Small-minded Intolerance

Setanta wrote:

The process as it pragmatically exists might be described as unfair . . . however, he referred to the rules, not the pragmatic process . . . this is a member who consistently sneers at others on the matter of the quality of their proofs, Habibi . . . and sauce for the goose makes sauce for the gander . . .

I know that I've seen on the news that the Iranian Constitution gives the clerics a veto power on whether candidates qualify. Do you assert that this is false?

0 Replies

I linked the Iranian Constitution, Brandon--if you claim that is true, look it up in the online English verision i provided for you and point it out.

You saw it on the news . . . wonderful . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I linked the Iranian Constitution, Brandon--if you claim that is true, look it up in the online English verision i provided for you and point it out.

You saw it on the news . . . wonderful . . .

Yes, I saw it on the news a few times. I will only look it up if you assert that it is false. If you do not assert that it is false, you have no reasonable basis for asking me to run it down. It isn't reasonable for you to run along behind me asking me to do formal citations for my claims of public domain information, which you secretly know are perfectly correct.

Furthermore, it's a minor aspect of this discussion at best, because even were the Iranian election system fair, the majority would still not have the moral right to censor art on the basis of inconsistency with the state religion. I would have hoped that your position on this issue would have been based on philosophical support for freedom of expression, but I see that that is not your orientation.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Yes, I saw it on the news a few times. I will only look it up if you assert that it is false. If you do not assert that it is false, you have no reasonable basis for asking me to run it down. It isn't reasonable for you to run along behind me asking me to do formal citations for my claims of public domain information, which you secretly know are perfectly correct.

You have absolutely no basis to assert anything about what i "secretly" know. You make a claim, and then refuse to support it. That is a measure of the validity of your argument.

Quote:

Furthermore, it's a minor aspect of this discussion at best, because even were the Iranian election system fair, the majority would still not have the moral right to censor art on the basis of inconsistency with the state religion. I would have hoped that your position on this issue would have been based on philosophical support for freedom of expression, but I see that that is not your orientation.

You have no idea what my "orientation" is, because i have not spelled that out. For the record, "to orient" means to find east. I don't have any problem finding east, either on a map, nor in the physical world . . .

Answers dot com wrote:

v., -ent·ed, -ent·ing, -ents. (ôr'ē-ĕnt', ōr'-)

v.tr.

1. To locate or place in a particular relation to the points of the compass: orient the swimming pool north and south.
2.
a. To locate or position so as to face the east.

It seems you have some awfully silly notions about how social contracts function. If one lives in a society with an established religion, nothing could be more reasonable than that the established religion would prohibit that which the authorities of the established religion find inimical to their creed. If, in fact, the prohibition on "western" music is sufficiently unpalatable to the population at large, they will ignore it. If the measures taken to enforce such a prohibition prove sufficiently onerous to the population at large, they will rise up and change their form of government. Unless and until that happens, neither your opinion, nor my opinion, on the "morality" of such matters mean sqat.

0 Replies

I'm trying to figure out if the defense and/or rationalization, expressed in this thread, of artistic censorship in Iran is due to the fact that the country in question is an antagonist of the US, or that the originator of the thread is generally perceived to be an A2K conservative?

Somehow I doubt such a laisse-faire attitude would greet the banning of Arab art forms in the US or the UK.

It is clear to anyone who is reasonably informed that despite the fact that elections were held in Iran, it is not a democratic nation. As for having a constitution that ostensibly promotes democracy, so what? It's meaningless unless the power structure of the country subjects itself to the authority of the constitution, and, again, clearly it does not.

Frankly, I'm somewhat glad that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected to the presidency of Iran.

These sorts of ham fisted efforts to govern the culture of his country is likely to strengthen the pro-Western forces in Iran.

At the same time his outrageous comments about Jews and Israel are making it difficult for countries who wish to ignore the sins of Iran in favor of benefiting from their energy reserves. Political correctness does have its value after all.

I am afraid though that it's too much to hope that he will go on denying the Holocaust, and calling for the eradication of Israel, but then who knows. Despite the fact that Saddam, apparently, did not have WMDs he continued to defy the UN and act as if he did, and see what that brought him.

0 Replies

Brandon, the wills of the minority seem to be given primacy over the wills of the majority in the US, let alone Iran. Bush continues to demonstrate defiance when he implements unconstitutional practices and vows to not bend with the poll numbers.

...and I find it equally odd that you can not see the relationship between the censorship of art by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Christian fundamentalist tendancies and preferences of the Bush administration to be imposed on other religions in America and secular America.
That you see an intrinsic value in the arts for Iranians does not entail that there is similar support by Iranians or the administration. Your precious Shrub would surely defy the wills of the American people if he personally found something unpalattable, or if it compromised the values of his base.
Cultural relativism is surely a thesis you understand....or do you think all Arab's should support their girls running around with half tops and thongs halfway up their backs?

Different strokes for different folks.
I think there are far larger problems in Iran than their prohibition on American music.
I just think you're pissed because you find any brand of anti-Americanism so offensive and intolerable because it's never justified.

0 Replies

Lord Ellpus wrote:

Unavoidable is more the word I would use, especially with GWB and his mobsters.

Anti west/american is nothing new. In France for instance, every planned McDonalds restaurant is vehemently opposed.
The Iranian people voted him in, knowing full well what he stood for. They voted him in BECAUSE he holds such views. He is now behaving in the way that MOST of the Iranian voters WANTED him to behave.

What don't you understand? Their way is THEIR way. Who are you to say it is wrong? Their strict religeous code does not even enter the road towards liberalism in any walk of life. But it appears to be what they WANT.
......and voted him in fairly and democratically.

A democratically elected leader, who swept into office with a very clear manifesto, now keeps to his word and puts these things into law.

I may not LIKE what he is doing, but....hey...he didn't come into power by force, has not changed his stance one iota and is now putting his manifesto into action.

Who am I to say he is wrong?

There are different cultures throughout the world, Brandon. Maybe they all don't want to drink Coke and walk around with pierced belly buttons.
What you SHOULD be worried about, is how GWB has opened up the Pandora's box that is Iraq.
Now....Iraq and Iran as strong allies in the not so far future.
That IS worrying!

Brandon has a pierced belly button? The horror..oh the horror....

0 Replies

i'm simply going to comment on the Iranian ban of "Western music". if that includes Jazz, and i don't mean Kenny G, either, Art Blakey, aka Abdullah Ibn Buhaina, must be turning over in his grave; his celebrated band, the Jazz Messengers, was named in honor of Mohammed. then there's the great pianist McCoy Tyner, aka Sulaimon Saud, who wrote the wonderful ballad "Aisha," after Mohammed's young wife known as the "mother of the faithful." some other jazz muslim notables i'm familiar with are Yusef Lateef, Rashied Ali, Ahmad Jamal, Jamaaladeen Tacuma, Idris Muhammad, Dollar Brand (Abdullah Ibrahim), James Blood Ulmer (Damu Mustafa Abdul Musawwir), Larry Young (Khalid Yasin), Kenny Clarke (Liaquat Ali Salaam), and Jackie McClean (Omar Ahmed Abdul Kariem).

so maybe Art Blakey isn't in Paradise, in which case i look forward to hearing him play that Western music in the afterlife.

source: http://www16.brinkster.com/fitzgera/muslim.htm

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

...and I find it equally odd that you can not see the relationship between the censorship of art by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Christian fundamentalist tendancies and preferences of the Bush administration to be imposed on other religions in America and secular America.

Oh come on, that is just way out there. Keep a sense of proportion folks.

candidone1 wrote:

Cultural relativism is surely a thesis you understand....or do you think all Arab's should support their girls running around with half tops and thongs halfway up their backs?

I think it's more a question of Iranian youngsters (who are not Arabs, btw), especially the burgeoning middle-class youth, wanting to listen to Western pop music and dress more Westernly, etc - and an oppressive, conservative-religious ruling establishment clamping down on it. (Both out of religious dogmatism and because it considers any deviation from the prescribed norms a challenge to its own authority.)

candidone1 wrote:

I just think you're pissed because you find any brand of anti-Americanism so offensive and intolerable because it's never justified.

And I think you're just knee-jerking here: if someone somewhere does something that appears to piss off Bushites, it must be OK, and has to be defended against the Bushites' complaints. Well, not. Perhaps if you cared more about the Iranians and less about scoring points against your domestic opponents, you would have more of a sense of relativity yourself.

0 Replies

My deceased grandmother (fondly remembered as granny) had a little story which comes to my mind in issues like this.

There was a girl who was walking in the woods, she saw a snake and the snake convinced her to pick him up and play with him. The snake then bit her and the girl got mad at the snake for biting her. The snake looked at the girl and said, "Why are you mad at me for, you knew I was a snake when you picked me up?"

I realize it's a homely little story and I couldn't remember her exact wording, she said it much better; but that was the essence of the story.

My point in case it is not clear is that in America we are supposed to be free and diverse in everything and when our government acts contrary to that, of course we are going to get upset when it happens more than when other countries that have always been not so free act no so free.

The Bush administration is so contradictory in itself. On the one hand they think they can force other countries to be free democracies either by the point of the gun or just arrogance which does more to turn those countries off than anything else and on the other hand they are like the other side of the coin of extremist Muslims/Arabs which defeats the cause of trying to democratize (word?) other countries.

We would do better to lead by the example we would wish others to follow.

Of course this is just my opinion and how I see it (whatever it's worth.)

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

Brandon, the wills of the minority seem to be given primacy over the wills of the majority in the US, let alone Iran. Bush continues to demonstrate defiance when he implements unconstitutional practices and vows to not bend with the poll numbers.

...and I find it equally odd that you can not see the relationship between the censorship of art by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Christian fundamentalist tendancies and preferences of the Bush administration to be imposed on other religions in America and secular America.
That you see an intrinsic value in the arts for Iranians does not entail that there is similar support by Iranians or the administration. Your precious Shrub would surely defy the wills of the American people if he personally found something unpalattable, or if it compromised the values of his base.
Cultural relativism is surely a thesis you understand....or do you think all Arab's should support their girls running around with half tops and thongs halfway up their backs?

Different strokes for different folks.
I think there are far larger problems in Iran than their prohibition on American music.
I just think you're pissed because you find any brand of anti-Americanism so offensive and intolerable because it's never justified.

I think that banning of art by any government, or the banning of any expression of ideas, or any political thought is abhorrent, except possibly forms that advocate immediate violence. The right to what we would here in the US call first amendment freedoms, is an inherent and inalienable right of all persons, and not just some feature of our culture.

Folks, we see here in just what low regard many modern liberals actually hold the right to diversity of thought (unless it's Bush who's bannning something, of course).

0 Replies

For some damned reason, i am not being allowed to view this last page. If Brandon has responded to my post, and i am ever able to view his response, i will heap ridicule on his opinion at that time. For now, i cannot . . .

If he is not responding to my post, but to some other, i reserve judgment on the matter of ridicule . . .

0 Replies

How dare they ban our music
I think that Bush must invade Iran and teach them the value of rap and gospel music.

Brandon is this realy of any import in the scheme of things?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

candidone1 wrote:
...and I find it equally odd that you can not see the relationship between the censorship of art by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Christian fundamentalist tendancies and preferences of the Bush administration to be imposed on other religions in America and secular America.

Oh come on, that is just way out there. Keep a sense of proportion folks.

candidone1 wrote:
Cultural relativism is surely a thesis you understand....or do you think all Arab's should support their girls running around with half tops and thongs halfway up their backs?

I think it's more a question of Iranian youngsters (who are not Arabs, btw), especially the burgeoning middle-class youth, wanting to listen to Western pop music and dress more Westernly, etc - and an oppressive, conservative-religious ruling establishment clamping down on it. (Both out of religious dogmatism and because it considers any deviation from the prescribed norms a challenge to its own authority.)

candidone1 wrote:
I just think you're pissed because you find any brand of anti-Americanism so offensive and intolerable because it's never justified.

And I think you're just knee-jerking here: if someone somewhere does something that appears to piss off Bushites, it must be OK, and has to be defended against the Bushites' complaints. Well, not. Perhaps if you cared more about the Iranians and less about scoring points against your domestic opponents, you would have more of a sense of relativity yourself.

Well said nimh.

Gosh you're a reasonable fellow when you agree with me.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Brandon is this realy of any import in the scheme of things?

That's the crux of the biscuit here . . . the relevance. If the Imams and Mullahs think to prevent Persians from hearing western music, they'll be faced with radio stations in Afghanistan, Azerbaijan and Iraq which will not be under their control. Measures to prevent people from hearing the music which are sufficiently invasive will have the effect of undermining their social control project. Prohibitions usually do not produce the desired ends, and are often counterproductive--people will be attracted to the "forbidden fruit," especially the young.

Brandon's arguments all attempt to project onto the Persian situation the values of the nation of which he is a part. While i agree that the principles in operation here are preferrable, i recognize that a pragmatic assessment of the situation in Iran makes such ranting about "unablienable rights" meaningless.

This is tempest in a teapot stuff, unless and until it sparks outright violent rebellion.

0 Replies

I find it amazing that Brandon keeps his mouth shut about pretty much every instance of small-minded intolerance from the Right wing here in America, but feels the need to post about the small-minded intolerance of Right-wing Iran.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

How dare they ban our music
I think that Bush must invade Iran and teach them the value of rap and gospel music.

Brandon is this realy of any import in the scheme of things?

Yes, not because it's something Western that is being banned, but because violations of basic civil liberties are wrong, and may not validly be voted into existence (I feel), even if the presidential election system in Iran were fair, which it is not. This is no different from our government banning all music from Islamic nations. The will of the majority should generally prevail, but not in cases where the majority wills the imposition of tyranny. Your lack of comprehension of the importance of freedom of thought and expression is very disappointing.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I find it amazing that Brandon keeps his mouth shut about pretty much every instance of small-minded intolerance from the Right wing here in America, but feels the need to post about the small-minded intolerance of Right-wing Iran.

Cycloptichorn

My personal merits or demerits have no bearing on the correctness or incorrectness of arguments I advance, although attempting to impeach my behavior is certainly easier than just addressing the issue I raise.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

My personal merits or demerits have no bearing on the correctness or incorrectness of arguments I advance, although attempting to impeach my behavior is certainly easier than just addressing the issue I raise.

AND

Brandon9000 earlier wrote:

Folks, we see here in just what low regard many modern liberals actually hold the right to diversity of thought (unless it's Bush who's bannning something, of course).

Hypocrit . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
My personal merits or demerits have no bearing on the correctness or incorrectness of arguments I advance, although attempting to impeach my behavior is certainly easier than just addressing the issue I raise.

AND

Brandon9000 earlier wrote:
Folks, we see here in just what low regard many modern liberals actually hold the right to diversity of thought (unless it's Bush who's bannning something, of course).

Hypocrit . . .

False. I am not attempting to negate candidone1's argument based on the fact that she appears to have little respect for civil liberties. I am merely noting that after finishing my argument. There is nothing wrong at all with trying to impeach someone's behavior. I only maintain that it is no basis for negating his/her argument.

0 Replies

Small-minded Intolerance

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know