you said ‘muslims routinely kill gays’ and offered as support that homosexuality was a capital offense in some Muslim countries.
A. "some’ muslim countries does something does not support the statement “Muslims routinely do this”,
B. Even if it’s a capital offense in those countries, you should attempt to find data to support how often it happens. If in a country of 1 million people, there were 4 gays executed for the behavior (not to say that it’s ok in any way shape or form), but it would then indicate that the prosecution of gays for their sexual behavior was a low priority and again did not support your thesis that ‘muslims routinely kills gays’.
SO. The fact that "some’ coutnries do this does not at all support it, and even if in THOSE countries it happens, you’d need to establish the relative frequency of it, sinc eyou used the word ‘routine’.
I agree with what you say here, but as long as people allow themselves to be provoked by neo-nazis, I think their point is valid, and tragically, their civility gives them the moral high ground. Really, neo-nazis are far more disadvantaged than any of the people they would like to get rid of.
But you’re right, if they were in power, their tolerance would go out the window.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, december, it is not constructive to go on like this. You make one blanket statement after the other of a most offensive nature. When opposed you wiggle and twist, argue back and forth and restate your un-cited and unfounded arguments in what I saddle enough believe you think would be perceive as a less offensive manner. Wring has already argued the non sequitor of this your statement re the ‘routine killing’ of homosexuals.
Your perception of the Muslim religion and the states where named religion would be predominant seems like based on a propaganda leaflet written by Ariel Sharon’s somewhat less talented brother. You now narrow it down to the Middle East. Thereby we are no longer talking about the ‘Muslim’ countries - an expression you constantly bandy around as if it would make sense even if post after post has indicated to you that saying ‘Muslim countries’ makes no sense out of a cultural perspective.
Disregardful, let’s examine this a little;
That there is intolerance by the establishment against homosexuals in some Middle Eastern countries and one North African is a sad fact. It is also a sad fact that in some gay communities in the US there is well founded fear of ‘gay bashing’, since it’s a frequent sport indulged in by homophobic jocks from the Alpha Kappa Whatever frat at the local college. While deplorable, this does not give base for stating that ‘routine killings’ occur in neither the Middle East nor the US.
A brief search at google and on various Arab gay community sites gave me no indication whatsoever of any mass-killings of Homosexuals. I didn’t even find one instance of capital punishment being exercised for homosexuality. I found a few, but not many references to jails sentences. Again deplorable, but still no grounds for your stand on ‘routine killings’.
I think you and many others are judging the legal status of homosexuals in forenamed regions from the events in 2001 were 50 gay men were arrested in a raid on the nightclub barge ‘The Queen’ on the Nile and brought to trial under Egypt’s antiquated buggery laws. It led to outrage through the Arab and World Gay Community as well as fed some nasty events very similar to gay bashing in the US, as well as brought to highlight injustices and intolerance against homosexuals in Egypt Note to decenber Egypt is one, (1) country and only a country, hence not representative of the world religion Islam. As far as I know this case is still being tried.
And yes you read me right. The Arab gay community. They are alive and they are troubled by things like above, but they are alive and kicking. They date, they go out and dance in gay clubs, they write gay literature and they publish web sites and live in perpetual fear of the social condemnation intolerant portions of society passes on their sexual preferences all over the world.
Last but not least. Homosexuality is an inherent part of the Arabic cultural heritage, ‘One Thousand Nights and a Night’, read ‘The Secret Garden’. In my travels in North Africa and the near East I have met many openly gay and bisexual people. In my travels in America I have met many openly homophobic gay haters. It is deplorable that the American people have such an intolerant view of homosexuality. :rolleyes:
Don’t skim the thread, read it. I already listed what I think was less than great about him there. For the lazy reader I might add that I do not condone the killing of Fortuyn, I vehemently condemn it.
did you just subtly accuse me of anti-Semitism or admit anti-Europeanism?
If that is your cite, please post it in IMHO. As far as I have understood we can hold you to a higher standard of factual proof in Great Debates. IMHO you’ve gone fishing. There is much to say about this topic. I for one will not say that Europe is free of radical and reactionary assholes like anti-Semites and anti-Muslims. Especially not these days of Le Penism and what-not. I still oppose your blanket statement and I take offense personally at it. IOW can I have a cite please.
Whoa, watch it there! Let’s not get carried away, shall we. I understand your personal indignation here and the fear and outrage you sense, as you have clarified elsewhere. But hey, lets have some balance. I take it that you were typing a little fast and angry and forgot what you were saying. Either restate it or leave it be as you like, but Europe (I take it we mean the EU) and the UN has never condoned mass murder (‘much of Asia’ can’t make political statements what with that it’s an imprecise part of a continent). Don’t you dare go accusing me and my elected representatives of soliciting murder ever again!
Eh? Moral paradoxes and mathematics don’t mix very well. Read my first post again. I’ll get back to it, but the green, a white ball and sunny weather awaits me presently.
While sparc leaves the pavilion to a gentle smattering of applause, I’d just like to pick up on one point decembermade in the OP.
Crap.
Supporting the right to self-determination, and other human rights, of one civilian population does not imply that you do not support exactly the same for another civilian population. I like to think I am a tolerant European. I support the rights of the Palestinian people. I support the rights of the Israeli people. I condemn Palestinian terrorism. I condemn the Israeli government’s illegal occupation of lands and military action agains civilians.
And I, like kimtsu, “do so largely because we believe it will make things better for Israel and encourage peace and prosperity for all the people in the region”.
Of all the witless, blinkered, nonsensical assertions I have seen in GD over the past few months, this must rank in the top five.
A minor side note concerning the OP: Do any of us know each other’s age, sex, physical handicap, or religious or sexual preference, with the possible exception of Exprix? IF we knew, would we care?
We are not quibbling. We are demanding just a bit of precision (and maybe some forethought) when laying out a point in Great Debates. We are distinguishing between the toleration of a person and the toleration of an act. The fact that you have repeatedly confused extending toleration to a human with tolerating any and all actions has clouded whatever point you thought you were making.
Nothing in my post, for example, indicated that my tolerance was extended only to racists who harbored “bad” thoughts while not acting on them. I tolerate the person*; I do not tolerate the action. (And I have never seen anyone who preached “Teach Tolerance” express that thought in any way other than to tolerate the person.)
*Even a racist who makes exhibits their racism is free to work with me, dine in the same restaurants as I do, attend the same town or PTO meetings as I do, shop in the same stores as I do, or engage in any other normal part of life without fear that I will shun that person, harrass that person, or attempt to have the person removed from public (or private) places.
If that person engages in biased behavior in my presence, I will counter that behavior with my own; if that person engages in illegal behavior, I will take what steps I can to prevent them or to point them out to law enforcement.
It is not quibbling to distinguish between the actor and the action; it muddies the discussion when you choose to equate them. I would say that there is quite a bit of obscurity throughout this thread.
You miss one very important point in my post, december.
I am tolerant of the rights of all people, including those with whom I disagree, to live their life unmolestedly and without improper discrimination against them on account of their beliefs and rightful actions. (I’ll define “rightful actions” in a bit.)
I am absolutely intolerant of the self-arrogated right of any person to impose his views on anyone else, regardless of whether I agree with them.
I make a clear distinction between thoughts and rightful actions on the one hand, and violence, compulsion, or coercive action on the other.
“Rightful action” as I see it here is the generic category of activities that do not interfere with or impede in any way the equivalent rights of another person.
Tolerance as I understand it requires that I defend the first and combat the second of my two major categories – for the sake of all people’s right to believe and act as they see fit, in each case.
You have the right to think that all Democrats sacrifice goats to the devil and engage in pedophilic homosexual orgies, if you so choose, to construct an extremist example. And I as a Democrat have the obligation to defend that right. But if you therefore demand the arrest and incarceration of all Democrats on the basis of your belief, then I must combat that view.
To raise the stakes, take the “moral pedophile” – I once ran into a “newsgroup” (to which I refuse to post a link on the basis of board policy and my own sense of taste as well, and I think it’s been shut down anyway) which circulated pictures of naked prepubescent boys. But the men participating were explicit in being mutually supportive of each other as men who (1) were sexually aroused by such pictures and (2) were adamantly opposed to anyone actually molesting such children, for the physical and psychological harm it would do to them.
Were they evil? Or just warped individuals exercising a right I would have to defend? And on what grounds do you make that judgment?
On posting, I see Tom~ has made the point I wanted to make with much more clarity than I did, and just want to associate myself with everything he said.
Several posters have raised many thought-provoking points, which I intend to mull over and respond to when I have more time. For now:
When you say, they have “not condoned” the attacks, you mean they have not approved of or excused the attacks, which is certainly true. OTOH…
From dictionary.com
*con·done
To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure. *
Palestinians have committed a number of massacres of Israeli civilians in the last 2 years. The UN has “disregarded an offense without protest or censure.” By this definition, their actions (or, I should say, lack of actions) have indeed condoned the murders.
wring, the GA resolution passed 74 to 4 criticized Israel for not allowing the Jenin inspection. They rejected including any mention the massacre of Israelis that had taken place that very day (or the day before.) That’s a pretty clear position on the part of the UN. :mad:
jjimmm You are entitled to hold these views, but you’re kidding yourself when you describe your POV as “tolerant” rather than “Pro-Palestinian.” This can be demonstrated by the way you phrase some of your points. E.g.
[ol][]It’s not clear that any of Israel’s occupation is “illegal.” []The “civilians” that Israel was conducting military action against had been bombing Israeli civilians. To condemn Israel’s response, while ignoring the provocation and without suggesting a better alternative demonstrates your POV. [/ol] Have to run. More detail later.
The conflation of criticism of criticism of Sharon’s tactics --which have failed before and will fail again-- and being ‘pro-Palestinian’ in the sense of ‘anti-Israel’ is an ugly little maneuver which I think few here deserve. I few do deserve it, but…
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by december * jjimmm You are entitled to hold these views, but you’re kidding yourself when you describe your POV as “tolerant” rather than “Pro-Palestinian.” This can be demonstrated by the way you phrase some of your points. E.g.
[ol][li]It’s not clear that any of Israel’s occupation is “illegal.” [*]The “civilians” that Israel was conducting military action against had been bombing Israeli civilians. To condemn Israel’s response, while ignoring the provocation and without suggesting a better alternative demonstrates your POV. [/ol] Have to run. More detail later. [/li][/QUOTE]
Yes, december. The Palestinian militants also place civilians in quotes.
Part of the problem is once one enters into this logic, there is no easy way out. Read about Algeria, 1952-1962.
**As you might guess, I do not care for Frank Rich’s political columns. To my taste, Rich is a very talented drama critic. Why he chooses to write partisan, hack political columns is a mystery to me.
One should never look for balance or accuracy in a Rich political column. Oh, his facts are likely to have some basis, but he will blow up and distort a few facts that support his thesis.
Out of Wolfowitz’s speech, * only one* comment was booed by only some of the attendees, mainly because they considered it to be out of place at that occassion. It’s just silly to use a few catcalls as evidence of anything.
The case of the Jewish couple who were harassed because their son was ostentatiously helping the murderers of Israeli Jews also signifies nothing. What culture wouldn’t react to such a provocation?
IMHO there is no easy way out, regardless of what one’s logic is. This battle has been raging for 54 years, and I see no settlement on the horizon. That’s not a pleasant POV, but it’s probably reality.
Ultimately one side may well win, and the other will lose. I’m on Israel’s side, and I frankly admit it.
Back to the OP – one cannot be tolerant in a vacuum. If one opposes certain Israeli actions, and if they are essential to Israel’s survival, then opposing those actions means opposing Israel’s survival. My judgment is that Israel could not allow the continuing murder of their citizens without a military response. Otherwise they never would have ended.
Oh, I rather thought you had a distinct taste for partisan hack political columns.
Well, it is always interesting to see a defense of death-threats.
Of course the fellow in question has a rather different analysis and typically here in the states we don’t consider death threats an acceptable reaction to otherwise peacable acts, however discussable.
One might equally wonder about the calls by some organizations to boycott Cannes over supposed French anti-semitism.
No, I think that Rich, and Chris Patten have it right. Some people are mistaking a critical eye towards Likoud’s policies and Sharon’s pattern of failure is being thrown into the basket of anti-semitism as part of an agitprop maneouver by Sharon. It is wrong and harmful in the long run. Critics may very well be wrong in the final analysis, but that does not make them either anti-Semitic or anti-Israeli, ipso facto.
Well december, the second part of the clause is the part which is under discussion.
A large number of critical commentators believe that Sharon’s policies are harmful in the long run and are not essential to Israel’s survival.
Quite true. That is not, however, the same as agreeing with Sharon’s particular methodology which has bizarrely attacked the PA --which at least admits the validity of Israel’s existence (noting some elements may be questionable on that) while largely leaving Hamas alone. Hamas, which Sharonista policy help give birth to, in a bid to sponsor some element to fight the PLO.
Unintended consequences, dear December.
As a recent commentator put it, Sharon has the mind of a battalion commander not a statesman.
OK, I have finally done so. I see where you wrote:
Pim Furtuyn’s successor to lead his party is Joao Varela, a Black from Cape Verde. Apparantly Furtuyn was an insideously sneaky kind of racist – the kind that supports Blacks and immigrants.
I recommend Mark Steyn’s witty column on this topic. (However, Fortuyn-haters, please do not read this article, as it will piss you off.)
Nonsense. A position of total apathy will make one tolerant in all areas, without being against any others.
I’m getting a flashback to John Ashcroft’s (stupid) statement about how “criticism of this [Bush] administration is the same as supporting the terrorists.” :rolleyes:
Look december, I’m tired of this pussyfooting around. Say what you really want to say: according to you, for Israel to live, all Arabs must die. We got the point already; move on.
did you just subtly accuse me of anti-Semitism or admit anti-Europeanism?