The Situation in Pakistan

[Tolthar Lockbar]

Every source has a bias. It is impossible to eliminate bias. We have to recognize this as we learn. Bias does not always translate into “untruth” (it can). Most often, I try to consider the differences in what I learn, as differences in perspective.

I retract my statement, I was thinking of the cultural anthropology.

[musashi]

I’d like to weigh in on the whole hostility / violence debate. I am 1/8 Native American (from a dead tribe).

From what I have read. I think it is fair to say that Native American tribes were very aggressive. But I cannot dismiss the cultures as bestial just because of their violent tendencies. These manners must have evolved from necessity. If they needed to be violent to ensure their survival, who I am to judge?

Ayn Rand has related that violation of individual rights occurs when physical force has been initiated. I do not completely accept her premises on this point. At a minimum it just feels far too simplistic to dismiss anyone who initiates violence as a reprobate savage.

This is one of my personal struggles – as I am a violent man, and will continue to be a violent man until I die.

[Tolthar Lockbar]

I have no doubt you are a violent, judo throwing, karate choppin', Aikido twisting man.

But there is a difference between violent and cruel and its relation to rights.

[Sophid]

Thus, you imply because somebody killed an Indian 200-300 years ago on the same geographical location, then we who live here now are guilty by geographical association.

That's plain racist.

I want to take a second to point something out, because I take extreme exception to it.

I define racism as: a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

This is also the dictionary definition of racism. While I have heard you say in the past that some dictionary definitions are incorrect, I challenge you to redefine racism for me in a way that makes my statement racist and worthy of comment as such by you, but makes it possible for you to ignore these...

Ultimately some towel-headed kook with a nine-year-old bride named Aisha gets the keys to the nukes

So yeah, as long as you are not wearing a towel on your head there will be terrorists.

As far as I can see, Native Indians were savages with no concepts of Individual Rights, who killed each other without nay regard, and slayed thousands to some gods

I am not a racist, my view on this subject is not racist. I submit however, that these views seem to be.

[Arakasi Takeda]

I second Sophid's indignation at several of the statements made here. I have already been warned for an uncivil comment I made (and rightly so) - but I consider it mild to some of the other statements in this thread.

Civility is an issue of mutual respect. If civility is demanded, it must be universally applied. There is no need for any ad hominen's in this discussion, either directed at each other OR at the subjects of the discussion.


AT

[Tolthar Lockbar]

I'm not quite certain racism is the right concept for this... but thinking outload:

This is like those people who say that we owe black people something because others held them as slaves in the past. The reason why I am not sure is because it is taking one's race as some type of moral judgement. But I don't think Sophid really meant it like this of course. So please clearify Sophid: when you say 'us', do you mean 'past Americans', or 'all of us'. The use of the word 'us' is dangerous in this context because its a common way of saying something, but not really correct.

Olex took the literal meaning of the word 'us' and said that Sophid's comments were racist, not Sophid. He also pointed out what the common missuse of the word can lead to.

Musashi's comments were not referring to a race, but rather choices that that a group of people have made to be in that group.

Edit: Grammar again.

[Oleksandr]

So are our hands clean here in the US? No.

Now you are being racist.

I was shown that this comment might be seen as an personal insult, so I'll clarify to make it clear that it wasn't.

When I said "you are being racist" I meant that Sophid's statement was built on ideas of racism - where a blame is placed on anybody who happens to be from the same country, in this case. Now, I wasn't completely clear that Sophid fully followed this idea, so thus I said he is "being" racist.

But that is rather unclear, I agree. I take back my previous comment. I should have said "Such view is built on ideas of racism."

EDIT: clarifications

[Tolthar Lockbar]

Looking more at it, the statement "Now you are being racist." can easily be seen as calling someone racist. But it really is just another way of saying: "Objectively, what you are saying is racist". It is quite different than, "You are a racist".

EDIT: after seeing olex's post, this post is kinda pointless

[Oleksandr]

I want to take a second to point something out, because I take extreme exception to it.

Sure thing, Sophid. Let's clear this up:

I define racism as: a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

This is also the dictionary definition of racism.

While I have heard you say in the past that some dictionary definitions are incorrect, I challenge you to redefine racism for me...

The definition I use is: http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/racism.html

Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man's genetic lineage—the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

I am not a racist, my view on this subject is not racist. I submit however, that these views seem to be.

Why? According to your definition of racism it would have to do with some superiority or rule or assigning development to a culture. Neither of which are present, let's take a look.

Ultimately some towel-headed kook with a nine-year-old bride named Aisha gets the keys to the nukes

Muslim is a bad violent religion, that's the cause of terrorism today. That's just stating a fact.
I suppose Aisha is a Japanese name. So it comes from a matter of Japanese prise, proudly spoken for entire culture in 1940s who had no problems with suicide and killing millions in China. Now, I suppose you mean using 'Aisha' as Japanese name is racist. But then I don't see what is racist about that: it's not the same as saying that all Japanese would drop the nukes on USA.

So yeah, as long as you are not wearing a towel on your head there will be terrorists.

Same thing here.

As far as I can see, Native Indians were savages with no concepts of Individual Rights, who killed each other without nay regard, and slayed thousands to some gods

That's a list of historical facts. They had a specific philosophy and performed certain actions. It was so bad, it was wide-spread for entire culture.


So, I don't see where I nor Musashi reverse the cause/effect by implying that those people are so b/c they are part of culture.

[Sophid]

Let me break it down even further.

"towel-headed kook with a nine-year-old bride." "wearing a towel on your head." "Native Indians were savages."

Those are acceptable statements?

[Oleksandr]

Let me break it down even further.

"towel-headed kook with a nine-year-old bride." "wearing a towel on your head." "Native Indians were savages."

Those are acceptable statements?

All statements are acceptable unless there is a reason that makes them otherwise.

You seem to imply that there are racist in some way. I explained in my previous post that these statements of facts based on rational analysis of reality, as opposed to assigning qualities to men based on their culture - which would be irrational.

If you see something incorrect with my reasons, you are welcome to correct me.

Until then I see those as any other statement of facts - the most moral kind of statements that there can be for a human life.

[Tolthar Lockbar]

Let me break it down even further.

"towel-headed kook with a nine-year-old bride." "wearing a towel on your head." "Native Indians were savages."

Those are acceptable statements?

Are you saying that these are generalizations? Too generalized? Or that they are racist specifically?

I see nothing wrong with saying: If he was an native before Columbus hit America, then he was probably a savage. I don't think that statement is racist, but based on history.

Lots of times things have special cases, but the question becomes: How much of a pattern is needed to form a concept out of it.

[Kaimera Feran]

Muslim is a bad violent religion, that's the cause of terrorism today. That's just stating a fact.

Okay. Wow. I want to clarify something here... the current Muslim population of the world is estimated to be between 1.1 and 1.8 BILLION people. There are around 40 countries with a Muslim majority population... and only around 20% of Muslims world wide are Arabs. Islamic fundamentalism \ terrorism is carried out by a VERY small percentage of the followers of Islam and is NOT mainstream. What you are saying is exactly the same as calling all White Christians "Nazi Skinheads" because a very small group of them have carried out hate crimes around the world.

You are not stating a fact, you are stating a heavily biased opinion.

[Arakasi Takeda]

Oleksandr wrote:
As far as I can see, Native Indians were savages with no concepts of Individual Rights, who killed each other without nay regard, and slayed thousands to some gods

That's a list of historical facts. They had a specific philosophy and performed certain actions. It was so bad, it was wide-spread for entire culture.

Quote:
Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man's genetic lineage—the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

You seem unable to realize that your own statement is fundamentally racist by your own definition. You have created a gross generalization - 'Native Americans are savages' - except there there is no one tribe of Native Americans. There were hundreds of tribes, each with their own unique heritage and culture. You have then judged the different cultures with the same broad brush. Not all Native American tribes practiced human sacrifice. Not all Native American tribes were collectivists. Archaelogical evidence for the past five decades firmly disputes your conclusions. Therefore, you have grouped a diverse group of individuals under one huge generic title, and judged them, not as individuals, but as a collective for the crimes of a _few_ of their ancestors.

AT[/quote]

[Sophid]

You are not stating a fact, you are stating a heavily biased opinion.

That is precisely my problem with those statements, Tolthar.

"towel-headed kook with a nine-year-old bride." "wearing a towel on your head." "Native Indians were savages." Those are all derogatory statements indicative of serious bias.

[Tolthar Lockbar]

What you are saying is exactly the same as calling all White Christians "Nazi Skinheads" because a very small group of them have carried out hate crimes around the world.

This is actually a bad analogy. Being Muslim in a choice, being white is something one is born with.

I'll let Olex defend himself for the actual content of your post though.

[Kaimera Feran]

What you are saying is exactly the same as calling all White Christians "Nazi Skinheads" because a very small group of them have carried out hate crimes around the world.

This is actually a bad analogy. Being Muslim in a choice, being white is something one is born with.

I'll let Olex defend himself for the actual content of your post though.

White Christians is a perfect analogy to Arab/South Asian Muslims to whom we are currently discussing. Being Christian is a choice as well.

[Arakasi Takeda]

Sophid wrote:
Let me break it down even further.

"towel-headed kook with a nine-year-old bride." "wearing a towel on your head." "Native Indians were savages."

Those are acceptable statements?
Are you saying that these are generalizations? Too generalized? Or that they are racist specifically?

I see nothing wrong with saying: If he was an native before Columbus hit America, then he was probably a savage. I don't think that statement is racist, but based on history.

Lots of times things have special cases, but the question becomes: How much of a pattern is needed to form a concept out of it.

I would say that the statements are demonstratably racist because they are demonstrately factually incorrect.

For instance - Muslims do not wear 'towels' on their heads. The garmet has a specific name from different cultural group to cultural group, but in none of those groups does that garment serve the function of a towel. In every case, it is a decoration of specific religious significance and is accorded a measure of respect.

Calling it a 'towel' when it is not a towel is committing a falsehood, and is derogatory to boot. Because it is a derogatory remark aimed at a cultural norm (a 'collective' norm), it is subsumed under Rand's definition of racism.

AT
[/quote]

[Tolthar Lockbar]

White Christians is a perfect analogy to Arab/South Asian Muslims to whom we are currently discussing. Being Christian is a choice as well.

Miss read that, my bad. I thought you said white caucasian, my fault there.

[Sophid]

For instance - Muslims do not wear 'towels' on their heads.

Yes indeed. Furthermore, the only religion whose male members are instructed to wear a turban (not a towel, mind you) are Sikhs.

[Arakasi Takeda]

This is actually a bad analogy. Being Muslim in a choice, being white is something one is born with.

I would take issue with the idea that being a Muslim is always a 'choice'; most Muslims (like the followers of most religions) are indoctrinated when they are children and are incapable of resisting, or, in some cases, even understanding that they have an alternative. As such, it is a false choice.

AT

[Oleksandr]

I need to clarify my point, because I used two different meanings in the same word.

"Culture"

In my previous point, I meant "culture" as a biological makeup, i.e. a race.
That's a bit confusing.

Because I would also use "culture" as defined in Ayn Rand lexicon:
http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/culture.html

A nation's culture is the sum of the intellectual achievements of individual men, which their fellow-citizens have accepted in whole or in part, and which have influenced the nation's way of life. Since a culture is a complex battleground of different ideas and influences, to speak of a "culture" is to speak only of the dominant ideas, always allowing for the existence of dissenters and exceptions.

So, if I say that Native American culture is to torture and cut off parts of their body to carry with them around their necks. That would be part of their culture. And there would be nothing racist with that statement. It would stating an integrated fact about reality.


-------

When dealing with region on the other hand, it's much simpler to figure out the kind of religion - it's set of literature that is accept as the highest and most trusted source of information.

And Koran is filled with violence and evil ideas.

Now, I grant that there are people who read Koran and call themselves Muslims without actually following those ideas in practice, but then you can't call them Muslims, thus they don't contribute to what Muslims as a culture are ("culture" as defined by Ayn Rand lexicon). Though if they knowingly evade such knowledge and decide to call themselves anyway as Muslims, they are guilty of different evil anyway - of letting the evil teachings of Koran spread (through tolerance or whatever).

[Tolthar Lockbar]

I think this is completely missing the point and takin out of context. All musashi said was that, while the muslim religion exists, it is dangerous.

People who take the writings about Allah seriously, and take it to its fully meaning, terrorism will exist.

So when giving "respect" for something so evil is actually evil.

[Kaimera Feran]

Have you ever read the Qu'ran, Oleksandr? I'm interested in hearing about all of the evil it preaches... perhaps you could tell us what some of these things are?

[Oleksandr]

Therefore, you have grouped a diverse group of individuals under one huge generic title, and judged them, not as individuals, but as a collective for the crimes of a _few_ of their ancestors.

AT

Actually, no, according to the definition of "culture" I gave, what I did was an inductive reasoning to describe the dominant trend of Native American culture as a whole. Nothing racist here.