0
   

Small-minded Intolerance

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 01:36 pm
Brandon 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).


Then, on the same page . . .

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.


To which, in response . . .

Brandon9000 wrote:
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.


I repeat . . . hypocrit . . .
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 02:24 pm
I was not, as you succinctly put it, attempting to address your argument.

Not because that argument has/does not have merit; but becuase you may want to have a look around at your own party if Small-minded Intolerance is the kind of thing that pisses you off.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 02:28 pm
Setanta wrote:
Brandon 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).


Then, on the same page . . .

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.


To which, in response . . .

Brandon9000 wrote:
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.


I repeat . . . hypocrit . . .

Well, it's at least plausible (although false) to argue that I am a hypocrite for criticizing only some cases of intolerance and not every case that occurs on Earth. However, your use of my criticism of candidone1 to call me a hypocrite is illogical. I have never in any post on this board alleged that insulting people is wrong. I have only alleged that it isn't a substitute for an argument. Therefore, to juxtapose a post in which I state this with a post in which I insult some liberals, and use that as a basis for calling me a hypocrite is merely stupid.

What's really sad, though, is that in a thread about an egregious case of "first amendment" type violations, something one would hope would be abhorrent to every American, you show little or no interest in the abuse itself, and, indeed, try to excuse it:

Setanta wrote:

...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...

So now you've fallen to the status of an apologist for religious persecution.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 02:37 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Well, it's at least plausible (although false) to argue that I am a hypocrite for criticizing only some cases of intolerance and not every case that occurs on Earth.


Strawman--i made no such contention.

Quote:
However, your use of my criticism of candidone1 to call me a hypocrite is illogical.


I didn't refer to your criticism of Candidone, i referred to your snotty remark about "modern liberals."

Quote:
I have never in any post on this board alleged that insulting people is wrong.


This is a non sequitur to the subject of your hypocricy.

Quote:
I have only alleged that it isn't a substitute for an argument.


This is a non sequitur to the subject of your hypocricy.

Quote:
Therefore, to juxtapose a post in which I state this with a post in which I insult some liberals, and use that as a basis for calling me a hypocrite is merely stupid.


That is not what i did--i pointed out that you had, in your own terms, insulted some liberals on the basis of their putative political stance, while you criticize Cycloptichorn for having referred to you in exactly the same manner. Cycloptichorn has by now already pointed out that his remark was not made in any attempt at a refutation of your putative "argument."

Quote:
What's really sad, though, is that in a thread about an egregious case of "first amendment" type violations, something one would hope would be abhorrent to every American, you show little or no interest in the abuse itself, and, indeed, try to excuse it.


What's really sad is that you consistently ignore that the basis of my argument, and of the one which AU advanced, is that this is a matter of little significance. I passed no judgment on the "morality" of the position of the Persian government--i leave specious and sanctimonious moralizing to you and your confreres--i have simply made some pragmatic observations on the nature of theocratic governments and the likely prospects for success of prohibitive measures.

We all know of your fondness for attempting to claim that all criticism must necessarily conform to your definition of the terms of debate of an issue, and that all criticism necessarily constitutes a personal slight, and is therefore invalid. That don't make it so . . .
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 02:45 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Setanta wrote:

...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...


So now you've fallen to the status of an apologist for religious persecution.


Now, to deal separately with your specious contention in this matter: It is not apologetics to make an appropriate observation on the nature of theocracy. Theocracy by its very nature seeks to regulate the behavior of its citizens in accordance to the creed to which the theocrats adhere. In the terms of theocrats, that is reasonable.

I have not made a moral judgment on this matter--i find such exercises silly, because they have no ultimate effect on the situation. The only "moral" judgments that matter here are those of the theorcrats, and those of the people affected by this prohibition. What you think of the morality of the measure is supremely irrelevant.

Your rhetorical idiocies here consist of the use of the tendentious verb form "fallen"--an obvious attempt to inferentially insult; your use of the term "apologist" as a pejorative description, another obvious attempt to inferentially insult; your idiotic attempt to now contend that a prohibition on western music equates with religious persecution. Do you assert that Kenny G and J-Lo constitute sacraments of a religious minority now being persecuted in Iran? What lunacy.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Dec, 2005 12:16 am
Brandon9000 wrote:

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.


I'd be interested to hear your perspective on inalienable rights of all persons, constitutionally protected and ensured freedoms vis a vis the Patriot Act....or anything else the Bush administration has done to side-step what has previously been regarded as integral components of Americanism.
0 Replies
 
Mortkat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Dec, 2005 02:22 am
Yes, Candidone1, it is important to protect the rights of people in a well run society. But then why doesn't Canada do it? How can Canadians dare to snipe at the US for the installation of the "dreaded" Patriot Act when in British Columbia, the government has set up a program though which all pederasts will be followed and have their activities monitored.

Before you excoriate Brandon, address the dreadful violation of the rights of Canadians.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Dec, 2005 08:46 am
I wasn't aware that we were here discussing Canada.
Thgis is typical...and it echos the discussions re: Abu Ghraib.
"The US has acted disgracefully, but not as bad as Saddam."

...and I'm hardly excoriating Brandon. I simply asked for his perspective.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Dec, 2005 08:52 am
Mortkat wrote:
Yes, Candidone1, it is important to protect the rights of people in a well run society. But then why doesn't Canada do it? How can Canadians dare to snipe at the US for the installation of the "dreaded" Patriot Act when in British Columbia, the government has set up a program though which all pederasts will be followed and have their activities monitored.

Before you excoriate Brandon, address the dreadful violation of the rights of Canadians.


There are legal means employed in first detecting the criminal, and second in retaining the rights to monitor the movement and activities of said offender.
These are hardly analogous cases and it surprises me that you'd make such a comparison. You are speaking about the legislation that permits surveillance of convicted sex criminals in a province of ~4 million people to an entire nation of 300 million.
BC's laws recognize the legitimacy of the legal system and Mr. Campbell hasn't sought the powers to side-step what he wishes to disregard in his hunt for absolute power.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Dec, 2005 08:56 am
New Democrats--they must be behind this horrendous travesty . . . why, they're no better than Commies . . .

(For the irony-challenged at this site, that's sarcasm; for the politically clueless at this site, the NDP--New Democratic Party--is the left-wing party in Canada, not the Liberals, who fall somewhat to the right of center.)
0 Replies
 
Mortkat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Dec, 2005 12:54 pm
I am heartened to see that you defend the harrassment of pederasts in British Columbia. I do not recognize the allusion to the "illegitmacy of the legal system" and "sidestepping the laws".

And please, provide evidence to SHOW, BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT, that anyone considers the legal system illegitimate or that anyone is REALLY "sidestepping the law"

(Comments by Howard Dean are, of course, inadmissable)
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Dec, 2005 03:53 pm
Mortkat wrote:

I am heartened to see that you defend the harrassment of pederasts in British Columbia.


Back up cowboy.
Direct me to the portion of my contribution that states that I "defend the harassment of pederasts in BC."
I'd be curious to see how you've internally manipulated or tailored my response to cohere with what you wanted me to say.
....or is this one of those "you're either with us or you're with the terro...."
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Dec, 2005 08:50 pm
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.


Proportion?
Brandon is getting all bent out of shape over Iranians not being allowed to listen to American style music.
Aren't there bigger fish to fry than to gripe over what music is allowed in Iran?
How many times has an musician been taken to task by the FCC?
Eminem....Sarah Jones....?
Where was Brandon's condemnation of censorship in these cases?

nimh wrote:
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.)


Sure.
And what objections did you bring forth when certain styles of jeans, shirts and underwear were being legislated against in schools?
There is a distinct and convenient double standard being applied here and you fail to see the similarities between censorship in Iran and censorship in America.

nimh wrote:
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.


This has nothing to do with "caring for the Iranians". It's a philosophical issue regarding cultural values and mores.
Don't claim to be taking the moral high road on an issue where neither your cherished administration or freedom loving country can itself say it guarantees.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Dec, 2005 11:42 pm
candidone1 wrote:
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.


Proportion?
Brandon is getting all bent out of shape over Iranians not being allowed to listen to American style music.
Aren't there bigger fish to fry than to gripe over what music is allowed in Iran?
How many times has an musician been taken to task by the FCC?
Eminem....Sarah Jones....?
Where was Brandon's condemnation of censorship in these cases?

nimh wrote:
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.)


Sure.
And what objections did you bring forth when certain styles of jeans, shirts and underwear were being legislated against in schools?
There is a distinct and convenient double standard being applied here and you fail to see the similarities between censorship in Iran and censorship in America.

nimh wrote:
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.


This has nothing to do with "caring for the Iranians". It's a philosophical issue regarding cultural values and mores.
Don't claim to be taking the moral high road on an issue where neither your cherished administration or freedom loving country can itself say it guarantees.


Boy do you have it wrong.

Nimh is not an American and he certainly doesn't cherish the Bush administration.

How can you say your argument has anything to do with philosophy, or cultural values and mores?

Your ad hominem argument is that Brandon is a hypocrite, probably because he is an American; most likely because he can be described as a conservative. It's clear you despise both or why else would you be so quick, in your pique, to sneeringly insinuate that nimh is also both?

The banning of western music in Iran is not an issue of cultural values, it is an issue of political power. If the ban extended only to popular Western music that contains crude sexual references and obscene language, I might agree that cultural values were in play, but as I understand the ban, it is of all Western music.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Dec, 2005 12:44 am
That is my mistake.
I certainly don't live on A2K long enough to know fully where each individial lives, their gender and their political affiliations.
I made an incorrect assumption about nimh and I apologize for that.
My use of language in that portion of the thread was a sweeping "you" and should have been more specific.

However, my statement that Brandon was getting "bent out of shape" hardly constitutes an ad hominem argument. It's a statement analogous to saying that "Brandon and I disagree", or, that "Brandon has taken the emotional position "x", to which I disagree". I'm hardly dodging facts and opinions whilst launching a fully fledged character assault on him.
That my friend is your mistake.
Although I disagree with Brandon, I have great respect for his opinions.
An underlying assumption that one's views on censorship are perceived as contradictory strike to the heart of the debate. One must hold a consistent and universal opinion on censorship, one that does not wane with international borders.
I simply stated that there are instances in the US where artists have been censored, and asked where he would have stood with respect to the freedoms of those artists and their fans.

It seems that you have lept prematurely to defend a perfectly capable man, but I await Brandon's response, and hope that my apologies to nimh are regarded as sincere.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Dec, 2005 01:05 am
candidone1 wrote:
That is my mistake.
I certainly don't live on A2K long enough to know fully where each individial lives, their gender and their political affiliations.

But you are a seasoned member as am I. I don't live on A2K either (more's the pity because if I did it would mean that I was independently wealthy or retired) but I've certainly been seasoned enough to recognize your avatar and your general tilt as well as nimh's (a virtual icon of A2K). In any case you've apologized graciously and I really couldn't care less whether nimh got in a snit becuase of your characterization of him. I'm far more interested in your use of the characterization as a reflexive counter-attack.

I made an incorrect assumption about nimh and I apologize for that.
My use of language in that portion of the thread was a sweeping "you" and should have been more specific.

However, my statement that Brandon was getting "bent out of shape" hardly constitutes an ad hominem argument. It's a statement analogous to saying that "Brandon and I disagree", or, that "Brandon has taken the emotional position "x", to which I disagree". I'm hardly dodging facts and opinions whilst launching a fully fledged character assault on him.
That my friend is your mistake.
Although I disagree with Brandon, I have great respect for his opinions.
An underlying assumption that one's views on censorship are perceived as contradictory strike to the heart of the debate. One must hold a consistent and universal opinion on censorship, one that does not wane with international borders.
I simply stated that there are instances in the US where artists have been censored, and asked where he would have stood with respect to the freedoms of those artists and their fans.

OK, I'm not going to challenge your veracity, but I don't think interpreting "Where was Brandon's condemnation of censorship in these cases?" as an accusation of hypocrisy is so blatant a mistake.

It seems that you have lept prematurely to defend a perfectly capable man, but I await Brandon's response, and hope that my apologies to nimh are regarded as sincere.

I wasn't defending Brandon (prematurely or otherwise) as he needs no help from me, I was challanging your argument, and still do:

[quote="you"]It's a philosophical issue regarding cultural values and mores.



I wrote:
"The banning of western music in Iran is not an issue of cultural values, it is an issue of political power."[/color]

[/quote]
0 Replies
 
Mortkat
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Dec, 2005 01:18 am
I find it extremely interesting that people who appear to know little about the US and its political system who have probably never been in the USA, resort to unalloyed sniping while their own country is going down the tubes.

I don't mind a conversation about problems in the USA( God knows we have a few) but I am very concerned when someone like Blatham, a self described Canadian, writes post after post after post without ever making any positive comments about the US government.

I pointed out the problem of the governmental supervision of pederasts in British Columbia.

I also have commented on the FALL of the Canadian government due to corruption.

I have also pointed out the pollution caused by the chemical plants which have caused havoc among the birth rates of the Chippewas in Canada.

I know there are many great things going on in Canada but I will not reference them as long as Canadian posters insist on belaboring one sided Anti-US propaganda.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Dec, 2005 01:30 am
Mortkat wrote:
I find it extremely interesting that people who appear to know little about the US and its political system who have probably never been in the USA, resort to unalloyed sniping while their own country is going down the tubes.

I don't mind a conversation about problems in the USA( God knows we have a few) but I am very concerned when someone like Blatham, a self described Canadian, writes post after post after post without ever making any positive comments about the US government.

I pointed out the problem of the governmental supervision of pederasts in British Columbia.

I also have commented on the FALL of the Canadian government due to corruption.

I have also pointed out the pollution caused by the chemical plants which have caused havoc among the birth rates of the Chippewas in Canada.

I know there are many great things going on in Canada but I will not reference them as long as Canadian posters insist on belaboring one sided Anti-US propaganda.


America is a big target, particularly to the citizens of a country that defines itself not by what it is, but how it is not like America.

Let's face it Mort, if we lived in a country where our individual votes were meaningless in terms of world affairs because our country wasn't even a minor player, we might get pissed off that we had no say what-so-ever over the governments elected in the worlds one superpower.

If Canada ruled the waves and the skies and the ground, and the whims of Gordon Furtrapper in Northern Saskatchewan had a greater impact on the world that the considered opinions of hundred of Americans combined, I might have a hard-on for Canada.

It's understandable.

I don't blame them.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Dec, 2005 01:34 am
So what's your point?
You've initiated conversations about Canadian politics.
Whoopee.
This thread is not about the sponsorship scandal, a Canadian sex offenders registry, the gun registry, gay marriage as it pertains to Canadian residents, Prosperity cheques, separitism vs federalism, or the minority Canadian liberal minority government.
You want a treat for bring these issues up or are you just trying to say that your Dad can beat up my Dad?

Has it occurred to you that perhaps in the eyes of the international community there are more far reaching effects regarding what Bush does with his foreign and domestic policies that will have more influence on their country than anything their government can or will do presently or in the future?

...and what of the pederast issue in BC. YUou hardly made a statement by initiating that into the conversation? There wasn't even a remote comparison between BC's laws and the various sections of the PA.
Bravo for bringing it up, but it was barey worth your time and energy.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Dec, 2005 01:45 am
candidone1 wrote:
So what's your point?
You've initiated conversations about Canadian politics.
Whoopee.
This thread is not about the sponsorship scandal, a Canadian sex offenders registry, the gun registry, gay marriage as it pertains to Canadian residents, Prosperity cheques, separitism vs federalism, or the minority Canadian liberal minority government.
You want a treat for bring these issues up or are you just trying to say that your Dad can beat up my Dad?

Has it occurred to you that perhaps in the eyes of the international community there are more far reaching effects regarding what Bush does with his foreign and domestic policies that will have more influence on their country than anything their government can or will do presently or in the future?

...and what of the pederast issue in BC. YUou hardly made a statement by initiating that into the conversation? There wasn't even a remote comparison between BC's laws and the various sections of the PA.
Bravo for bringing it up, but it was barey worth your time and energy.


This is a response to Mort or me? Try using the "quote" function. It helps with clarity.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/06/2022 at 07:51:32