The Forum > Article Comments > Useful Idiots > Comments
Useful Idiots : Comments
By Richard Stokes, published 3/2/2016Appeasers are once again protecting Islam, presumably on the assumption that because it is a monotheistic religion it is somehow equivalent to Christianity, and telling us that we can dialogue with 'moderate' Muslims.
- Pages:
- ‹
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Page 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- ›
- All
Posted by LEGO, Monday, 8 February 2016 3:18:57 AM
| |
It’s easy for you to say, LEGO.
<<I think it is just wonderful that you have spat the dummy out, and that you are reacting angrily to my posts.>> You’re not the one dealing with continuous lies and slander. <<You are even resorting to straight out abuse…>> How do you figure that I need to “resort” to anything given that not one of your arguments has held? <<…and that from a person who has preached to ttbn and others about how unacceptable it is to make personal attacks, or to bully.>> The solution is simple. Don’t lie then. <<AJ, you can't stereotype groups of people that you don't like and prejudge them, and then say that you are not stereotyping and prejudging them, because "intelligent" people "understand in what situations it is appropriate to do so.">> I couldn’t agree more. It is never appropriate to do so. And suggesting that I have ever said that is alright in some circumstances is a lie. <<Or say that your prejudgments are not prejudgments, because your negative opinions about entire groups of people are simply "judgements" that are "are based upon reason and experience.">> If a judgment is based on reason or experience the it is, by definition, not prejudice. Prejudice: Preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/prejudice) <<If you attack me for stereotyping and prejudging, all I have to do is come out with the same silly excuses that you have come out with. I can say I am intelligent, and I know when it is appropriate to do it.>> No, because it’s never alright, no matter how intelligent one is. Is that a second lie, or does it still count as the first one? <<Or I can say that my prejudgements are not prejudgements, they are just judgements.>> If they are based on experience and/or reason, then it wouldn’t be prejudice in the first place. <<The problem with making moral principles that you insist everybody must abide by, AJ, is that you are supposed to live up to them yourself.>> Correct. Continued… Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 8 February 2016 9:57:46 AM
| |
…Continued
<<Not "rationalise" why you may transgress, and then scream that that your opponents are all idiots, and that they may not.>> Absolutely. It's good to see that we agree on some things. Now this is where you post get’s juicy… <<You have now stereotyped and prejudged Christian fundamentalists…>> It should come as no surprise that you cannot point to where I have done this. <<…Creationists…> Nor this. <<…criminal profilers…>> "No, I stated a fact about the success rate of their professional activities. I said nothing about them personally, but the technique they’re required to use." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318288) <<…every religion and religious person in the world…>> “Even those whose religious beliefs present a seemingly non-existent threat are still an indirect threat to reason in that they act as enablers for those who hold the wackier beliefs and rely on the billions of their fellow travellers for the legitimacy of those beliefs.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17995#319943) That’s not an oversimplification. <<…and "vile people who think like ttbn."…>> It was actually runner I was talking about. And yes, people who vilify homosexuals in the way that runner does are vile people in the same way that he is for doing that. That’s not an oversimplification. So there you have it. Five lies in one simple paragraph, coming to a grand total of seven (or eight) lies in one post. And still not a stereotype to be found. Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 8 February 2016 9:57:51 AM
| |
I've ploughed through the quagmire of assaults on the English language in this thread to set out the UK response to those who seek to use its hate speech legislation to muzzle challenges to appeasement:
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 inserted Section 4A into the Public Order Act 1986. That part prohibits anyone from causing alarm or distress. Section 4A states: (1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress. Under the Public Order Act of 1986, a person guilty of breaching the law against intimidatory hate speech is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both. The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 amended the Public Order Act 1986 by adding Part 3A. That Part says, "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred." HOWEVER this Part protects freedom of expression by stating in Section 29J: "Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system." A worthwhile template to strip the muzzle from laws in Australia. Posted by EmperorJulian, Tuesday, 9 February 2016 2:13:44 AM
| |
AJ wrote "If they are based on experience and/or reason, then it wouldn’t be prejudice in the first place."
If you form a judgement of a group people with "good reason" from a "previous experience", and you use that previously formed judgement again, then you are obviously using a prejudgement, aren't you? If you do not prejudge, then any "judgements" you make of any group of people can only be made from first hand experience in the present time. In regards to "stereotyping", you have submitted one definition, that of....... "A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing." I now have four definitions of "Stereotyping" of my own, and not one of judges the word exclusively as an "oversimplification." Who is right? How about we read the words of Walter Lippmann, the man who invented the word? From the book "Typecasting" page 52. Walter Lippmann quote "We have to organise the world on a simpler model in order to manage it. To traverse the world, men must have maps." "Typecasting" page 52. "The word "stereotype" (in a psychological sense) was first coined by journalist Walter Lippmann. In the modern world, he argued, their utility was essential. The complexity of modern existence, and the global reach of contemporary society, made it impossible for any person to make sense of the world through firsthand knowledge." Stereotypes can be simple, oversimplified, simplistic, totally correct, near correct, near wrong, or totally wrong. But everybody has to use them, because we need to use them to create simple concepts so that we can think. The science of Psychology agrees with that premise. Stereotype definitions. "Stereotype content refers to the attributes which characterise a group." WIKI "Stereotypes are categories of objects or people." WIKI "Stereotypes are mental concepts of the classification of people, events, objects, or situations." "Stereotyping is defining people through simplistic categories." "Stereotypes can help make sense of the world. They are a form of categorization that helps to simplify and systematize information. Thus, information is more easily identified, recalled, predicted, and reacted to." Posted by LEGO, Tuesday, 9 February 2016 3:35:09 AM
| |
No, LEGO.
<<If you form a judgement of a group people with "good reason" from a "previous experience", and you use that previously formed judgement again, then you are obviously using a prejudgement, aren't you?>> Prejudge: "Form a judgement on (an issue or person) prematurely and without having adequate information" (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/prejudge) <<If you do not prejudge, then any "judgements" you make of any group of people can only be made from [first-hand] experience in the present time.>> Or be based on “adequate information”. See above. <<How about we read the words of Walter Lippmann, the man who invented the word?>> There’s nothing wrong with Lippman’s definition (or the Wiki definitions, for that matter). It refers to mental shortcuts, which I had accepted the existence of long ago on this topic. Which is why I was continually repeating this comment of mine: "You’ve also ignored my distinction between merely ‘thinking in stereotypes’, and moving past them in order to reason in more complex situations." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317651) A comment you never addressed. But I have been talking about stereotypes in the colloquial sense. The only sense that dictionaries appear to define. You have skirted around this fact by never acknowledging my distinction above, and in doing so, you’re committing the fallacy of Equivocation: "...when discussed as a fallacy, equivocation only occurs when the arguer makes a word or phrase employed in two (or more) different senses in an argument appear to have the same meaning throughout."(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation) Thus you make out as if saying, "The only aboriginal people who appear to me to have any brains, are those who have had a dose of white genes injected into their mothers wombs." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4490#43534), is just as acceptable as, say, a stereotypical image of a tree automatically springing to one’s mind when one thinks of what a typical tree looks like. You conflate the formal psychological sense of the word with the informal colloquial sense to justify horrendous and unfair oversimplifications, and this is why equivocation is a fallacy. Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 9 February 2016 6:23:21 AM
|
AJ wrote "I haven’t said that at all, you idiot. Pre-judging is never alright. Here’s the definition of prejudice for you for the seventeenth frickin’ time…"
For the seventeenth frickin' time, AJ, you can't stereotype groups of people that you don't like and prejudge them, and then say that you are not stereotyping and prejudging them, because "intelligent" people "understand in what situations it is appropriate to do so." Or say that your prejudgments are not prejudgments, because your negative opinions about entire groups of people are simply "judgements" that are "are based upon reason and experience."
If you attack me for stereotyping and prejudging, all I have to do is come out with the same silly excuses that you have come out with. I can say I am intelligent, and I know when it is appropriate to do it. Or I can say that my prejudgements are not prejudgements, they are just judgements.
The problem with making moral principles that you insist everybody must abide by, AJ, is that you are supposed to live up to them yourself. Not "rationalise" why you may transgress, and then scream that that your opponents are all idiots, and that they may not.
You have now stereotyped and prejudged Christian fundamentalists, Creationists, criminal profilers, every religion and religious person in the world, and "vile people who think like ttbn." I wonder who is next?