I apologize. Perhaps “peculiar” would be better?
Trying a new tack, I see. How about a HT for xeno?
Pretty sure Gary doesn’t need to borrow language from me, here or in any thread. If we both call a chirping bird “noisy” it doesn’t necessarily mean one of us is copying the other. It just means we’re both accurate.
Or both your knees jerk in the same way.
Regards,
Shodan
Don’t know if that works for Gary.
His first reaction was to go with the “insincere” line, until xeno suggested a possibly better approach.
Because “insincere” is a pretty valid inference when your line of argument is almost entirely void of relevance to the issue under discussion.
I chose to see your approach as oblivious pedantry instead, but Gary Kumquat is not wrong to infer an element of insincerity as well, for were you truly interested in the question of import (of the chanting incident and of the OP’s titular concern), you could’ve easily discussed that rather than what you chose to discuss: whether various analogies demonstrated your preferred aspect of the fact that what fans shout at sporting matches has limited applicability outside of that immediate context, or some other aspect of the fact that what fans shout at sporting matches has limited applicability outside of that context.
Not until you were persuaded to address the question directly were we able to move the point along, and then we were able to deal with the issue rather expeditiously.
Actually, my first response was to give some other examples as you’d tried to discount Andros’ ones.
My second response, when you pretended this was out of context, was to point out the actual chain of responses that established the context of the topic.
My third reaction was to accuse you of disingenuity when you tried to claim that honestly you weren’t trying to imply anything about Islam.
And then forth reaction was to accuse you of pedantry when you tried to restrict the scope of the issue to one where you could try to ignore all nuance. I was going to go with sophistry, but technically that requires an argument is good as well as deceptive, and fuck knows you’re a long way off the former.
HTH.
Yes, I was. As I also previously stated, I have my own personal interpretation of the incident, but I wanted to see if a defensive apologist for Islam could provide a convincing refutation of mine. They did not, in my estimation.
<sigh> No, I do not, for reasons I already laid out previously.
Those are both possibilities, but I think unlikely.
:dubious: And what, pray tell, is this “obvious option” of which you speak? Even if it is “obvious” to you, how is that an indicator of veracity?
You seem to have a pattern of offering up poorly constructed parallels and counter-examples, which are subsequently refuted, and then you move on to the next shabby construction without acknowledging your error.
Yet again, you present another illustration of this feeble mentality. I did in fact read the entrirety of my cite, and quite reasonably, I did not see an analogous situation in the Irish case, where a single fan attempted a disruption, was silenced, and subsequently assaulted by his own supporters later that evening in his hotel.
Are you for real? Perhaps because the phrase in question is in Arabic, and most people in Turkey, and the world as a whole, for that matter, do not speak Arabic.
An attentive reading of my posts here would have already illuminated for you my likely position, but since I am apparently dealing with a gibbering cretin, I’ll make it clear for you:
“I think that there is a fair likelihood that those Turkish fans who chanted the takbir at the Greek football match were expressing support for the terrorist attacks in Paris.”
Thing is it was directly relevant to the specific post it quoted.
My feeling is if a guy choses to make a specific point in a thread, then that point is open for discussion. Your approach seems to be that an invalid specific point is OK as long as it’s in service of a valid larger cause, such that no one can attack any specific point without being assumed to have taken a position on the larger issue. Otherwise it’s “almost entirely devoid of relevance”. I disagree.
I’m not sure how widely shared your viewpoint is - or even how consistently you yourself adhere to it. ISTM that if people didn’t accept the underlying logic that broader arguments can rest on a lot of smaller more specific ones, then they wouldn’t make those specific arguments. The reason they make these arguments is because they cumulatively add up to the bigger conclusion. To make specific arguments and then retreat to “I’m right about the big picture” when challenged on them is inconsistent.
Bit of a complex run-on sentence here, and I’m not going to spend too much effort on it. But ISTM that the core point remains. I was interested in the specific argument that I was addressing. It’s weird to decide that someone is “truly interested” in some other argument than the one they addressed, and then criticize them as “insincere” for failing to directly address that that other argument.
Most Catholics don’t speak Latin either, but are nonetheless familiar with several phrases that reflect their liturgy, for instance, “pater noster”. Were you groping towards a point with this?
And the last time you heard the crowd chanting in Latin at a T-Wolves game was?..
Actually your first response was to pretend I’d said something I hadn’t said (that all Muslims were violent or terrorists). I gave you a bit of the benefit of the doubt at the time in supposing that you may have misconstrued the exchange and conflated two issues. But it’s also possible that you were just strawmanning a position you didn’t like. Some people do that.
Your point eludes me. Did you make some stipulation about sporting events? No? Well, then, what, exactly?
I’ve stated my point several times now. Here, just for you, I will repost what I just said to Gary a few minutes ago:
“I think that there is a fair likelihood that those Turkish fans who chanted the takbir at the Greek football match were expressing support for the terrorist attacks in Paris.”
Now - what exactly is your point? :dubious:
The problem is, you weren’t addressing the smaller, specific argument, you were nitpicking a narrow semantic aspect of the smaller, specific argument. It was never about the distinction you drew between “should we interpret the chanting literally or hyperbolically?” and “should we interpret the chanting as part of a broader sentiment?”. It was about the hasty generalization and complex question fallacies inherent respectively in a) the induction of broadly shared sentiment outside the special context, and b) the assumption of ideological unity within the subset of chanting participants within that special context.
These are completely dependent on each other and can’t be separated. Because once you accept that there is a logical distinction between “should we interpret the chanting literally or hyperbolically?” and “should we interpret the chanting as part of a broader sentiment?” then it’s logically possible to address the first of these without addressing the second. And if someone else responds by pretending that a logical argument directed at the first was actually directed at the second, and faults the logical argument for failing to prove the second, then that second person is attempting to score a rhetorical point by distorting the argument (whether deliberately or not).
Again, if you feel that “should we interpret the chanting literally or hyperbolically?” is a completely moot point because the bigger picture points are “a) the induction of broadly shared sentiment outside the special context, and b) the assumption of ideological unity within the subset of chanting participants within that special context”, then that’s something you need to take up with andros, who made an argument that was specifically about the former issue. But once that argument is out there, then it’s proper to address it on its own.
That’s generous. I thought I was just being snarky.
I’m having trouble parsing this sentence based on the rest of the paragraph, where you demonstrate that the two aspects can be considered independently and separately. Perhaps you’re referring to something else when you say “these”?
Succinctly, bullshit.
When those “someone[s]” were only making the broader rebuttal that “no, Turkish football fans chanting doesn’t say anything about Muslims or even Turks in general” then your fine distinction was quite correctly faulted for being a picayune diversion. In other words, who cares which logical overreach you’re trying to support; you’re wrong either way. The incident cannot be used to support the OP’s thesis (distrust all Muslims) or other similar theses, however comparatively tepid, because (I repeat myself) what sports fans say or shout or chant at sports events has limited applicability outside of that context.
“These” refers to 1) the “distinction” that you say in your first sentence “it was never about”, and 2) the “hasty generalization” that you say in your second sentence “it was about”. These can’t be separated (for our purposes). What can be considered separately are the two quoted aspects in your first sentence.
If someone feels that something is a picayune diversion, then the proper response would be to assert that it’s a picayune diversion (though, again, in this case the supposed “picayune diversion” was a response to a point made by someone else). What’s not proper is to pretend that it was intended to address something else and attack it for failing to do so.
Ah so JAQing…
Speaking the Arabic or not is of zero relevance. It is the most common phrase one can hear in Islam, every call to the prayer (X5) every day, every daily prayer either begins or ends with this phrase (and indeed in the prayer it is itself repeated many times). It takes no special knowledge of the Arabic or any knowledge of the Arabic. Every muslim, even the non-practicing hears it constantly.
It is not even like “the Latin” of some kind esotoric latin of a catholic prayer it is like the phrase “Jesus Christ” that the Christians say constantly in all kinds of circumstances.
going on about what percentage of the Turks speak the arabic or even know it is utterly stupid and nonsensical, like trying to analyze the use of the Jesus Christ by making a great deal of the knowledge of the Latin or the Greek… it takes active stupidity.
I think there is zero chance that those Turkish fans (and this is in Istanbul the heart of the aggressively secularist population of the Turkey - but also the most nastily nationalist extremists) were supporting the attacks in Paris particularly as the DAESH is widely detested and the France has no bad reputation among the Turkish, and a very large chance that they wanted to fuck with their traditional enemies, the Greeks, by chanting in a way that would be as highly offensive as possible.