Uganda, a stand against homosexuality? Death penalty introduced.
- 08-13-2010, 09:39 AM
This is a good statement. However as an American and a human, I find it hard not to hold a prejudice against the "muslim" looking people. The type you see in your local gas station, the type you see normally assosciated with extremist activety etc. After the past couple decades of perhaps terrorism, for a lack of a better word, that they have been assosciated with, the killing of our men and women both here and over in the middle east has given me a very bad taste in my mouth so to speak. In my head I suppose I know it's not right, and many of them are just trying to live. But morraly/personally I frankly do not like them and that's just the fact of the matter.
In all fairness tho, I'm prejudice against all people. I really don't like anybody. Just some people more than others.
- 08-13-2010, 03:03 PM
If I was you, I might also save up some money and travel around the world to see what it truly is and not what you are told/think it is. Muslims in particular will surprise you with their generosity, and unselfishness in looking after a visitor. They would give you their last morsel of food to look after you before themselves. Experience defeats all stereotypes.
In all fairness tho, I'm prejudice against all people. I really don't like anybody. Just some people more than others.
08-13-2010, 03:26 PM
You make an e****lent point as to it being easy to dislike who we are at war with etc. I think that may be partially why I have a dislike for many minorities here in this country alone (altho as a white male in America, I am soon headed to become the minority), with affirmative action, rights "just because", free passes (i.e. taking advantage of wellfare) etc. All these things effect me more directly than the current war. There is no such thing as "fair" and as far as I'm concerned, racism will never die. I use the term racism somewhat loosely. I do not mean hatred just because of a skin color, as that can not be helped, more so I am proud to be what I am and I will do what I can to help my kind and my cause. Just like every other culture does. And as a white male, I should not be looked down upon for doing so.
I have started to go out of context with the last paragraph, but I hope you see the correlation.
08-13-2010, 05:10 PM
08-13-2010, 09:33 PM
I did not say I hated em lol. I know of some good ones, but I just dont like working with them often though most of the ones I have worked with are from Africa. They really cant do certain jobs(really, I dont mean offense by this) and it causes headaches for some of us who have to work with them who have to fix, or correct them every 10 minutes and they make vague excuses to miss work often for extended periods of time(not the normal "oh I'm sick" routine). But truly it is likely a lack of any education from their country, or a poor one. Their math is atrocious, and they cant see things we can. This is why I do realize its more their location of origin and not a faith thing, but I kinda throw those together. 90% of the muslims i know speak french.
I guess its less muslims and more African immigrants to be proper, but every one of them I have met were Muslim and have had bad worth ethic and a lack of moral values. Though I know the other faiths abide there.
Generalized too many people into one category, I apologize for that. I do disagree with their faith however. But their "representatives" dont represent them very well, My views come from their actions.
EDIT: oh and I truly do hate media, I dont watch the news. I dont want to hear about how many innocent people were murdered by some crackhead, and about bull crap agendas and politics. Things are sad enough as it is.
08-16-2010, 12:33 PM
If an individual moved from another country to, say, a rural-mountain village in Appalachia, do you feel they would be justified in broadly characterizing all "Americans" based on their experiences there? Certainly, the mountain folk there look American, they have the same religion as most Americans, they speak like Americans, so it ought to be reasonable that immigrants to this country could use them as a rubric for all Americans, correct? The answer here is obviously, "No." So why is it or should it be any different when applying this rubric to another region, religion, etc?
You qualified your previous statements, so I am not attacking you in particular - just putting forward a thought.
08-16-2010, 12:50 PM
08-16-2010, 02:26 PM
First, that the person applying the judgment experienced that particular culture in vacuo, and as a consequence, was abstracted away from all other means of receiving knowledge about that culture prior to experiencing it. If we were speaking about a small tribal village in Papa New Guinea, your point is well made, most certainly.
Second, and related to the above, all possible knowledge of a given culture would need to come a posteriori by necessity, as you are apparently excluding all other avenues of obtaining information about a given culture and making a judgment thereon. Again, if we are speaking about a small tribal village in Papa New Guinea with no access to media forms, your point is well made.
Third, and most importantly, your example only holds true in the case that the individual engaging in the judgment was completely incapable of applying basic reasoning to avoid a fallacy of composition. It is a basic, intuitively valid component of abstract reason that what is true of the individual constituents is not necessarily true of the whole.
In your example, despite the fact that my experience is limited to the people on this side of the hill, it is entirely possible and moreover probable that I have and/or am able to obtain knowledge about people on that side of the hill - at least to the point where I could conclude that, low and behold, not all people are the same! And again, this is assuming I am unable to develop that incredibly basic component of logic on my own.
Now, none of these are the case in this particular discussion, and so your argument holds no weight. More on this below.
Not at all, D. I am suggesting abstention from making a judgment in such cases where sufficient knowledge has not been obtained to substantiation it: or in other words, I'm saying the precise opposite of what you claim. In the example above, I obtained enough knowledge about people on the other side of the hill to realize I was unable to make any type of judgment about them whatsoever.You trying to extrapolate judgment on another culture, like you have some special insight in the absence of experience, is the exact trend you criticized in the first place.
And so, I'm not criticizing anybody for forming a particular judgment, about particular Muslims, just so long as the judgment is contained in the context of their direct experience. See, that is how a posteriori knowledge works, D: one gains knowledge about a particular object through direct experience and is therefore able to apply that highly individuated knowledge to similar experiences with said objects.
In the case of categorically defined objects - that is, objects which by definition have only certain characteristics, and are something else entirely if they lack those characteristics - we are able to apply that a posteriori knowledge to scenarios beyond the scope of our experience. Again, this is intuitively valid, as a square is by definition always a square, and we are therefore able to say, "1 square = all squares." With people, not so much.
If I meet a Muslim from Morocco, and he's an *******, I am unable to mold that experience into any other truth claim beyond, "This particular Muslim is an *******." Now, if I met a large sample of Muslims from Morocco and conversed with them thoroughly enough to form an opinion about their individual personalities, I would in that case be able to make a reasonable judgment about most and/or all Muslims from Morocco being *******s without committing a fallacy of composition. This is commonly called, "evidence" and/or "justification."
Alternatively - and keeping with my sticky little notion of knowledge coming from other avenues than experiencing an object directly - if one studied the tenets of all the separate derivations of Islam, studied the Qu'ran, and studied the cultures in which Islam is predominantly expressed in order to abstract away from behavioral tendencies which are geographically influenced, they would have sufficient justification for making a statement about the religion of Islam.
See, my "special" rubric is intuitively valid logic, D.
08-16-2010, 02:59 PM
The problem arises from the struggle itself. A group such as homosexuals feel repressed, so they abandon the struggle for "equality" and go all the way left in order to counter the strong forces that have gone all the way right to oppose them. Like a tug of war. The truth gets abandoned somewhere in the middle to stand alone, stretched and distorted, with no objective defenders. That, sir, is how the rubric has gotten contaminated. Equality is no longer the struggle, truth is compromised for the sake of winning some agenda, and my rights becomes the new battle cry replacing equality for all. I have no regard for either extreme, for it would likely skew my rubric if I did. Perhaps your rubric has be contaminated in a similar fashion, without you really noticing? Indeed, that is the most insidious form of self-deception.
08-16-2010, 03:13 PM
In dealing with social interaction, categorical truth claims are limited in scope, and apply only to general characteristics such as, "A Muslim is a Muslim," and nothing more. The issue is that social interaction and the judgments formed thereby necessitate a peculiar combination of both a priori and a posteriori knowledge that is incredibly difficult to obtain, and thereby renders most statements about people as blatantly subjective at best.
For example, in our hill scenario, I can obtain information about their culture vis-a-vis legitimate channels (academic sources, perhaps), but this allows me to make judgments only about the people in the general abstract, and not as such. Conversely, directly interacting with the people on either side of the hill allows me only to make judgments about those people in the particular abstract, and again, not as such. This is why the social sciences are a sticky place!
I completely agree. More than you know, in fact, ha! (The vegans in my Undergraduate program were fascists.)The problem arises from the struggle itself. A group such as homosexuals feel repressed, so they abandon the struggle for "equality" and go all the way left in order to counter the strong forces that have gone all the way right to oppose them.
I again agree, but would counter my rubric has not been contaminated - which is precisely why I suggested abstention from judgment in these instances!Like a tug of war. The truth gets abandoned somewhere in the middle to stand alone, stretched and distorted, with no objective defenders. That, sir, is how the rubric has gotten contaminated. Equality is no longer the struggle, truth is compromised for the sake of winning some agenda, and my rights becomes the new battle cry replacing equality for all. I have no regard for either extreme, for it would likely skew my rubric if I did. Perhaps your rubric has be contaminated in a similar fashion, without you really noticing? Indeed, that is the most insidious form of self-deception.
08-16-2010, 03:29 PM
08-16-2010, 03:41 PM
I'm all for people doing whatever the f-they want as long as they keep it behind closed doors. Homosexuals in America have become progressively braver and adopted a defiant, self-righteous attitude.
Do what you do just don't ever try to tell me the wrong is right or that the sky is green.
08-16-2010, 03:47 PM
Similar Forum Threads
- By bombBoogie in forum General ChatReplies: 131Last Post: 10-27-2007, 03:35 PM
- By spatch in forum General ChatReplies: 12Last Post: 05-24-2007, 07:55 PM
- By whale in forum AnabolicsReplies: 11Last Post: 01-03-2003, 03:46 AM