Do not personalize your arguments in this fashion. Saying that someone can’t make logical connections or can’t understand is straddling the line on insults and I went back and forth on which side it should fall. I’ll give the benefit of the doubt here and advise you to avoid forcing this evaluation in the future.
[/moderating]
It’s also really hard to argue that someone who could make a statement that broad-brushed and so incredibly wrong has a basic grip on reality.
If you think this is another version of the conservative dog whistling they are so fond of then yeah. We agree.
Conservatives (rarely) outright say they hate blacks or Mexicans or homosexuals or scientists and whatnot. They merely act in every way as if they do while piously claiming they are not bigots because they never actually said they dislike any of those groups.
The only people it fools is, maybe, themselves.
I’m confused, and I’m genuinely trying to understand your argument here. When did “conservative dog whistling” enter the picture? Here’s the sequence AFAIUI:
See, you lost me there on that last one.
I am saying that while no one outright verbally says that ignorance is a virtue conservatives nonetheless embrace ignorance as a virtue and I gave examples. This is akin to them saying they are not bigots while embracing bigoted policies flimsily cloaked as something else (aka dog whistle).
At the present point in our society? No, not really.
As regards to your historic examples: yes to slavery, the civil rights issues and the Holocaust, but no on Vietnam.
My point is there’s not much going on nowadays in the first world that, IMO, warrants actual anger over.
So what if it is?
I agree with this (with a #NotAllConservatives caveat). I wonder if HurricaneDitka can put this fact ahead of his ideology?
For those wanting proof of the point in the OP:
Pew: Most Republicans View Higher Education as Bad for America
I’m not a theological fan of Islam (or of Ghazali’s line of argument in either a Christian or Islamic context), and I know very little about Islamic history, but do you have any evidence for this claime? From the little I can glean, Al-Ghazali was neither crazy nor particularly traditionalist, the argument between Ghazali and his opponents was very similar to the theological arguments going on the Catholic Europe at the time, and Ghazali explicitly exempted science, mathematics, technology etc. from his criticisms of Hellenic philosophy.
My vague impression is that a lot of Ghazali’s ideas were similar to William of Ockham, and while I think Ockham’s ideas are terrible, he didn’t retard the development of science in the west, quite contrary (on the contrary, internet athiests love to cite Ockham’s Razor as the grounding of all serious philosophical and scientific inquirey).