And doesn't "despictable" come form the same root as "picture"? Interesting... In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Despicable means 'that should be looked down upon'. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
(The "spic" bit = "spec", not "pic" from "pict", which has to do with pigments and colours).
Just sayin'
<snark>If you are a secular humanist and disagree, you may be a secular fundamentalist yourself.</snark> guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
This is getting seriously silly. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
The distinction is between fundamentalist religion and other religion. You can be an extremist fundamentalist or not. The fundamentalist religions are branches of the underlying religions, not on the main trunk. You can be an extremist Catholic without being a Catholic fundamentalist.
I think there are wider issues that are important. I think fundamentalism is terribly dangerous. It needs to go. However by it's nature it can't be destroyed by a frontal attack.
I'd like to hear from those that argued that the cartoons were needlessly provovcative: how would YOU react to the demands?
are you with us or against us?
I'll put this on your anti-French bias. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Then again, you seem to have an answer to the cluster of issues surrounding the cartoons. I have admitted I am not sure what to make of the whole thing, nor what the right course of action is. End of story. You can argue your point more forcefully bacause of the certainty you have in the rightness of your position, which I lack about my position.
Ok? guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
I don't have an "answer". I think there are some points worth making, even if there are real consequences which would cause us not to make such points in other circumstances (and which I acknowledge). I also think that the issue is not going to go away and that it is simpler to take a stand now. It's not a matter of certainty, it's my opinion today, I very much think it is right but I don't know for sure - and that's the whole point of this debate, to have some perspective, and all of you guys have provided a lot of it, for which I am grateful even if I argue against some of the arguments provided. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Irony is sometimes a way to make one's point while disguising a direct confrontation.
Really?
So what should that school do? I'd like to hear from those that argued that the cartoons were needlessly provovcative: how would YOU react to the demands?
On the other hand, just because I am an atheist doesn't mean that I don't recognize the religious experience [this is what all that fashionable "spiritual but not religious" nonsense is about]. To DoDo I argued that being an apatriot does not prevent me from recognizing the national experience. I suppose I should start arguing to Jerome that just because I am a secularist doesn't mean I don't recognize the reality of confessionalism. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
Indeed that's what is derided as US-style multiculturalism in France. A fundamentalist tolerantist would tolerate female circumcision.
An fundamentalist scientist?
Positivist.
A fundamentalist doubtist?
Postmodernist :-) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Strict adherence to dogmas not related to any god. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
I defend secularism, not any ideology. Secular fundamentalism is like science fundamentalism or doubt fundamentalism - it's like saying that I have absolute certainty that there cannot be too much doubt. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Well, that's exactly how I understood the term, but I see Colman disagrees.
Thus you can tar me with fascism, stalinism and nazism.
Please. I haven't tarred you with anything. Unless you believe that al-Qaida terrorism tars Hindus, there is no connection.
I defend secularism, not any ideology.
That, too, can become a fundamentalism the way I understood the term (but again Colman apparently doesn't), if you stick to secular principles in an infexible unresponding way (i.e. using secular principles as the sole standard to judge issues). (For example, I would consider a blank rejection of the German practice of church tax and religion courses at public schools secular fundamentalism, a rejection after considering the practical positives and negatives not.)
I note I myself am quite close to secular fundamentalism, even if I am at loggerheads with you on the cartoons issue. (I support the French ban on religious symbols and the shroud in school for example, dismissing a lot of counterarguments I read on progressive British blogs.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
They have a point. Personally I'm not seeing any huge difference between fundie Islam and fundie Adam Smith-ism at this point. From here they both look equally moonbat. The Islamites seem to be more overtly excitable, but the Smith-ites just do their calm supposedly reasoned juggernaut thing instead - and indirectly, as the market turns, a lot of people get ground to a pulp under the wheels.
The Smith-ites are usually better dressed and travel first rather than coach, but if you're looking at metrics of violence, oppression and general social damage, I'd wonder if perhaps the Smith-ites aren't ahead.
Us vs Them isn't the issue. I wish the West would realise that it doesn't have the high ground in terms of free speech or openness. In the West the only reason you're allowed to say what you want is that mostly it doesn't matter to the ruling elites. Both sides are addicted to violence and posturing, but Western violence is exported and kept out of sight, so it doesn't have the same immediate impact.
Is there really such a huge difference between a mullah calling for a fatwa, or a Wall St analsyst explaining why AIDS drugs can't be sold at generic prices because it would be bad for business? In terms of fatalities, which kills more people?
'Clash of Civilisations' is right. The problem is that at this point, neither of the civlisations is all that convincingly civilised.
