Small-minded Intolerance

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).

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 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.

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 . . .

...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...

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.