What about the idea that “they” should teach “us”?
One can educate a person who has an open mind and is ready to understand and grasp other ideas. How can one educate someone who thinks his belief system is supreme and the only true system while all ideas emanating from the West are out to corrupt and destroy this perfect Islamic way of life! Though they have no qualms about using Western technology which somehow is the only acceptable Western component for them. Isn’t this hypocrisy of the highest order???
You don’t educate them, you walk around them and educate their children.
Perhaps the reason you’re having such a tricky time getting that “nobody was insulted” thing to sink in, aside from the explanations offered so far to you, is that in my original post you were reacting to I wasn’t in fact talking about this initial video at all? I was responding to Rune’s post, which I quoted and can quote here, too;
Also to a lesser extent magellan’s post afterwards, though I didn’t quote that. I would hope you’d agree that creating videos (and so on) along the same line for “education” purporses would count as being “brought to them”?
No, absolutely not. The person responsible for “bringing it to them” was the internet and an Imam. the end result was “hey we found something that was created 6000 miles away, let’s riot”. The stupid side of this equation was the anger-by-proxy. Somebody somewhere said something insulting and riots were directed to a substitute with no connection.
Please read my whole post. I was not referring to that video.
Doesn’t change my post. Just consider it an independent entry.
Alright.
So would you agree that videos or other media created along the same lines as the now-infamous one, if for the purposes of education, would count as being brought to those targeted for education? As you say, it’s not some trivial argument point.
already answered it in post 145. Expression of thought is not a delivery system unto itself.
I’m going to have to request you read my entire post again.
The point in question in my posts (and in the thread, nominally) is “education”. Creating a video or whatever, by itself, wouldn’t be pushing it on people. Creating media for the purposes of education, on the other hand, most certainly requires actually showing it to the people you intend to educate. Hence my argument with Rune; if you’re attempting to educate someone, you’re attempting to persuade them of your truths, and that (at least, to me) appears very much to require some actual, purposeful, communication aimed specifically at your target, in which insults would be a very bad method of persuasion.
So; would you agree or disagree that videos or other media created along the same lines as the now-infamous one, if for the purposes of education, would count as being brought to those targeted for education?
And I’m going to request that you absorb the idea of “consider it an independent entry”. I’ve stated my view on the idea that this video was brought to anybody. It exists and you have to come to it.
No matter how many times you repeat/restate your position my position stays the same. The internet is chock full of “education material”. It’s called “other people’s opinion”. Don’t like it and find it offensive, click on something else. It’s mere existence is not a transfer mechanism. That it was translated to make it readable is not a transfer mechanism. The video in question is being objected to because of it’s existence just as the suggestion a book would be burned was objected to.
It doesn’t matter if it’s “educational material” or a broadside of pure internet insults.
Eh, while the idea of editing the koran is no doubt misguided, the basic point he’s getting at is important. Most world religions were crap a few hundred years ago. They’ve all seen significant reform movements. There is a pressing need for Islam to reform too, because in its current form it gives rise to extremism far too easily and prompts extremism in response. Reinterpretation of the hadiths perhaps? And while that reform should be driven internally, or at least by Muslims themselves, there must be ways it can be supported.
Thoughts -
Put pressure on the Saudi financing of Salafi teaching.
Find ways of reducing madrasa based education. This is where the rioting mobs are being prepared.
I apologise - generally when people quote my post I assume it’s because they’re intending to respond specifically to me rather than just muse on the issue in general. Likewise if they quote my post in series while I do the same, I tend to assume it’s an ongoing discussion.
No, it isn’t. There’s a big difference between “other people’s opinion” and material designed specifically for the purposes of education; if you’re planning on educating people, you are planning on showing them that material at some point. That’s the key point; Rune (and this thread) was talking about actually, literally, educating the Muslim world. That requires communication with the Muslim world. It requires an active stance with regards to material such as this, not a passive one. This video is not the same as a projective education campaign, and that’s what’s being talked about in this thread and what I was talking about in my intitial post to Rune.
Let me be clear; I am not talking about however much information there is on the internet which is already just sitting there with no attempts to share it other than to put it up. I’m talking about, quite literally, attempts to educate, and attempts to educate require actually bringing the material and your arguments to whoever it is you’re trying to educate.
I didn’t say otherwise and I don’t disagree with the basic point. The proposal he actually made was ridiculous.
LOL! Did Sasha Cohen star in this film? 'Cause he should.
No, your not the least bit clear. In fact you’re backpeddling on what you already said. You said quote: “Creating media for the purposes of education, on the other hand, most certainly requires actually showing it to the people you intend to educate.”
To this I say codswallop. It doesn’t matter what the media is. Period. End of discussion. Media is not a delivery system unless you force someone to watch.
As we speak, Egypt is going to try the creator of this movie along with Pastor Terry Jones. Unless you can provide a cite that anybody forced Egyptians to watch the film then your argument is moot.
Exactly. “For the purposes of education” would be the operative part of that quote.
Why should I provide a cite for an argument I haven’t made and don’t believe? Once again, my arguments here are not about this particular video. I do not believe it was “brought to” those who are now up in arms, at least not by the creators. I don’t believe anyone was forced to watch the film in question. At no point have I claimed any of this.
What I am claiming is that media that is designed for the purposes of education should not be insulting in nature if you want it to work. I’ve repeatedly disincluded this particular video as being an example of that. I’m doing so again. It’s not what i’m talking about. The video in question is not what i’m talking about. I am not talking about that particular video. The video in question? i’m not arguing about that one. I’m talking about videos (and media in general) designed for the purposes of education; media designed to persuade or otherwise change the minds of those targeted; media, in short, that by definition it is intended to show to those who are to be educated. Which would *not *include the particular video that’s caused all this ruckus. As i’ve said.
I’m not backpeddling. I’ve said exactly the same thing all the way through this thread. It is not the argument you are apparently now holding that I have argued to. And, just as a minor quibble, you’re accusing me of both not being “the least bit clear” and also of backpeddling, which would seem to be a logically flawed argument to make.
Media, regardless of it’s intended purpose, does not educate nor can it educate. It can be used as a tool in the process of learning but that requires a willing student.
I’m sorry, but I don’t see the difference you’re drawing in your two points, there. “Used as a tool in the process of learning” sounds very much like something being used for education.
Your phrasing does allow for a good illustration of the point i’m attempting to make, though. An offensive tool is less likely to draw willing students, after all.
the operative words in your post are “draw” and “willing”. So we trade posts in what we think the point is we’re making.
Of course an offensive tool is less likely to draw willing students. But we’re not talking about willing students are we? The people to whom we would like to explain tolerance operate under the premise that their god is the god of peace and death to anybody who disagrees.