Fuji moved on from his statement in seeing further evidence about the Turkish fans (see the last few posts).
I do not know I can attribute much of the comparative reflection to the Turkish hooligan fans- as Fuji has noted these fans also interrupted their own Turkish moment of silence over the Ankara bombing by the DAESH.
Although I was thinking that the idea that the chant was in fact this football chant
also makes sense as of course it being of the military derivation it fits into the turkish nationalist football hooligan factions seeking to maximize offense to the Greeks.
You really are a complete idiot (although anyone who is so stupid to spew out the usual screeed about the american liberals in resposne to the hank beecher has to be a complete idiot).
Got it. So we just go look at what happened at a Greece-vs-Turkey match a few years ago when they had a moment of silence for the victims of the Paris terror attacks, and see what happened then.
Oh, wait, hold on, I think I have detected a tiny flaw in your plan.
Indeed. After some reflection, I am even coming around to the idea of welcoming the Syrian refugees into Europe. Before the Paris attacks, I was leery of the idea, but seeing as how it now appears that DAESH is doing everything it can to turn Europeans against the refugees, I have personally decided to be friendly and helpful to any refugees I might encounter (my own small town in Cork is rumored to be hosting about 200 refugees in the near-future).
I still think that Europe needs to get firm control over its borders moving forward, and be more prepared for these sorts of upheavals in the future. However, I am happy to say ‘Fuck You’ to DAESH by welcoming these poor, miserable people who have endured terrible hardships.
Rebuttal to what? Your idiotic formulations with a simple minded and false binary choice? It is not even if one can agree or not, it is your formulations are so clearly fallacious with false Either this or This that they are indeed laughable and childish.
It is not a matter of rebuttal, it is a matter of mocking you for your inflated pretensions and your stupidity.
So as said before, you’re looking for someone to defend Islam for the actions of a few fans chanting “God is great” through a minutes silence.
I’ve already pointed out previous fan chants for Celtic (supporting IRA bombings), Rangers (supporting the Bloody Sunday massacre), and let me also throw in Lazio (fascist salutes, “death to the jews” chant, “duce, duce”), Utrecht (“Send the jews to the gas chamber”), and the frankly outstanding work of CSKA Moscow (a pre-match laser show showing hasidic jews being run over by a steam train). Should I look for separate protestant and catholic apologists, along with an orthodox christian?
Scottish football fans aren’t renowned for their proficiency in Irish, yet “tiocfaidh ar la” was a staple of the Celtic Ultra’s slogans through the 90s.
I can’t find where andros had commented about the soccer match at all prior to his analogy post. And I don’t see where he changed his position “almost immediately subsequent to it”.
You can’t say “poor analogy aside” about a post which consisted entirely of an analogy. The implication of his analogy post was that he considered the Turkish fans to have been engaging in something analogous to US fans, which is highly unlikely for reasons given. The fact that another interpretation subsequently arose which has the same implications as regards to the issue of Muslim symphathies for terrorism doesn’t save that particular interpretation. (More on this below.)
I’m actually about as disinterested in semantic discussions as you can get (in contrast to many posters on this MB who spend interminable time on ever-popular threads on subjects like whether or not such-and-such sentiment qualifies as “racist”, and the like). However, any sort of discussion with anyone else involves words which may not have mutually accepted meanings, which can cause some confusion, and this may need to be threshed out.
In the case at hand, I’m not particularly wedded to any particular interpretation of the word “inherent”, but it did not initially occur to me that Kimstu was using the term “inherent to Islam” to mean that every single Muslim shares that characteristic. So I assumed she meant that Islamic teachings lend themselves to that interpretation. I suppose you can quibble with whether that fits the word “inherent” or not, but I assumed this because the alternative was an obviously false position and one which no one actually advocates AFAICT. So this lead to a bit of discussion as to what she had meant, and more importantly, what other people making the “inherent” argument might mean.
The more substantive part of that discussion had a structure that perhaps you can take a position on in a general sense.
Suppose the question at hand is “Is X true or false?”. You yourself don’t really know. You’re not an expert on the subject and there seem to be experts on both sides etc. But you’re in a discussion with someone else (who may well be no bigger an expert than you are) who insists that “X is true/false because of Y”. Now again, you personally don’t have much of a position on whether X is true or false. But you do know that the truth/falsity of X does not logically flow from Y (or that Y itself is insufficiently supported). What are your options here? Can you take a position on whether “X is true/false because of Y” without taking a position on whether X itself is true in the absolute sense? Or is that being “pedantic”?
[FWIW, the question in this case was whether Islamic teachings tend to promote violence and lend themselves to extremism, or whether current Islamic violence and extremism are solely the result of external factors, which would produce the same result in followers of other religions. My objection is to supporting the latter view by means of a false dichotomy, in structuring the argument such that the alternative view is the ridiculous notion that all Muslims are violent. But the “pedantic” issue is a more general one.]
ISTM that the mindset you have, and one which is very common, is one in which The Cause is what counts, and everything else is details that are assumed to fall in line. People take a position on a Big Issue, and from that vantage point everything else flows. They buy into every argument that tends to support The Cause, and reflexively reject every argument that tends to oppose it. And the details of why this or that argument is true or false are irrelevant, because the entire focus is on whether or not it supports The Cause. (From that perspective, whether the Turkish fans were expressing support for the Paris bombings in a hyperbolic non-literal sense, or whether they had some meaning unconnected to the support for the bombings altogether are essentially the same thing - the bottom line is that they imply that you can’t attribute it to sympathy for violence - so you toss up one interpretation or the other until something sticks and you’re there.)
And this can lead to frustration with people who don’t share that mindset. You toss out an argument that supports your ideology and someone disputes that argument. Now this guy is not looking like a True Believer, or he would be accepting this argument which supports the ideology, and what’s more he’s probably a follower of the Dark Side and accepts all arguments against the True Faith. But he’s not coming out and saying that directly. So he’s either “insincere” in refusing to overtly support his ostensible true position, or is pendantic and wasting everyone’s time with trivia.
That’s how I see it, anyway, and I don’t intend to change. Perhaps it’s not for everyone but my approach is pretty common and accepted as proper discussion approach, and mainly frustrating to people on the other side of ideological divides, for reasons given. You’ve said earlier that you intend to ignore my posts going forward, and it might be a good idea for you.
To repeat your quote with emphasis on the relevant parts:
I did not say anywhere that the chant by these fans implied that all Muslims support the bombings, and your implication that I did was strawmanning.
Fotherignay-Phipps, you really are thick-headed. This is not to say “stupid” as you are manifestly facile in your reasoning process and rigorous in its application. But you’re not grasping my point. I don’t know if that’s because you’re looking only to rebut rather than understand, or if there’s some actual cognitive issue at work. And I don’t really care.
When you say things like:
it indicates that you didn’t care to accurately assess Kimstu’s argument. Because she was most assuredly not using the term in the way you’re claiming here. (Her meaning was quite simply that the religion does not have, as an intrinsic element of its doctrine or practice, the promotion of violence among its adherents. Y’know, as implied by the use of the term “inherent to Islam.”)
When you say things like:
you demonstrate your focus on incidental syntax rather than meaning. Because you’ve again misrepresented Kimstu’s argument, which represented the alternative view accurately as the also ridiculous notion that Islam should be mistrusted by ‘Westerners’, that it teaches, promotes, or produces violence in its adherents in some way that is different from or directed at Western faiths and beliefs, that Muslims as a group or class are a danger to Christians and/or Western secularists. And if you think that’s a straw construction, I suggest you read the thread more thoroughly, starting with the OP.
And when you say things like:
you betray a sort of whinging sense of affronted privilege, as if you’re being attacked for improper assimilation into the liberal Borg. As someone who does not and has not shied away from correcting false attacks or misinformation from posters whose political or cultural opinions I enthusiastically share, I reject your insulting characterization.
I’m not singling you out because you’re bravely resisting a faulty party line or failing to show True Belief. Jackass. I’m scoffing at you because your objections are picayune and distracting and often fail to rebut or even address the actual point being made.
I’m deriding you because, clever as you may be, you perform your Logic Brigade act at the peripheries of debate, like a lancer bravely attacking the fife and drum corps. You condescend while shrinking from actual engagement.
And I’m rebuking you because your diversions are obfuscatory to the subject of argument. Your are like a damp Tiki torch, shedding no light but producing smoke and foul odor. Very useful to those who already “see” the world in a definite way and want to describe that world to everyone else, but not very helpful for those wishing to illuminate it objectively.
Well for my part, if you want to get down to that, I would say something comparable about you. So I guess it’s a tie.
You’re wrong. Kimstu was quite explicit that her definition of violence being “inherent” to Islam implied that all Muslims were violent. For example:
The guy who is frustratedly whinging is you. I’m fine the way things are. (I do object to people misrepresenting what I’ve written, but that’s more about Gary.)
Well I wasn’t exactly expecting a guilty plea here. I’m sure you see yourself that way. Most likely a lot of other people with the same mindset and same side of the ideological divide do too. My assessment is as above.
You’re missing the point entirely. FP is not talking about whether or not Kimstu believes that “Islam is inherently violent” is true or not. (Obviously Kimstu believes it not to be true.) Rather, FP is talking about what Kimstu’s definitions are. FP believes that Kimstu has picked a generally useless set of definitions, because if “Islam is inherently violent” means what Kimstu says it means, then it’s so utterly and clearly and trivially untrue that even the most comical racist wouldn’t disagree.
