Clear and Understood

As far as Rushdi and the fatwa in concerned, there's no getting around the fact that hardline moslems don't have a sense of humour on these things (Danish cartoon incident etc). Sometimes I wonder if they do as individuals, but because their equivalent to Cardinal Pell tells em that they mustn't laugh at something then they don't.

But a Knighthood under those circumstances hardly sounds very pragmatic - he goes back into hiding, Pakistan, Malaysia etc are offended, - what's achieved? If he has to go back into hiding then ... Maybe they should ask people do they want a knighthood before giving them one . My guess is that Rushdi would have said "no bludy way... sir".

It's Snake Pliskin said:

From the following article it is clear what the intent of Islamic fundamentalism is. These fools are getting weirder everyday.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21948708-5006003,00.html

Click to expand...

so you'll have to tell us your take on that article one day snake, and maybe a hint on what you would have us to understand - without "generalising" that is, since that causes offense apparently

2020hindsight said:

As far as Rushdi and the fatwa in concerned, there's no getting around the fact that hardline moslems don't have a sense of humour on these things (Danish cartoon incident etc). Sometimes I wonder if they do as individuals, but because their equivalent to Cardinal Pell tells em that they mustn't laugh at something then they don't.

Click to expand...

I suppose we all take some things very seriously. Try posting negative arguments about a share that everyone else on the thread has put their money into.

People tend to take things very seriously if they tie their banner to something important to them. Especially if they tie this banner on to God/Allah and if their position of priest, mullah etc., is all they can do in life; Then they defend it like hell and think they represent God/Allah on earth.

It's Snake Pliskin said:

All generalised rubbish devoid of intelligent reason and thought.

Why do you confuse skin colour, race and ideology? Read the article.

Click to expand...

Snake
I notice you put up, then shut up.
Then trot out nothing of substance.
To your credit, your bias against cultures dissimilar to yours is a constant theme here, and you seem not to mind (perhaps you don't understand?) copping a hiding each time.
Confusion over skin colour, race and ideology is an essential element of society as the permutations of each exist across the continents.
There being Chinese catholic Marxists, black African Jewish capitalists, and English Muslim fundamentalists makes for an interesting world.
Only when we get those who believe they are "superior" and should dominate, do we have major problems.

If you read Snake's brief introduction to this thread, you get the impression that the quoted remarks were the crux of the article. But the next sentence nullified that sense; "He later said he did not mean such attacks would be justified but was merely saying militants could use the knighthood as a justification".

When it comes to intelligent reason and thought in this forum, Snake, your contributions may indeed be held in wondrous regard.

rederob said:

.
Only when we get those who believe they are "superior" and should dominate, do we have major problems.

Click to expand...

One sentence speaks a thousand words.

wayneL said:

The presumption of the bigot is that there own race/culture/nation is inherently superior; another cognitive bias.

Click to expand...

I think that all curent ideas and behaviours of each culture are reduced to a nature/nurture answer. All of the current person you are is made up of biology and sociology. Expand that out to the community - state - nation - world. Although, with globalisation, of, course, individuals now have some influence from far a field. I don't want to get into the 'race' question, but there are some obvious superficial/muscular differences between races that make us better or worse at things like running for example.

My point is, on the nurture, or social question, I think there are some societies and people who are at different states of development through time. Whether that is for the best or not, is another question. But the fact is, some societies are still going through the stone age. Some are still trapped in the 7th century Islamic Caliphate. Some tribes in PNG might be a little further behind that.

I think Islam in general, particularly the extremists, are still living in ancient times, under extremely outdated human social values and ethics, which they need to change. They're living in a backward looking world, which is no longer relevant to the 21st century, particularly modern Australia.

I think, in general, modern Australia is a more advanced culture, having taken the good values from the past, and ditched the ones that are no longer relevant. Becomming a secular society is one such significant example.

Am I being bigotted Wayne? Is this cognitive bias?

Obviously, some Christians are living in another time as well, but that's not the question here.

Is this is out of step with modern Australian values?

Or, is this freedom of speech and religion, which I think are cornerstones of a democtratic society, such as Australia? (even though personally I think religion should be locked away)

Is this part of the backward looking values that Islam fights for? Or, is this just a modern turf war?

The Australian said:

I support Hezbollah: Aussie cleric
Richard Kerbaj
June 23, 2007

THE nation's most senior Shia Muslim cleric has attacked John Howard for backing Israel against Arabs and openly declared his allegiance to the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah.

Kamal Mousselmani -- head of the Supreme Islamic Shia Council of Australia -- said yesterday his entire community considered Hezbollah a "resistance group", not a terrorist network, and lashed the Howard Government over its support for Israel.

"They (the Australian Government) are encouraging terrorism," the Lebanese-born cleric told The Weekend Australian in an interview conducted in Arabic. "Australia is encouraging Israel to kill our people daily. Write that down, we are not afraid of anyone."

Sheik Mousselmani said all of Australia's approximately 30,000 Shi'ites were avid supporters of Hezbollah (Party of God) and haters of Israel.

"Shia in Australia consider Israel a terrorist organisation and also view those who support Israel in the same light," he said. "That's what we believe.

Click to expand...

good afternoon gentlemen.

Stan 101 said:

Your hubris is astonishing. That's a bold statement considering you have no idea of life, my nationality, my beliefs ancestry.

Click to expand...

your point was you understand why the insurgents in iraq are doing what they are doing. understanding also implies a level of sympathy. however i am saying that there is no way a sane, rational human being can understand why someone would blow up a bus full of schoolgirls because they belong to a different sect of the same religion. it defies understanding.

nizar said:

Here we go again

Click to expand...

feel free to not click the link into this discussion. or perhaps offer some input instead of snarky comments from the sidelines?

rederob said:

And I was talking about the US, and making the point that most people there are of the Christaian faith, and they kill other US citizens who are predominantly also Christians.
Just as in Iraq it is difficult to find too many Iraquis that are not moslem. So moslems are killing moslems in Iraq: What a surprise!

Click to expand...

well done sherlock! what other amazing insights do you have to offer? once again you have gone totally off the rails and are attempting some relativistic sleight of hand to draw attention away from the issue at hand. yes people all over the world murder other people. thats not the discussion. we are talking about muslims murdering muslims in iraq. please try to stay on topic.

rederob said:

On the issue of US homicides, whites comprise 51% of the victims.
So disarray is in disarray with his figures, yet again.

Click to expand...

did you even read the link i posted? no you didn't did you, or you would have read that -

According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, in 2005 about 49% of murder victims were white, 49% were black, and 3% were Asians, Pacific Islander, and Native Americans.

Per every 1,000 persons in that racial group, 27 blacks, 20 whites and 14 persons of other races sustained a violent crime

Click to expand...

per capita blacks are overrepresented as victims of violent crime. you get a cookie if you guess who is overrepresented as the perpetrators of crime too! don't know how they get 101% out of the stats though.

also care to show any other examples of incorrect statistics i have posted? or are you just talking out your ass and attacking the messenger instead of the point again.

2020hindsight said:

then to talk of Iraq in terms of "killing a few of 'them', so what" is strange logic indeed, because masses of US soldiers are dying as well.

Click to expand...

america is paying the price for their greed in military deaths. civilians killed by the coalition are also paying the price for american greed, lack of vision into alternatve energy research and psychotic neo-con geopolitical policy.

however iraqi civilian deaths at the hands of the sunni and shia insurgency (2/3 of the deaths) lay solely at the feet of islamic fundamentalists. australia shouldn't be anywhere near this conflict but we are honouring our alliance.

wayneL said:

Dude is one of those annoying Americanisms plaguing Australian English; but I digress

Click to expand...

yes you do

wayneL said:

Certainly there are those who are inward looking in our culture.

Click to expand...

wayne not only the commerical and independent media write criticisms of culture and policy, but anyone with an opinion, a pc and a blog / access to a message board can criticise all they want. millions of people are looking inward and calling it like they see it. you are trying hard to find coverups and examples of our society not openly criticising anything when in fact every single point of OUR policy or culture is open for criticism, but other cultures are not. we can draw caricatures of john howard or put a crucifix in a jar of piss, but draw a cartoon of mohammed and you have embassies burning.

wayneL said:

But those cognitive biases I mentioned are real. Scarcely anyone in our culture considers the actions of the western military as terrorism. But by any objective examination, many of the military misadventures of the west could only be termed terrorist. (Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, for a start, plus hundreds of covert operations around the world, right up to "shock and awe")
Shock and Awe; that's a good one. In other words, we are going to terrorize Iraq.

Click to expand...

they are only real in your head. history books abound with explanations of the terror of dresden, the poor japanese civilians who got nuked and many other examples of leftist bias. this "scarcely anyone in our culture considers the actions of the western military as terrorism" is unsubstantiated opinion and nothing more.

war IS terror. the point of war is to defeat your foe and mass murder is a side effect of that. i read a paper by an american general who said the problem with iraq is that they DIDN'T use enough terror to subdue the people from the outset. instead they tried to hand hold and transplant a copy our society onto theirs and "bring freedom to the good people of iraq" when there was no way it would work, and now they are stuck where they are.

wayneL said:

Supposed biological differences in race have long since been discredited

Click to expand...

no they haven't

wayneL said:

Hence discrimination based on race is clearly nothing more than bigotry and/or xenophobia and has no place in an enlightened society. Unfortunately, not all members of enlightened society are in fact enlightened, and so persist with discredited notions to further some other agenda. The presumption of the bigot is that there own race/culture/nation is inherently superior; another cognitive bias

Click to expand...

discrimination is bigotry? absolutely. recognising differences and modifying policy to take these differences into account? common sense. while it is indeed a slippery slope and can easily lead to racist justifications, being able to honestly look at the facts, assess a persons particular strengths and weaknesses then tailor a more appropriate policy response can only be a good thing. leftys would love it because it treats everyone like the beautiful unique snowflake they think we all are but they just can't get over the "people aren't created equal" hurdle.

immediately laying accusations of racism and bigotry against anyone who wishes to discuss these differences is just another tactic used by the PC brigade to silence dissent and keep the multicultural industry free from criticism.

rederob said:

To your credit, your bias against cultures dissimilar to yours is a constant theme here, and you seem not to mind (perhaps you don't understand?) copping a hiding each time.

Click to expand...

you cop more than enough hidings yourself. people in glass houses etc.

wysiwig said:

One sentence speaks a thousand words

Click to expand...

no one is saying they are superior to anyone else.

disarray said:

did you even read the link i posted? no you didn't did you, or you would have read that -

Click to expand...

I did read your link because the figures I posted were taken from it, and showed that your quote was incorrect.
But you want to lie with statistics and then get all upset and righteous when you get caught out.
Then you want me to stay on topic, which, now isn't this nice, is actually titled "clear and understood".
I could draw pictures for you given you have some clear difficulties understanding what this can be about.
But you be a good little person and come up with more statistics that continue to show that those with the poorest education coming from the greatest background of disadvantage constitute the highest proportion of perpetrators of crime.
Or isn't that concept yet clear and understood.
Just as Snake's original post was misleading and deceptive: Lucky we have the ACCC, eh!

kennas said:

Is this is out of step with modern Australian values?

Or, is this freedom of speech and religion, which I think are cornerstones of a democtratic society, such as Australia? (even though personally I think religion should be locked away)

Is this part of the backward looking values that Islam fights for? Or, is this just a modern turf war?

Click to expand...

What are they fighting about?The values.I don`t understand.
Who is the aggressor and who is the defender?Or are the roles reversing when one assumes the upper hand.

kennas said:

I think that all curent ideas and behaviours of each culture are reduced to a nature/nurture answer. All of the current person you are is made up of biology and sociology. Expand that out to the community - state - nation - world. Although, with globalisation, of, course, individuals now have some influence from far a field. I don't want to get into the 'race' question, but there are some obvious superficial/muscular differences between races that make us better or worse at things like running for example.

Click to expand...

Yes, but these differences are no where near to the extent of consideration as sub-species. There is major overlap in abilities between races. The differences may be a environmental result and the "advantage or disadvantage" may be easily bred out as well. I can look at two horses, one an appaloosa and the other a thoroughbred. I can marvel at the separate appearance, abilities and strengths of these two. But they are both just bloody horses, a result of selective breeding. They are essentially the same.

kennas said:

My point is, on the nurture, or social question, I think there are some societies and people who are at different states of development through time. Whether that is for the best or not, is another question. But the fact is, some societies are still going through the stone age. Some are still trapped in the 7th century Islamic Caliphate. Some tribes in PNG might be a little further behind that.

I think Islam in general, particularly the extremists, are still living in ancient times, under extremely outdated human social values and ethics, which they need to change. They're living in a backward looking world, which is no longer relevant to the 21st century, particularly modern Australia.

Click to expand...

Ah but you see it is in the judgement of these social constructs where cognitive bias comes in. One culture's ideas may be outdated to us, but entirely relevant to them. All cultures view each others as infereior. The Japs think we're Gaijin, the Jews think we're Goyim, we think indigenous people as savages and so on. These are all subjective valuations and can only be measured by our own particular set of arbitrary values. This is a cognitive bias.

kennas said:

I think, in general, modern Australia is a more advanced culture, having taken the good values from the past, and ditched the ones that are no longer relevant. Becomming a secular society is one such significant example.

Click to expand...

Again, an entirely subjective evaluation. Australia has a very modern society in terms of health care, technology, wealth etc. But to term us an advanced culture is drawing a very long bow. Australia is widely considered overseas as have no culture at all. And certainly many more "primitive" cultures have far more "culture" than Oz will ever have. But this too is a cognitive bias, for what IS culture, what makes it advanced, and what makes culture, "culture"?

These are all subjective judgements that can be viewed only through our own values, hence biases occur.

kennas said:

Am I being bigotted Wayne? Is this cognitive bias?

Click to expand...

We are all cognitively biased, bar none. And thank Christ otherwise life would be rather boring, what? There is one particularly damaging bias however (IMO), the so called Bias Blind Spot, where one basically refuses to acknowledge that they have cognitive biases. This is the slippery slope into bigotry I reckon.

I think we are all subject to bigotry in certain areas, but cognition of biases certainly can help to ameliorate this tendency.

wayneL said:

We are all cognitively biased, bar none.........Bias Blind Spot, where one basically refuses to acknowledge that they have cognitive biases. This is the slippery slope into bigotry I reckon.

Click to expand...

I agree, but we are cognitively biased to various degrees.

Of course, I'm not as cognitively biased as the rest! LOL

To look at the situation historically, I argue that Middle Eastern Muslims, especially fundies, are the most cognitively biased people on the planet, next to some Evangelists, but we should leave them out of the equation for now. They believe that their 'culture', established between 1000BCE to the 7th Century CE, must stay in that timewarp. The reason for this is an unmittigated dogmatic following of a book handed down by Gabriel to Muhammad. This book is a product of the culture of the day. A way that people, in that particular region, at that time, should live. In the end it was used as a tool of power to control the people, to maintain the staus quo, and/or to fight wars. The only way to achieve unity and control was to enforce unquestionable allegiance to the Book.

I suppose the question I have then, is this right? Can we look at this objectively and conclude that it does not make sence any more for humans to be controlled by a 6th century novel?

Perhaps some people do need the law to be enforced like this, otherwise it would be kaos.

Or, do we try and articulate a better way, that doesn't involve honour killings, and the like?

Or, is this just all cognitive bias?

PS, sorry for the suck egg history lesson.

kennas said:

I agree, but we are cognitively biased to various degrees.

Of course, I'm not as cognitively biased as the rest! LOL

To look at the situation historically, I argue that Middle Eastern Muslims, especially fundies, are the most cognitively biased people on the planet, next to some Evangelists, but we should leave them out of the equation for now. They believe that their 'culture', established between 1000BCE to the 7th Century CE, must stay in that timewarp. The reason for this is an unmittigated dogmatic following of a book handed down by Gabriel to Muhammad. This book is a product of the culture of the day. A way that people, in that particular region, at that time, should live. In the end it was used as a tool of power to control the people, to maintain the staus quo, and/or to fight wars. The only way to achieve unity and control was to enforce unquestionable allegiance to the Book.

I suppose the question I have then, is this right? Can we look at this objectively and conclude that it does not make sence any more for humans to be controlled by a 6th century novel?

Perhaps some people do need the law to be enforced like this, otherwise it would be kaos.

Or, do we try and articulate a better way, that doesn't involve honour killings, and the like?

Or, is this just all cognitive bias?

Click to expand...

Re: Fundies and 6th century novels.

From my own point of view I certainly concur that that particular situation is %$#ing ridiculous. Likewise evangelical Christianity or any other "religion" that discourages question and analysis. Those of us outside those systems know very well that they were designed and/or used as a method of control.

But think about it. Our own secular society is becoming more unthinking and controlled by the western corporate/political elite. The "war on terror" is being used as a tool for control and to strip liberties of movement and thought. Certainly the flow of ideas is restricted, via the mainstream media, to a select agenda. Is this any better than what is happening overseas?

We are allowed to dissent, unlike religious autocracies, bit this right is rapidly being stripped in the west and like so many times in the past, our supposed enemies are being de-humanized via the popular press and political discourse.

At this rate, it won't be long before any dissent at all will be disallowed under threat of detention. At that stage, will we be any better than the religious autocracies?

wayneL said:

We are allowed to dissent, unlike religious autocracies, bit this right is rapidly being stripped in the west and like so many times in the past, our supposed enemies are being de-humanized via the popular press and political discourse.

At this rate, it won't be long before any dissent at all will be disallowed under threat of detention. At that stage, will we be any better than the religious autocracies?

Click to expand...

Yes, agree of course. Many are being controlled by Fox, Microsoft, and Sony PS. I'm not sure if it's as bad as being stoned to death for falling in love with the wrong person, or being allowed to have 5 wives. (Is there some issue with equality there? LOL) But this is part of the cognitive bias I guess.

In the end, hopefully Neo will wake us up out of our programmed reality, and get us out of this damn Matrix!

Shame Bullmarket isn't here for his perspective.

I notice you put up, then shut up.
Then trot out nothing of substance.
To your credit, your bias against cultures dissimilar to yours is a constant theme here, and you seem not to mind (perhaps you don't understand?) copping a hiding each time.Confusion over skin colour, race and ideology is an essential element of society as the permutations of each exist across the continents.
There being Chinese catholic Marxists, black African Jewish capitalists, and English Muslim fundamentalists makes for an interesting world.
Only when we get those who believe they are "superior" and should dominate, do we have major problems.

Click to expand...

The part highlighted in read is misinformation and misleading - my wife is asian!

If you read Snake's brief introduction to this thread, you get the impression that the quoted remarks were the crux of the article. But the next sentence nullified that sense; "He later said he did not mean such attacks would be justified but was merely saying militants could use the knighthood as a justification".

Click to expand...

No intention to mislead just gave a sample of what someone in power had said. English is English afterall.

When it comes to intelligent reason and thought in this forum, Snake, your contributions may indeed be held in wondrous regard.

Click to expand...

The trouble with you red is you let your emotions get out of control.
this thread is bout the Rushdie knighthood and the people who feel agrieved.

It is not about race , Iraq etc which is why I won't comment further.

I hope you have a nice evening.

Would you like to be my friend? Australian, african , asian doesn't matter. Let me know.
Take care.

Actually, if anyone would like to change the title of the thread please suggest to Joe what it should be called.

Joe maybe the newspaper article's title would be sufficient.

The Japanese translator of Rushdie's book was murdered by the way. My thoughts are with his family.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/weekly/news/nn2006/nn20060715a6.htm

maybe it could hav been called
"Is Rushdi knighthood unreasonable?"
or perhaps
"Is alleged offense at Rushdi knighthood unreasonable?"
etc..
Trouble is, the thread is in danger of pandering to extreme views, and we all have to look for the common ground imo

2020hindsight said:

Trouble is, the thread is in danger of pandering to extreme views, and we all have to look for the common ground imo

Click to expand...

If you're referring to the discussion amongst members, I completely disagree.
The common ground hardly makes for interesting or challenging discourse.
The snide comments deriving from a few personality clashes aside, I've found the articulate and thoughtful contributions from several members to be really worth reading. Thanks to all of you who've presented your arguments with such credibility and thought.

It's Snake Pliskin said:

Would you like to be my friend? Australian, african , asian doesn't matter. Let me know.
Take care.

Click to expand...

Of course, Snake.
I didn't realise we were enemies.

rederob said:

Of course, Snake.
I didn't realise we were enemies.

Click to expand...

Ok we are now officially friends then.

Cheers.

2020hindsight said:

maybe it could hav been called
"Is Rushdi knighthood unreasonable?"
or perhaps
"Is alleged offense at Rushdi knighthood unreasonable?"
etc..
Trouble is, the thread is in danger of pandering to extreme views, and we all have to look for the common ground imo

Click to expand...

I thought we were generally discussing Islam, or more specifically fundamentalist Islam?