I’m afraid I don’t understand your point. It’s your claim that, sentence 2 and 3 in combinationare your actual claim? It’s likewise perfectly possible to be seperating one group into two and yet be prejudiced towards that whole group, or either of the subset groups. You can be a Muslim, you can be attempting to seperate out radical Islam and non-radical Islam, and yet be an Islamophobe.
I’m not claiming that your objection itself could not be accurate; it could well be, for all I know. I’m claiming your rationale doesn’t work.
And I didn’t choose to ignore it. I don’t have any way of proving that, of course, but a little bit of benefit of the doubt would be nice. Have I given you reason to think that I would argue dishonestly?
Nope. So I haven’t expressed an opinion on its content.
I don’t really disagree with the criticism of the OP, which is why my response started with “True”. But there comes a point where you either write the guy off as an ass and go on to a thread of interest or just watch the video. Especially since as the thread grows one gets a taste of what the video is about. This petulant “no, I’m not going to watch the video until you tell me what’s in it or what you think of it” gets old quick.
I don’t think that’s right. Unless, I guess, if someone is some strange breed of person who is afraid of himself. But then we’re talking about some whackjob, not someone who we’d consider normal. So, the normal situation should get the benefit of the doubt, no?
Here is a test: Make believe I hadn’t typed sentence #3, would you still have offered the same observation?
The key is in the idea of the exception. You get people who are prejudiced in some fashion against some group - but they have genuine friends among that group. Sometimes, the rationale is that they are the “exception”; for the most part, those people are like that, but there can be some who are “the good kind”. Prejudice doesn’t have to be a blanket expression, after all, just an expression larger than is warranted. In a similar way, even if you are of a particular group, you can be prejudiced towards it, by seeing yourself as an exception to the general rule. A Muslim might believe him or herself to be a fine, upstanding member of society, but that other Muslims are in general a considerably more significant threat than is warranted. You don’t need to be a nutjob to think that way; i’d guess, probably, that most of us consider ourselves different from the general opinion of the groups we’re in, though it might well not rise to the level of prejudice.
Yes, i’d say so. I don’t think sentence 3 alters the problem I had with your argument; it pretty much just falls to that same problem.
Here is where the problem lies, I think. I watched the video, and my perceptions were no doubt colored by what I gleaned from having watched it. I was unprepared that someone would attempt to take my very quick explanation—that was intended for this specific case, and the particular person who made it—and confuse it with a universal proof ready to be translated into symbolic logic.
Perhaps if you had viewed the video presented in Post #1 we wouldn’t have this misunderstanding. But since nothing requires that you do so, perhaps I should have taken the time to craft a universal proof after all. I’ll take that into consideration for future exchanges.
Well, if you would have typed the same thing with or without the third sentence, perhaps you to not give the additional sentence the weight it deserved.
I don’t think considering it to be a universal proof was all that big of a leap, to be honest. Even if I had watched the video, i’m pretty sure i’d still bring up the same complaint, because your rationales weren’t phrased within that context. And, depending on the video (which i’ll now have to watch, so I suppose at least one thing’s been accomplished ;)), i’m not so sure that explanation works within that context, either.
I don’t think your third sentence deserved any additional weight. I think my objections applied pretty equally to both points. In all honesty i’m really not sure why you accused me of ignoring sentence 3 in particular; I think I covered it to the extent I covered sentence 2, in that I generally covered both.
I’ve tried to watch it three fucking times, and all I get is ads for doggy dentures and toothbrushes.
Clearly it’s about the evil dentist jihad on cavities. So as magellan01 has taught me, I’m being wary (whatever being “wary” actually means).
Until my toothbrush proves it’s not a danger to me, it’s staying locked in the basement lest it conspire with the other toiletries to build a I[del]E[/del]OHD. <Prolly the last time my teeth will look this good.
CMC fnord!
April is the cruellest month …
~T[del]om[/del] S[del]cud[/del] Eliot
I watched about half of it. Reminded me of how Fundamentalist Christians act without anyone batting an eye. How many times have I seen even mainstream Christians ask on my FB wall, “Would you die for someone else’s sins?” or “Would you die for Jesus?” For the longest time that girl who supposedly “said yes” at that high school (Columbine?) Fundamentalist Christians LOVE martyrs. I don’t see it as any different from the Fundamentalist Muslims. I’m not referring specifically to the terrorists, just the ones I’ve encountered in the real world who DO want the US to be taken over by Islam, with Sharia. There were some guys at the day labor spot talking to my SO and some of his friends about Islam. They are out there and I know they are, but they don’t scare me any more than the guys I went to school with who would dearly LOVE to take down a few Muslims for Jesus.
I’m sorry I didn’t finish your video, OP. I just felt like I was being manipulated. It’s not that surprising; I feel that way often when I’m watching these videos. Like Zeitgeist or some of the Bible Code people. It’s the nature of the skeptic.
magellan01, I didn’t watch the video because right now, the sound isn’t working on my computer. And I’m not wasting thirty minutes watching a video without sound. So enough with this bullshit. The OP is being a, well, a Rick Troll, if you will.
I still haven’t seen a reasonable explanation for why “reasoned and informed explication” of a link’s contents, is such a big thing to some of you. Anyone would think it was all about the poster, and that the subject matter was a side issue.
Okay, I get that sometimes you’d like a feel where a poster is coming from, but can’t you spend 5 minutes just taking in the opening content of a link, to see if it worthy of discussion?
And just so you know, I’m not buying this “You can’t have a worthwhile discussion in the Pit’” malarkey. We are meant to be adults, it’s not compulsory to be insulting in here, even though it probably should be.
I did spend 5 minutes watching it. Like I said before, it began by showing pictures of the kids from the Beslan massacre and describing the attackers as Muslim, without mentioning Chechnya. It continued in the same vein, so I stopped. Does it end up making a reasonable point?
Sounds like raving paranoia. Even if ALL Muslims in America were fanatics and determined to impose radical Islam on the country, they don’t begin to have the power to do so.
Ah, yes-Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, darling of the far right wing and leader of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, the Muslim equivalent Jews For Jesus.
<Prolly the last time my teeth will look this good. 
