[Gunnair]

GreenTiger wrote:

At the risk of sounding like a racist what is disturbing is not only that the these rapes may occur but they that they are being given a religious dispensation saying essentially that this is noble behavior.

Not as racist as some of your previous and idiotic cheerleading posts. Had the headline read it's okay for Muslim Extremists or Jihadists or whatever flavour of the day term used to describe the shit sacks that want to do this - that would be different. It wasn't and you jumped onto to the bigoted bandwagon of painting all with that big broad brush of yours.

However, the actions of a few appear to mirror the ideology of the whole in yours and in others thoughts.



So, following that course of logic, right wing Americans are racist idiots.

Do you concur?

[Psudo]

Gunnair, are you comparing the making of a possibly racist pun to a moral defense of rape?

Stop the internet, I'm getting off.

[Gunnair]

Psudo wrote:

Gunnair, are you comparing the making of a possibly racist pun to a moral defense of rape?

Stop the internet, I'm getting off.

Be an idiot on your own time.

If you buy into judging the whole based on the actions of a few, then you too can go fuck yourself.

[Psudo]

Gunnair wrote:

If you buy into judging the whole based on the actions of a few [...]

I don't. Your point about avoiding generalizations is well-founded and valid.

Your example doesn't demonstrate that point because your example exaggerates the charges against the sample individual even before extrapolating them to the entire population. The criticism on that sign is "lying." "African" is an accurate description of ancestry necessary to make the pun work and, as far as you know, nothing more. There is no such moral ambiguity from the (surely unrepresentative) Muslim sample individual.

Your response to my post demonstrates why I don't try to use humor very often; it doesn't mix with heated emotions. The pissed get more pissed, and the point gets lost.

[Gunnair]

Psudo wrote:

Gunnair wrote:

If you buy into judging the whole based on the actions of a few [...]

I don't. Your point about avoiding generalizations is well-founded and valid.

Your example doesn't demonstrate that point because your example exaggerates the charges against the sample individual even before extrapolating them to the entire population. The criticism on that sign is "lying." "African" is an accurate description of ancestry necessary to make the pun work and, as far as you know, nothing more. There is no such moral ambiguity from the (surely unrepresentative) Muslim sample individual.

Your response to my post demonstrates why I don't try to use humor very often; it doesn't mix with heated emotions. The pissed get more pissed, and the point gets lost.

Noted.

You'll take comparison to task but not others.

Yeah, my call was right.

[Unsound]

Crazy how our kooks are just an abberation, but their kooks are an accurate representation.

Fact is, imo, once you take the religious stuff out of the equation a lot of muslims simply come from from the more violent societies and geographies we have in the world. THerefore thier action and thought processes tend to be more vilent. Just as Christians from historically more violent times acted in ways that most Christians today would condem. I tend to think that the religion is just an excuse for savage people to act savagely.

[Gunnair]

Unsound wrote:

Crazy how our kooks are just an abberation, but their kooks are an accurate representation.

Really? Their kooks are as accurate a representation of segments of their society as the other kooks.

[Psudo]

Gunnair wrote:

You'll take comparison to task but not others.

I called out Bart before you. Thus, I do take others to task, even the guy who has been your nemesis in this thread. I don't denounce every stupid comment made by everyone, but I target whoever is making the biggest mistake at the time. If my behavior is some kind of double-standard, why was there no outcry from you when I treating him the same way?

Muslims are mostly good people with a sprinkling of nuts among them, just like every other group on Earth. Assuming a whole group is evil because one of their numbers is a nut is bad reasoning and prejudiced. The parallel you drew to demonstrate these truths was fundamentally flawed with or without the generalizations. "You caught me but not them," is not a defense.

[Tricks]

Why do people keep saying racist? Muslim isn't a race you clowns. Stop treating it like one.

[andyt]

Tricks wrote:

Why do people keep saying racist? Muslim isn't a race you clowns. Stop treating it like one.

Don't be dumb. Racist is now used for many sorts of bigotry not just skin color. You have a better term?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Yeah, "creedist" would be a more accurate term.

[Tricks]

andyt wrote:

Tricks wrote:

Why do people keep saying racist? Muslim isn't a race you clowns. Stop treating it like one.

Don't be dumb. Racist is now used for many sorts of bigotry not just skin color. You have a better term?

You just used it. "Bigot"

[Gunnair]

Psudo wrote:

Gunnair wrote:

You'll take comparison to task but not others.

I called out Bart before you. Thus, I do take others to task, even the guy who has been your nemesis in this thread. I don't denounce every stupid comment made by everyone, but I target whoever is making the biggest mistake at the time. If my behavior is some kind of double-standard, why was there no outcry from you when I treating him the same way?

Muslims are mostly good people with a sprinkling of nuts among them, just like every other group on Earth. Assuming a whole group is evil because one of their numbers is a nut is bad reasoning and prejudiced. The parallel you drew to demonstrate these truths was fundamentally flawed with or without the generalizations. "You caught me but not them," is not a defense.

I'm not sure why you think my comparison is wrong. Bart judges all Muslims by the actions of a few. Irrespective of the image I used (which is what you seemed to be focused on) my comparison is that all right wingers must be bad because of the actions of a few right wingers.

Clearer?

[Psudo]

andyt wrote:

Tricks wrote:

Why do people keep saying racist? Muslim isn't a race you clowns. Stop treating it like one.

Don't be dumb. Racist is now used for many sorts of bigotry not just skin color. You have a better term?

Bigotry, prejudice, discrimination, group hate, generalization, or any of the above prefixed with "religious." You could give it a sinister connotation with words like slander, libel, bashing, abuse, malice, targeting, or profiling. A thesaurus probably has more.

Also, race and skin color are not the same thing. An albino African is still African (technical term: negroid) even though he's white-skinned. (The other two anthropological races are caucasoid and mongoloid. Those are the only three that can be determined by physiological traits like bone shapes and DNA. Any "race" more specific than that is technically ethnicity and is determined by cultural factors, not physiological factors.)

Gunnair wrote:

I'm not sure why you think my comparison is wrong. Bart judges all Muslims by the actions of a few. Irrespective of the image I used (which is what you seemed to be focused on) my comparison is that all right wingers must be bad because of the actions of a few right wingers.

I already agreed that generalizations are to be avoided. But your example of a bad right-winger was badly contrived. A person with an entirely consistent standard of judging the morality of a person is still quite likely to excuse that right-winger and condemn that Muslim at the same time. Your test produces a lot of false positives when it calls those people hypocrites. That mistake matters.

[Gunnair]

Psudo wrote:

andyt wrote:

Tricks wrote:

Why do people keep saying racist? Muslim isn't a race you clowns. Stop treating it like one.

Don't be dumb. Racist is now used for many sorts of bigotry not just skin color. You have a better term?

Bigotry, prejudice, discrimination, group hate, generalization, or any of the above prefixed with "religious." You could give it a sinister connotation with words like slander, libel, bashing, abuse, malice, targeting, or profiling. A thesaurus probably has more.

Also, race and skin color are not the same thing. An albino African is still African (technical term: negroid) even though he's white-skinned. (The other two anthropological races are caucasoid and mongoloid. Those are the only three that can be determined by physiological traits like bone shapes and DNA. Any "race" more specific than that is technically ethnicity and is determined by cultural factors, not physiological factors.)

Gunnair wrote:

I'm not sure why you think my comparison is wrong. Bart judges all Muslims by the actions of a few. Irrespective of the image I used (which is what you seemed to be focused on) my comparison is that all right wingers must be bad because of the actions of a few right wingers.

I already agreed that generalizations are to be avoided. But your example of a bad right-winger was badly contrived. A person with an entirely consistent standard of judging the morality of a person is still quite likely to excuse that right-winger and condemn that Muslim at the same time. Your test produces a lot of false positives when it calls those people hypocrites. That mistake matters.

Disagree that you are seeing my point and as we seem to only be going around the buoy there seems to be little point in continuing to thrash this with you.