Well, I may or may not still be welcome around here. But I get the feeling that we're not going to be seeing any way cool physics (or even science in general) discussions any time soon (like we had here), so I guess it's rather moot either way for the things I like to talk about. :p
Hey, I was a champion debater in high school. We lived and died by the concept of inherency. As soon as the affirmatives could make the point that the status quo was inherently broken or the negatives could make the point that the plan was inherently flawed, the battle was halfway over. So I'm very attuned to it.
Democracy is dangerous. The Founders feared it, with good reason. The threat that radical Islam poses is not merely terrorism, it is ideological aggression based on a sense of superiority. I don't care what the Koran says. The question for this generation is how Islam is being lived. What I see in the news from around the world makes me uneasy.
Maybe the Muslims of Detroit have made peace with their neighbors. Maybe they're just biding their time. I don't know, but I'm not willing to drop my guard.
The ultimate answer to aggressive ideology of any stripe is the Second Amendment.
"Hey, I was a champion debater in high school. We lived and died by the concept of inherency."
And that is one good reason I like you so much Martin. I may not always comment but I do read Dean's World everyday that I can.
Dean and Rosemary go together like peas and carrots. They are a couple that love one another deeply and Dean was twirled around on his head when he met his dear Rose. I agree with Tall Dave about the two of them.
I'm going to stay around because I don't get involved in the Islam threads. I learn so much from them. I was ignorant of Muslim's as well and have learned so much. That has meant so much to me.
And if it's merely a question of perception and moral judgment, then it's my moral judgment that you've got an obligation to presume #3 is true absent inarguable evidence to the contrary
The changes you made to your original post make a lot of sense. Good on you for that. I don't agree that anyone has a higher moral duty to portray Islam in a certain way (much less to think of Islam in a certain way) than they have to be honest with themselves, and others, about whether they do or do not know something.
That sort of thinking is the basis for almost all political correctness, and is a slippery slope, imo. This was one of the only (I assume there are others but I haven't found a single one) places where honest, generally reasonable arguments about Islam took place. You risk turning Dean's World into an echo-chamber. I've learned quite a lot about Islam here, and I'm afraid the quality of posts and comments on the subject will drop dramatically.
You risk turning Dean's World into an echo-chamber. I've learned quite a lot about Islam here, and I'm afraid the quality of posts and comments on the subject will drop dramatically.
That's why, though I happily concur with every one of Dean's five points, I'm really uncomfortable with the litmus test/line in the sand/ultimatum/purge/nuke/call it what you will. I think there's a benefit to having the discussion: even if the extremes are unpersuadable, the middle can learn.
But it's not My World. If Dean is tired of seeing and managing an extreme that he finds offensive, I've got no business telling him he has to keep at it as a public service.
I'm no Evangelical Christian who is convinced that by helping Israel he's going to speed the coming of the Rapture in accordance with God's plan for the eventual conversion of all the currently living Jews
Dean, the "Left Behind" mentality is held by a subset of evangelical Christians. It is not a defining belief of evangelicals as such.
I think I'm banned now, although there's some subjectivity in the new litmus test that I haven't worked (weaseled?) through completely.
> Mark: A is indeed A. Religious bigots are not wanted.
I'm not even going to get into whether I agree or disagree with Assertion #3, but I must say that I am concerned if any dissent from said assertion is automatically equated with religious bigotry. That conclusion is far from obvious for me.
Dean, do you allow the possibility that someone could take issue with assertion #3 and not be a bigot?
Wow. Off the computer for a few days, and this is what I find when I come back.
Dean, I'm SO sorry you've had all this stress. (I'm sorry everyone had stress) Sure, I'm going to especially miss Ron and Kevin, but in the end ... I don't come here to read Ron and Kevin. They're good filler, even EXCEPTIONALLY great filler, but still.
And, you know, its a good thing you're not married to someone psychotically passive-aggressive who'd unplug the tv before Idol :)
I'm not even sure I understand the impetus behind this self-imposed decimation. I am pretty sure I fail #3, but I think that I fail it in exactly the sort of way that you would prefer people to think around here.
I've been re-reading A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court and something really struck out to me:
Concentration of power in a political machine is bad; and and an Established Church is only a political machine; it was invented for that; it is nursed, cradled, preserved for that; it is an enemy to human liberty, and does no good which it could not better do in a split-up and scattered condition.
And that is my problem with Islam. I think that Islam is fairly unique in that I think it lends itself to being an Established Church. This is reinforced by the observation that American Muslims are the most, what, modern? of Islam. Most of the places that are making Bad Muslims (meaning Muslims who occupy a significant part of thier day trying to figure out how to kill me) come from states with Islam as the Established Church.
If Islam is inherently geared towards being an state religeon, then yes, it is "more inherently incompatible with modernity, minority rights, women's rights, or democratic pluralism than most religions." Is it incompatible with a state that has no established church? It obviously is not, as evidenced by both American Muslims and states like Turkey. But the question is not "can it be done," the question is "does it inherently lean that way?" If that is the case, it is more dangerous that most beliefs, and while it shouldn't be outlawed, it should be observed.
3.2.2007 12:17am
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
Elisha: Oh, I think we will. I'm still around, and lots of interesting stuff will be happening in 2007.
Maybe the Muslims of Detroit have made peace with their neighbors. Maybe they're just biding their time. I don't know, but I'm not willing to drop my guard.
The ultimate answer to aggressive ideology of any stripe is the Second Amendment.
And that is one good reason I like you so much Martin. I may not always comment but I do read Dean's World everyday that I can.
Dean and Rosemary go together like peas and carrots. They are a couple that love one another deeply and Dean was twirled around on his head when he met his dear Rose. I agree with Tall Dave about the two of them.
I'm going to stay around because I don't get involved in the Islam threads. I learn so much from them. I was ignorant of Muslim's as well and have learned so much. That has meant so much to me.
Sorry. I'm obsessive-compulsive. :-(
The changes you made to your original post make a lot of sense. Good on you for that. I don't agree that anyone has a higher moral duty to portray Islam in a certain way (much less to think of Islam in a certain way) than they have to be honest with themselves, and others, about whether they do or do not know something.
That sort of thinking is the basis for almost all political correctness, and is a slippery slope, imo. This was one of the only (I assume there are others but I haven't found a single one) places where honest, generally reasonable arguments about Islam took place. You risk turning Dean's World into an echo-chamber. I've learned quite a lot about Islam here, and I'm afraid the quality of posts and comments on the subject will drop dramatically.
That's why, though I happily concur with every one of Dean's five points, I'm really uncomfortable with the litmus test/line in the sand/ultimatum/purge/nuke/call it what you will. I think there's a benefit to having the discussion: even if the extremes are unpersuadable, the middle can learn.
But it's not My World. If Dean is tired of seeing and managing an extreme that he finds offensive, I've got no business telling him he has to keep at it as a public service.
I've got absolutely nothing against litmus tests. If this is truly part of yours, I'm not welcome here.
A is A.
Dean, the "Left Behind" mentality is held by a subset of evangelical Christians. It is not a defining belief of evangelicals as such.
I think I'm banned now, although there's some subjectivity in the new litmus test that I haven't worked (weaseled?) through completely.
I'm not even going to get into whether I agree or disagree with Assertion #3, but I must say that I am concerned if any dissent from said assertion is automatically equated with religious bigotry. That conclusion is far from obvious for me.
Dean, do you allow the possibility that someone could take issue with assertion #3 and not be a bigot?
Dean, I'm SO sorry you've had all this stress. (I'm sorry everyone had stress) Sure, I'm going to especially miss Ron and Kevin, but in the end ... I don't come here to read Ron and Kevin. They're good filler, even EXCEPTIONALLY great filler, but still.
And, you know, its a good thing you're not married to someone psychotically passive-aggressive who'd unplug the tv before Idol :)
I've been re-reading A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court and something really struck out to me:
And that is my problem with Islam. I think that Islam is fairly unique in that I think it lends itself to being an Established Church. This is reinforced by the observation that American Muslims are the most, what, modern? of Islam. Most of the places that are making Bad Muslims (meaning Muslims who occupy a significant part of thier day trying to figure out how to kill me) come from states with Islam as the Established Church.
If Islam is inherently geared towards being an state religeon, then yes, it is "more inherently incompatible with modernity, minority rights, women's rights, or democratic pluralism than most religions." Is it incompatible with a state that has no established church? It obviously is not, as evidenced by both American Muslims and states like Turkey. But the question is not "can it be done," the question is "does it inherently lean that way?" If that is the case, it is more dangerous that most beliefs, and while it shouldn't be outlawed, it should be observed.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.