Hate E-mails With Richard Dawkins
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-09-2013, 07:35 PM
Hate E-mails With Richard Dawkins
Let the love in......




"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver's post
02-09-2013, 07:51 PM
RE: Hate E-mails With Richard Dawkins
I prefer the more detailed and reasoned out pieces on why Dawkins, at times, is an ignorant lunatic: http://freethoughtblogs.com/godlessness/2013/08/06/31/ Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2013, 07:51 PM
RE: Hate E-mails With Richard Dawkins
God is love.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2013, 07:54 PM
RE: Hate E-mails With Richard Dawkins
(02-09-2013 07:51 PM)PoolBoyG Wrote:  I prefer the more detailed and reasoned out pieces on why Dawkins, at times, is an ignorant lunatic: http://freethoughtblogs.com/godlessness/2013/08/06/31/ Drinking Beverage

He may well be biased; he may well be bigoted; Islam is not a race, and therefore prejudice against its adherents is not and cannot be racism.

A sloppy disingenuous and inflammatory title is not a great way to begin a conversation.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2013, 08:18 PM
RE: Hate E-mails With Richard Dawkins
(02-09-2013 07:54 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(02-09-2013 07:51 PM)PoolBoyG Wrote:  I prefer the more detailed and reasoned out pieces on why Dawkins, at times, is an ignorant lunatic: http://freethoughtblogs.com/godlessness/2013/08/06/31/ Drinking Beverage

He may well be biased; he may well be bigoted; Islam is not a race, and therefore prejudice against its adherents is not and cannot be racism.

A sloppy disingenuous and inflammatory title is not a great way to begin a conversation.

I'd actually say Dawkins is dead on in what he says about Islam. Islamophobia is a boogie word used to scare liberals from criticising a fascist repressive backwards religion that hold too much sway in too much of the world.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
03-09-2013, 06:51 AM
RE: Hate E-mails With Richard Dawkins
(02-09-2013 07:54 PM)cjlr Wrote:  He may well be biased; he may well be bigoted; Islam is not a race, and therefore prejudice against its adherents is not and cannot be racism.

Well, yes and no. Technically, there are no races at all, so to carry out your etymological fallacy, racism itself is a physical impossibility. On the other hand, a significant and representative portion of the worldwide Islamic population is of a particular ethnic group concentrated in a particular region of the world, and most of that ethnic group in that region belongs to that Islamic population. The vast majority of Dawkins' criticisms are not aimed at global Islam, but at the conventions and practices of Arab Muslims in Arab countries. As with the designation "Jew," in any given utterance there can be a great deal of semantic ambiguity about whether "Muslim" is being used to refer to a religion apart from an ethnic group, or a religion qua an ethnic group. To pretend that the word can never refer to race is just ignorant. Dawkins is trying to exploit that semantic ambiguity by appealing to an etymological fallacy. Defending it is either disingenuous or naive.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2013, 07:51 AM
RE: Hate E-mails With Richard Dawkins
(03-09-2013 06:51 AM)maklelan Wrote:  Well, yes and no. Technically, there are no races at all, so to carry out your etymological fallacy, racism itself is a physical impossibility.

Yes

And no. Because in order to have racial prejudices one must have an interalised conception of race; highly unlikely to have any correlation with any statistically significant genetic variation among human populations, but that is immaterial. Prejudice against said (constructed) identity is then racism.

Prejudice for some other reason is not racism.

It doesn't just mean 'prejudiced'. It doesn't even mean 'prejudiced against a group of people'. It means 'prejudice against a group of people due to racial criteria'; be they scientifically valid distinctions or not (they're not).

Broadening the definition by fiat and accusing people of it inappropriately cheapens the word and cheapens the accusation. The accusations are used at best as a cheap shot with a loaded word; at worst as an absolute dismissal.

(03-09-2013 06:51 AM)maklelan Wrote:  On the other hand, a significant and representative portion of the worldwide Islamic population is of a particular ethnic group concentrated in a particular region of the world, and most of that ethnic group in that region belongs to that Islamic population.

Arabs are a small minority of Muslims. You want to argue visibility, or even influence, that's fine. But a different matter.

(03-09-2013 06:51 AM)maklelan Wrote:  The vast majority of Dawkins' criticisms are not aimed at global Islam, but at the conventions and practices of Arab Muslims in Arab countries.

Are they, now? It would seem to me he complains most about literalists and fundamentalists. As to the overlap of that group with Arabs as opposed to other Muslims I make no claim.

(03-09-2013 06:51 AM)maklelan Wrote:  As with the designation "Jew," in any given utterance there can be a great deal of semantic ambiguity about whether "Muslim" is being used to refer to a religion apart from an ethnic group, or a religion qua an ethnic group. To pretend that the word can never refer to race is just ignorant. Dawkins is trying to exploit that semantic ambiguity by appealing to an etymological fallacy.

Dawkins hasn't anything to do with it. He hasn't called himself a racist. He is sometimes overly broad. Yes. Sure. So what? He also does so re: Christians and the religious in general; nobody goes around crying "lol racism" at that. "Don't be an asshole" is legitimate criticism.

He isn't "exploiting semantic ambiguity" unless you're asserting that his audience is (also?) conflating Islamic with Arab, and he not only knows it but is relying on it. Is that your view?

(03-09-2013 06:51 AM)maklelan Wrote:  Defending it is either disingenuous or naive.

No, it's countering a ludicrous assertion often spouted by otherwise reasonable people.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
03-09-2013, 08:04 AM
RE: Hate E-mails With Richard Dawkins
(02-09-2013 07:51 PM)PoolBoyG Wrote:  I prefer the more detailed and reasoned out pieces on why Dawkins, at times, is an ignorant lunatic: http://freethoughtblogs.com/godlessness/2013/08/06/31/ Drinking Beverage

That piece was trash. Or are you being ironic? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2013, 08:19 AM
RE: Hate E-mails With Richard Dawkins
This is awesome! He could make millions reading the e-mails of Internet morons in that upper-crust accent of his! It's just too funny! Tee hee
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2013, 08:45 AM
RE: Hate E-mails With Richard Dawkins
(03-09-2013 07:51 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Yes

And no. Because in order to have racial prejudices one must have an interalised conception of race;

And what does the word "interalised" mean? If you mean "internalised," then are you suggesting there are people who have no "internalised conception of race"? Tell me, who out there is completely oblivious to the physical differences that characterize traditional racial categories?

(03-09-2013 07:51 AM)cjlr Wrote:  highly unlikely to have any correlation with any statistically significant genetic variation among human populations, but that is immaterial. Prejudice against said (constructed) identity is then racism.

Not according to modern sociologists. Racism is a discriminatory social practice that attempts to legitimize the domination of certain ethnic groups. The most common form of racism is European discrimination against non-European peoples, or precisely the activity in which Dawkins engages. It doesn't matter if it's embedded within a broader criticism.

(03-09-2013 07:51 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Prejudice for some other reason is not racism.

It doesn't just mean 'prejudiced'. It doesn't even mean 'prejudiced against a group of people'. It means 'prejudice against a group of people due to racial criteria'; be they scientifically valid distinctions or not (they're not).

Broadening the definition by fiat and accusing people of it inappropriately cheapens the word and cheapens the accusation. The accusations are used at best as a cheap shot with a loaded word; at worst as an absolute dismissal.

The fact that groups of people are discriminated against and in some cases even killed for looking like Muslims is proof positive that Islamaphobia is racism. Try to wriggle around the semantics all you want, but you're sophomoric attempts to argue your way out of this only further betray your naivety.

(03-09-2013 06:51 AM)maklelan Wrote:  On the other hand, a significant and representative portion of the worldwide Islamic population is of a particular ethnic group concentrated in a particular region of the world, and most of that ethnic group in that region belongs to that Islamic population.

Arabs are a small minority of Muslims.[/quote]

20% is not a small minority.

(03-09-2013 06:51 AM)maklelan Wrote:  You want to argue visibility, or even influence, that's fine. But a different matter.

What do you think "significant" and "representative" mean?

(03-09-2013 06:51 AM)maklelan Wrote:  Are they, now? It would seem to me he complains most about literalists and fundamentalists. As to the overlap of that group with Arabs as opposed to other Muslims I make no claim.

Dawkins hasn't anything to do with it. He hasn't called himself a racist. He is sometimes overly broad. Yes. Sure. So what? He also does so re: Christians and the religious in general; nobody goes around crying "lol racism" at that. "Don't be an asshole" is legitimate criticism.

I have read few stories about people murdering random white people because they look Christian. Have you ever seen how frequently Sikhs get stopped at US border crossings because border patrol officers think they look Muslim?

(03-09-2013 06:51 AM)maklelan Wrote:  He isn't "exploiting semantic ambiguity" unless you're asserting that his audience is (also?) conflating Islamic with Arab, and he not only knows it but is relying on it. Is that your view?

Absolutely. Are you denying the fact that many, many people throughout the Western world conflate "Muslim" and "Arab"?

(03-09-2013 06:51 AM)maklelan Wrote:  No, it's countering a ludicrous assertion often spouted by otherwise reasonable people.

I disagree emphatically.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: