.

Oh, and while googling, I found another interesting little tidbit about Islam: Did you know that 5 of the last 12 Nobel Peace Prize laureates were Muslim?

[Walkie]

Ok It will prolly take me some considerable time to work through all my responses to your argument , Odeon (cos that's how my mind works with this sort of thing-and just about anything else indeed-  slowly and carefully and haltingly- trying to plot all the trees in relation to the wood- then equally slowly trying to figure out how best to express it)

Some of your observations are inarguable. It's more a case of your  map of the forest missing some highly signifant trees; though I'm sure you'd think the same of mine.  At least you said enough this time to make me feel I could learn something (but nothing to suggest that you're gonna bring me round to agreeing with your conclusions).

Let's start with something simple and trivial  (just to clear it out of the way, I hope)

I tell you what is a stawman, though:

Prejudice against Muslims is not the problem. Muslim prejudice against everybody else is the problem.

If you repeatedly bang on about people's prjudice againsst Muslims (which you do, to the best of my understanding) , it's not a strawman to explicitly contradict that. A strawman argument, on my side,  would falsely put words into your mouth, wouldn't it?   

I'm a bit perplexed as to what could be happening here?   I don't think you're quite disingenouus enough to falsely accuse me of using strawmen; a sort of meta strawman , or mega strawman, or Babooshka-freaking-doll -of-strawmen.  But I don't know. The only other explanation would seem to be that we have different conceptions of what prejudice means, or something like that?

So let's try:

So you've not been saying that prejudice against Muslims is a problem? Can you please explain the difference between what you have been saying and my phrasing of it?

Or alternatively: are we having actually having a  serious discussion here, and saying what we mean, or are we just scoring points, any which way we can?

If it's the latter, i think i'll bow out, because I actually am very serious, very concerned about this subject, and i don't really want to arse around playing clever little games with it, not even here.

Back to you on that.

[Al Swearegen]

Yes, I do have a better solution:

Let's not act as recruiters for ISIS and other nutters by polarising the situation to "us" and "them". It's what they want, it's how they grow in numbers. There was a time not too long ago when another group of people was similarly used by populist leaders; the whole thing ended with millions of people murdered.

That is not a solution. That is virtue signalling and you deflecting. Its you saying IF you do not do anything, you are "good" and are not creating an "us" and them and if you do something you are creating/perpetuating an "us" and "them".

Its a pretty weak way to say any action is tantamount to bigotry and only in doing nothing are you virtuous. Is pretty fucking weak. Answer the fucking question and stop deflecting.

See this is the Odeon I like. He is being a clown for our amusement.

"I stick up for Muslims being no one else does. I believe people have a right to their religious beliefs."

See it sounds very moral and virtuous but prod this moral grandstanding a bit and what happens? Want me to try?

Me: "Okay, sure Odeon, but who on here is questioning anyone's right to have their own religious beliefs or railing on Muslims or blaming the actions of a few on all Muslims?"

Odeon: "YOU have! You clearly have. You are a bigot and have done exactly that. You always say terrible things about Muslims and support Trump"

Me: "Actually I have not done any of that and only a drooling idiot could draw that conclusion. I have at every conceivable point underlined the fact that Muslim radical extremists are very definitely a threat and not all Muslims are Muslim radical extremists, but that it is difficult to identify any radical Muslim extremists coming into a country without identification OR from failed states where there is no viable infrastructure or database to check any identification that they may produce for inspection. In Australia, this means we do not accept these people into our waters. America seems to similarly support a freeze on such people that cannot be identified for whatever threat that they may bring with them as a result of poor identification."

Odeon: "That is a bigoted position. You are critical of them because of their religion."

Me: "No, because the "them" in your statement is false. If the "them" is radical Muslim extremists, then I am concerned with their rabid ideology and fanaticism NOT their religion, and if "them" is your ordinary run of the mill moderate Muslim, I have no issue and would wish them very well. In either case the ONLY tie between them is that the Islamic faith is shared by both groups and that all the radical Muslim extremists are found in the larger Muslim demographic. The only quandary is how to accurately differentiate good from bad. This is a vetting problem and thus a border and national security problem"

Odeon: "THAT'S RACIST!!!"

Me: "No. Furthermore, APART from - let in people you cannot vet because hopefully most will be okay and any damage the ones that are not okay will do hopefully will be minor - what is your suggestion"

Odeon: "Well sure, you cannot vet everyone and maybe some will be bad but we can't discriminate..."

Me: "So that IS your big solution?"

Odeon: "I am more moral than you. You are a bigot"

Me: " ...and you fool and ideologically skewed to a point that reason does not even see sunlight"

Odeon: "Bigot!!!" 

There and without us having to even thrash it out. The irony is he thinks he is a better person for this lack of critical reasoning and believes it make him a moral defender of the defenceless. Its a healthy step to either ignorance or insanity. I am not sure which. Ideological blinkers are a strange thing to behold.

[Walkie]

PS. Thing is, I might not have put it that way, but I actually decided this worth a new thread because I took the statement I quoted as sincere.  I therefore anticipated a sincere argument, and thus far, I feel pretty damned disappointed , but I'm willing to think that A) perhaps I asked for it? and B) it's recoverable?

[Al Swearegen]

PS. Thing is, I might not have put it that way, but I actually decided this worth a new thread because I took the statement I quoted as sincere.  I therefore anticipated a sincere argument, and thus far, I feel pretty damned disappointed , but I'm willing to think that A) perhaps I asked for it? and B) it's recoverable?

There is nothing wrong with what you asked.
If there is a national security threat and it is impossible to identify who in a group of people is carrying this threat (but just that it resides within this group somewhere) then the answer is not "Meh, its probably not a big threat anyway".
Yes intolerant Muslims will follow through tolerant Muslims.
No, it is not unreasonable to want only the tolerant Muslims in the country.
Yes, it is perfectly sound to hold off on bringing in people you cannot identify, until such time that you can.
Yes, the citizens of other country do not trump the rights of the citizens of their prospective host country.
Yes everything ought to be done to limit the effects of ISIS and other radical terrorist groups to a country.

None of this is unreasonable.

However saying a suggestion of bigotry out to have a chilling effect on being able to protect border and national security is either insane, dangerous, ideologically skewed, dishonest and most likely a combination of all the above. 

The true test of Odeon's implication of bigotry is this simple question. "If all the Muslims coming into your country were guaranteed not to be associated with radical Muslim extremists such as ISIS, would you have ANY issue? If you, like I, say "No, no issue at all" Then Odeon's bigotry narrative and his apparent moral soapbox falls flat.

[Walkie]

*nod to Al*

yep, you're making pretty fair points about Odeon's debating style, Al

I believe he can be bigger than that, when he chooses.  But it looks like I picked the wrong subject, if I want that effect

[Al Swearegen]

*nod to Al*

yep, you're making prety fair points about Odeon's debating style, Al

I believe he can be bigger than that, when he chooses.  But it looks like I picked the wrong subject, if I want that effect

Odeon of old was a lot better than that. I obviously am at the point with him that I have come to expect a level of dishonesty from him.

[Icequeen]

I pretty much have zero experience with anyone Muslim. We're not too culturally diverse here south of Pittsburgh. Basically my beliefs are in religious freedom and tolerance...but have zero experience with anything you describe Walkie, so I can't say how it would make me feel or whether it would make me change my mindset.

I'm the American "trailer-trash" you mentioned in the other thread. Minus the trailer, with a thing for vinyl wallpaper only in my closets (the gaudy or mega floral patterns normally).   

I've lived the rural lifestyle all my life, sometimes driving $300 rust buckets, and picking trash, anything else is unimaginable and would probably suck the life right out of me at this stage in my life. 

[Walkie]

Ah! thanks, IQ. OK , maybe you don't have a lot to add , but t least that looks like a genuine, just  saying-what-I -mean comment 

Hey, Al! Maybe we can just talk as if Odeon's not here? No ned to address him, if he's not playing ball, is there?

[Walkie]

Oh! And no need to apologise, IQ. Me, I'm a piece of benefit-sucking too-overprivileged-to-know-what-poor-means,  white, English Trash. *shake*

One thing I want to examine is the growing prejudice against people like ourselves, which somebody said doesn''t even exist. Not only do I think it exists, i think it's being deliberately whipped up, in some quaters.  And the infinitely foolish SJWs are helping to whip it up.

What's the opoint of that exercise?

No, i'm not trying to induce paranoia, I'm just trying to look a little way  beneath the surface, and to refuse to jump to all the obvious conclusions. I smell shit, not sure exactly what colour or variety , nor exactly what kind of animal shat it , nor how to avoid stepping in the stuff, but there's a definite whiff of shit in the air.

I think we need to carefully examine all our prejudices , not just the usual ones that we all know how to whisk out by the scruff off their neck and jump up and down on , exultantly.

[Fun With Matches]

There definitely is a prejudice against people on benefits, it's pretty bad. People act immediately judgemental and huffy and ask why you don't have a job, as if what you're doing is deliberate and malicious. The nutritionist I saw ages ago (they're shit, BTW) said to me immediately upon introduction, "I don't know what autism is but even if you have it, you should be in work". I was an emotional wreck at the time and burst out crying at the end and she was a lot more understanding.

The worst example was when this landlord had the knack to go to me, "How do I know you're not going to grow marijuana and make a mess?"

Others, well, people immediately have no sympathy for you. Even my ex when he started at me, I immediately hit back at him saying, "You got support for getting into your job, I didn't. You can't have a go at others like me who haven't had the support either." He got my point. In fact that goes for a lot of people, they have their own support network of family and friends also, some have better social skills, others better circumstances.

I have another bad example at my old college where the tutor went along with it and another with a group of SJWs (FTR, I hate Southend and its people. They can all go f*ck themselves) but I don't even want to remember. I can't talk a lot about painful things now. They weren't even as painful before, it's just everything is too much, I'm so tired of it. I just want to pretend these things don't even exist and never happened.

[Al Swearegen]

Ah! thanks, IQ. OK , maybe you don't have a lot to add , but t least that looks like a genuine, just  saying-what-I -mean comment 

Hey, Al! Maybe we can just talk as if Odeon's not here? No ned to address him, if he's not playing ball, is there?

Ive gone around the mulberry bush a few times with the fool, over this and happy enough to do it again

[Walkie]

There definitely is a prejudice against people on benefits, it's pretty bad. People act immediately judgemental and huffy and ask why you don't have a job, as if what you're doing is deliberate and malicious. The nutritionist I saw ages ago (they're shit, BTW) said to me immediately upon introduction, "I don't know what autism is but even if you have it, you should be in work". I was an emotional wreck at the time and burst out crying at the end and she was a lot more understanding.

The worst example was when this landlord had the knack to go to me, "How do I know you're not going to grow marijuana and make a mess?"

Others, well, people immediately have no sympathy for you. Even my ex when he started at me, I immediately hit back at him saying, "You got support for getting into your job, I didn't. You can't have a go at others like me who haven't had the support either." He got my point. In fact that goes for a lot of people, they have their own support network of family and friends also, some have better social skills, others better circumstances.

I have another bad example at my old college where the tutor went along with it and another with a group of SJWs (FTR, I hate Southend and its people. They can all go f*ck themselves) but I don't even want to remember. I can't talk a lot about painful things now. They weren't even as painful before, it's just everything is too much, I'm so tired of it. I just want to pretend these things don't even exist and never happened.

I hear you,  JC. And I hope Graelwyn's reading this too, cos she's had it so bad she's introjected it, and now beats herself up about it.  (have you read her posts?) . and ofc she's not the only one, not by a long chalk. And, what's more,  out]r Government and our media have deliberately whipped up that prejudice , as I hope   to make crystal clear  on the Brit thread (already alluded to that once or twice; by example; do fel free to add all the "grist to the mill" you like) .

[Al Swearegen]

I pretty much have zero experience with anyone Muslim. We're not too culturally diverse here south of Pittsburgh. Basically my beliefs are in religious freedom and tolerance...but have zero experience with anything you describe Walkie, so I can't say how it would make me feel or whether it would make me change my mindset.

Same here. In Australia,  religion is seen as a personal thing and does not realy touch on the greater society.  There is a bit of a live and let live attitude to it.
Like most, as long as I am not having it forced on me or it doesn't endanger me, I could not care