• sunknight
    10


    When you will point me to some members who chose to study Plato and Aristotle in moslem countries, I will begin reading your link.

    I didn't deny it. Its still apart of me. Which is only made clear by the fact that I admit that I am of Polish/Scottish decent, born and raised in England. I can't delete that, its something engrained into my being. Also, being muslim is a religious choice, being European is a biological/geographical fact. One is a choice, the other isn't.Mr Phil O'Sophy

    Yes, you denied it. European culture has nothing to do with islamic culture, they don't mix. You can keep your postmodern identities, just have them somewhere else.

    Like I said, I do plan on leaving. But this is my home and I'm here as long as I need to be. Christianity wasn't a part of European heritage once. I'm sure many pagans said the same thing when people began converting to it as well. After all, it too, like islam, originated in the Middle East. Why are you in favour of Christianity if it has such similar roots? Are you a pagan? Would you tell christians to leave on the same basis? If not why?Mr Phil O'Sophy

    Christianity and islam are not the same and it is no wonder that they don't mix either. The fact that Christianity was capable of becoming a part of European culture does not mean that islam can or that it should.

    Not as Alien as you think my friend. The values the west has accepted over the past 70 or so years are much more alien to the western heritage than the values held by Islam. Things have changed so drastically over the past century in Europe, that what you seek to persevere is something completely new and counter to your roots. Islam has much more in common with our history than the modern age does:Mr Phil O'Sophy

    Multiculturalism and postmodernism which is how leftists try to destroy European culture is as alien as islam is.

    again, you're conflating categories. I'm a European muslim. If I go any where in the world, they won't refer to me as middle eastern because I'm a muslim. I look and sound like a British person. I have blonde hair and green eyes. I can't stop being European, thats not how it works. I stopped being Christian, and gave up being an atheist. These are things you can cease to be when you no longer prescribe to them. But this can't be said with regards to biological and geographical heritage.

    You're welcome to give an argument as to why you think I'm wrong. But like I say, I think the problem is that you are misunderstanding the difference between where someone is from and what they believe.
    Mr Phil O'Sophy

    The only problem is that you try to deny that the European region has a culture and a history of its own. I have news for you though, it does have one and it's not compatible with islamic culture. Those who embrace the islamic culture, have effectively denied their European one, no matter how blonde their hair is or what their passport says.

    Yes, it was an accusation, and as I explained in my response, you're wrong. Thats a comment on how muslims can only do dawah if they encourage conversation. That does not mean I'm doing dawah now. Like I say, it was relevant to the discussion on this thread, and as proselytising is against the forum rules, I'm sure if it is to be considered as such the moderators will pull me up on it.Mr Phil O'Sophy

    Nice try.

    I'm not telling you to embrace pedophilia.Mr Phil O'Sophy

    I didn't say you did.

    Also, there are some misconceptions about the fact that because Mohammad married someone at X years old, that it translates to mean that it is an obligation that muslims marry girls at X years old.Mr Phil O'Sophy

    No one said it's an obligation. Keep twisting words. I only said that as a matter of fact you moslems marry kids. Good luck explaining to other moslems why they're not allowed to do what their role model did.

    Knowledge requires that it be based on knowing. What you've stated is a belief, and if the evidence suggests that your belief is incorrect, then you would be terribly mistaken to consider it knowledge.Mr Phil O'Sophy

    Knowledge requires that it be based on reality. Reality says that those who want to study Plato Aristotle or physics study in the West and those who want to memorize the koran study in moslem countries.
  • Hanover
    4.5k
    When you will point me to some members who chose to study Plato and Aristotle in moslem countries, I will begin reading your link.sunknight

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelianism#Islamic_world

    Guess you have to start reading.
    Multiculturalism and postmodernism which is how leftists try to destroy European culture is as alien as islam is.sunknight

    What is European culture? What food do they eat, language do they speak, religion do they have, and government system do they use?
    The only problem is you try to deny that the European region has a culture of its own. I've got news for you though, it does have one and it's not compatible with islamic culture. Those who embrace the islamic culture, have effectively denied their European one, no matter how blonde their hair is or what their passport says.sunknight

    Why did the Germans bomb London if they all had the same culture?

    Also, what is the primary religion of these European nations: Albania, Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina?
  • Mr Phil O'Sophy
    1.2k
    @sunknight
    its strange that you would call a conservative muslim (a moral objectivist), a post-modern leftist.
  • Mr Phil O'Sophy
    1.2k
    claiming all Muslims would be paedophiles without their religion.fdrake

    I'm not sure thats what he was saying..? I thought he was specifically claiming that child marriages can occur with muslims? He neglected to mention that this isn't a problem specific to muslims; nor was he willing to entertain the nuance of the problem. But I didn't interpret it as you have.
  • Mr Phil O'Sophy
    1.2k


    I think the point he was trying to get across was that you are entitled to your opinion. And you're welcome to express it, if you make the effort to be constructive about it and try to philosophise. (this being a philosophy forum). So for example, where you say (and may Allah [swt] forgive me for quoting you word for word):

    You say that I'm not allowed to express my belief that mumammad was a pedophile and that many moslems continue to marry kids because of that.

    You could say:

    According to modern standards, marrying someone under the age of [ insert what you consider the age of consent is here ] is considered pedophilia, because [ insert reasons and justification for why the age of consent is X here ]

    In Islam, their prophet married a girl below this age, and for this reason, I, @sunknight, consider their prophet to be immoral. Along with this, his example still leads some muslims in the world to this day to marry girls under the age of X.

    further justification for my argument goes as follows:

    [ insert well articulated and respectfully written reasons x, y & z here ]

    ---------

    Writing something like the alternative I've given you above still expresses the same conclusions you wish to express. It still expresses your belief that Mohammed ﷺ is X and that muslims do Y.

    @fdrake has made it very clear that you can express such views. It's not what you've said specifically but your form and how you've presented yourself as an extremely aggressive interlocutor, thats unwilling to justify his claims, offer any detailed argumentation, or show any consideration to consider the arguments being put forward in response to your claims without simply outright dismissing them while again, not showing any justification as to why they should be dismissed other than referring to them as 'post-modern' or 'leftist'. Which is....

  • sunknight
    10
    And you're welcome to express it, if you make the effort to be constructive about it and try to philosophiseMr Phil O'Sophy

    If I make the effort to sugarcoat it you mean.
    You could say:Mr Phil O'Sophy

    Yes, I could. But I don't have to. This post https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5535/the-wests-moral-superiority-to-islam/p1 does not do it, this post https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/274112 does not it, this post https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/275054 does not it. Most posts don't it.

    has made it very clear that you can express such views. It's not what you've said specifically but your form and how you've presented yourself as an extremely aggressive interlocutor, thats unwilling to justify his claims, offer any detailed argumentation, or show any consideration to consider the arguments being put forward in response to your claims without simply outright dismissing them while again, not showing any justification as to why they should be dismissed other than referring to them as 'post-modern' or 'leftist'. Which is....Mr Phil O'Sophy

    I've done nothing different than most here habitually do or what Mr. Orbán, whom Mr. Scruton defended, does. The lol factor is that this is what this thread is about.
  • Mr Phil O'Sophy
    1.2k
    If I make the effort to sugarcoat it you meansunknight

    Yeah I guess you could say sugar coat. Although I'd rather say, making an effort to have a productive discussion. And I agree, and do question how some people get away with the stuff they come out with on here sometimes considering the reasons other people get banned or comments removed. If they are willing to keep up the other ones you referenced (and I've seen much worse than that pass at times), I think they should be willing to leave yours up as well in order to be consistent. But alas, I am not a mod. Just a pesky muzzie traitor trying to offer you an olive branch. I think because the people you've referenced have a long record of posting on the forum, and generally offer quality posts 99% of the time, they are given the benefit of the doubt. You however, have only just arrived and have gone all guns blazing 10 posts deep, out of no where, without offering any substantial effort to actually engage in a discussion or articulate yourself upon request. If I'm being honest, you come across a teency bit preachy; which is ironic considering your accusations against me :lol:

    if you're here to have debates, discussions etc, you'll get on fine. If you're just angrily venting dogmatic beliefs without reasoning them, you're likely to face censorship. I'd rather them not censor you at all, but its not up to me. I'm just trying to help you say what you want to say, just a little differently while containing the same meaning.

    Why are you here? Do you want to change peoples minds? Do you want to figure out if you have the truth or whether you may be mistaken? Or are you already convinced your 100% right and that the world is out to get you? You've not been banned, you still have a voice. I get it, muslims have done bad things and islamic values are controversial. I get your angry and you have your reasons why. I understand. I'm not suggesting you just stop being angry, I get emotions don't work that way. What I'm asking for is that you try make an effort to articulate your thoughts and your beliefs. (and again I get this is annoying considering some of the rubbish that gets left on this forum without the mods batting an eye, but thats life. The real is never as good as the ideal.)
  • Bitter Crank
    7.6k
    I've done nothing different than most here habitually dosunknight

    Sunknight: Best Practice is to proceed forward cautiously until you have established what you can get away with and what the moderators will stomp on. Like all members here, the moderators have uniquely sensitive corns on their toes which, when stepped on just so, send them into tizzies. As far as I know, the idiosyncrasies of the moderators' sensitive toes have not been mapped.

    Generally 'slash and burn' approaches will get bad feedback. Try to avoid.

    It is the case that if you want to disparage Islam, transgenders, gays, (anybody, basically, to whom the suffix "phobia" is regularly attached) you should do so in an unusually elegant fashion.
  • sunknight
    10
    I get your angry and you have your reasons why. I understand.Mr Phil O'Sophy

    My beloved Traitor don't overestimate your ability to read my emotions! My intentions shouldn't be in your concerns either, or anyone else's. I appreciate your humanistic concern though. I must confess I almost like you. The cancer of islam hasn't consumed all your Europeanness after all :lol: How about reverting to the Good? Please, don't ban me for proselytizing :rofl:
  • Mr Phil O'Sophy
    1.2k
    My beloved Traitor don't overestimate your ability to read my emotions! My intentions shouldn't be in your concerns either, or anyone else's. I appreciate your humanistic concern though. I must confess I almost like you. The cancer of islam hasn't consumed all your Europeanness after all :lol: How about reverting to the Good? Please, don't ban me for proselytizing :rofl:sunknight

    haha :lol: well I must admit, you do come across as an angry person. But maybe I shouldn't have assumed. Although you didn't do a good job to convince me otherwise. :wink:

    With regards to your offer of apostatising, considering I have a very sincere belief in Allah (swt), and that I really do believe that Muhammed ﷺ is his prophet and that islam is true, I will have to gladly decline your request :grin:

    But like I say, I'm here to discuss your grievances if you're happy to meet me half way and at least try to sugar coat it :joke:
  • fdrake
    2k


    Deus vult! Deus vult! Deus vult!

    Remind me not to give rope to strangers as a present. :broken:
  • ssu
    1.1k
    No. What I am complaining about is that he is down-playing (as in completely ignoring) it, while up-playing the atrocities of Muslim extremists, in a way that gives comfort to rightwing extremists.unenlightened
    You then have to give the a concrete example of the downplaying or ignoring a question put to him. So the interviewer really has to ask something that Scruton really avoids. And I ought to emphasize just what the whole topic of the discussion was!

    And his talk of George Soros having an Empire is similarly loose and inflammatory.unenlightened
    And how inflammatory is it to talk about the Koch brothers having an Empire or the Mercer family? And as George Soros is from Hungary, it's no wonder that he has ties to the country. Here you should really concentrate on what Scruton actually says. NOT what some alt-right conspiracy theorist alleges Scruton to have said. I assume that obviously the topic of the discussion was Hungary and it's political situation.

    he is equivocally but knowingly lending legitimacy to such abhorrent ideas.unenlightened
    Ok, so discussing a topic that conspiracy theorists make their absurd theories is 'knowingly lending to abhorrent ideas'. Well, this is again an example of the political tribalism and show the inability in handling issues openly.
  • ssu
    1.1k
    I agree. It also distracts us from seeing people who are islamophobic, because we keep looking in the wrong direction. Islamophobe's tend to be not so vocal out of fear of persecution. They already believe in this major conspiracy that the muzzie's are taking over, and so due to the fear bottle it up. In some cases this leads to them lashing out with violent actions rather than being able to work through their prejudices because they've been isolated into echo chambers (either voluntarily or through blanket bans on social networks) where everyone tells them they're right, and offers zero intellectual engagement or push back that may have been exactly what they needed in order to free them of their prejudices and bigotry.Mr Phil O'Sophy
    Good points.

    And if we talk about the true hostility against muslims (and jews etc), one noticeable thing is that extreme-right terrorism deliberately uses the "lone gunman" tactics. No extreme-right organization takes ever credit of any terrorist attacks. And those who are terrorist perpetrators distance themselves from others. This strategy has been noticed for example by the FBI. This is contrary to how any loonie that decides to be a home grown mujaheddin is accredited to ISIS and make's the terrorism instantly "international".

    The extreme-right also seeks to use anything that could be interpreted as being supportive to their views and naturally the left notices this. And then you people (who generally oppose anything from the right) making the conclusion that Roger Scruton is encouraging extremism.

    sunknight
    its strange that you would call a conservative muslim (a moral objectivist), a post-modern leftist.
    Mr Phil O'Sophy
    Actually it's not strange. Just think of putting everything you don't like together and assume it makes a coherent entity. Eases the ranting about it.

    (Oh, he got banned... of course, the tidiness of the forum is actually very nice. Thank you!)
  • Maw
    1.2k
    Scruton never said 'Jewish intelligentsia networks', which would have nasty connotations, implying the age-old belief in a Jewish conspiracy. He spoke of 'Budapest intelligentsia' and 'networks around the Soros empire'. To me at least, that has very different connotations.andrewk

    What the heck would "antisemitic" refer to if either of those are sufficient to be antisemitic? (Not that he even used the phrase "Jewish intelligentsia networks," but we can pretend that he did.)Terrapin Station

    His exact quote was, "many of the Budapest intelligentsia are Jewish, and form part of the extensive networks around the Soros Empire," and which is a hairsplitting distinction from outright saying, "Jewish intelligentsia networks", and committed or even casual antisemites wouldn't see any significant difference. Further, the concept of a "Soros Empire" is at least a two decade long antisemitic trope, and particularly pervasive in Hungary. It's the idea of manipulative elitists Jews who act as puppet masters behind global and state affairs, and policies.

    I should also note the audacity behind saying that the term Islamophobia is mere propaganda, less than a month after 50 Muslims were brutally murdered in their Mosque.
  • Maw
    1.2k
    I should also say that a long-term coworker at my company was recently fired for making a mildly racist comment towards a black coworker. I didn't see his termination at all unjustified. Roger Scruton, who was in a government position, doesn't get exemption simply because he's a celebrated philosopher or because he sanitizes his comments as profound, philosophical, or relevant ideas worthy of public debate or discussion. They are not.
  • frank
    2.4k
    I thought he was specifically claiming that child marriages can occur with muslims?Mr Phil O'Sophy

    Sunnis are dependent on secular authority to outlaw child marriage, slavery, and domestic abuse. It just means that an imam can only sort of indirectly condemn these things. For a westerner, this is strange, because Christian clergymen were a crucial element of the elimination of slavery in the west. Christians depend on their clergymen to lay out strong condemnations of whatever the community hates.

    To an atheist, it might seem childish to depend on the condemnations of preachers. But it is what it is.
  • Bitter Crank
    7.6k
    So what part of

    many of the Budapest intelligentsia are Jewish, and form part of the extensive networks around the Soros EmpireMaw

    is antisemitic? That Jews are part of the intelligentsia, or that they form a network? That they are in Budapest? That they are associated with the "Soros Empire"? Can't Soros have an empire?

    Would we say that "many of the Budapest intelligentsia are [GAY], [ENGLISH], [CHINESE], and form part of the extensive networks around the Soros Empire" is homophobic, anglophobic, or sinophobic?
  • Judaka
    318

    Slightly off-topic but I'm glad to see this thread.

    One of your mods thinks Australia has a rape culture, another thinks the modern extreme left is benign. I thought perhaps I was dealing with some kind of extreme left-wing forum owner but I don't know if someone like that could make a thread like this, it seems that way to me. I'm glad to see this forum's owner is more balanced than that.
  • Maw
    1.2k
    Use your brain, I know you have one, I've seen you use it.
  • andrewk
    2.1k
    His exact quote was, "many of the Budapest intelligentsia are Jewish, and form part of the extensive networks around the Soros Empire," and which is a hairsplitting distinction from outright saying, "Jewish intelligentsia networks", and committed or even casual antisemites wouldn't see any significant difference.Maw
    I disagree. To me the gulf between the two is unfathomably large.
  • fdrake
    2k


    The topic and Scruton's remarks could be used for the purpose you're suggesting, since skilful dog whistling does usually look like that. Though in this case I do doubt that their original intent is like that though.

    In the unsympathetic/outrage ladened media narrative and most reactions there won't be much of a distinction between Scruton's remarks and their vulgarisations, however. In that regard they're already co-opted and should be treated with suspicion; though how much suspicion depends heavily on the context of discussion.
  • Kaz
    15
    Government sacks Roger Scruton after remarks about Soros and Islamophobiajamalrob

    Do governments sack their housing advisers because of them being [something]-phobic? Of course not. They sack them because what they uttered makes them look bad in the eyes of someone else who holds power whatever needs to be held power over. As much as discussing validity of his claims can be interesting, it is useless when it comes to politics.
  • Baden
    7.6k
    The topic and Scruton's remarks could be used for the purpose you're suggesting, since skilful dog whistling does usually look like that. Though in this case I do doubt that their original intent is like that though.fdrake

    That's pretty much my view on it too.
  • VagabondSpectre
    1.4k


    I don't want to step too far away from the issue, but I've been flailing against this kind of over-sensitive censorship for a few years now.

    When thinkers/writers/academics/speakers that we value listening to are de-platformed or otherwise marginalized (unfairly), it's not just the individual being de-platformed that is harmed, it's us as well (our right to hear the ideas of others).

    Free-speech is also meant to protect our right to listen if we want to. I'll be the first to point out that nobody is entitled to the private platforms of others, but we've managed to create a situation where individual private platforms (and governments) are absolutely terrified of being socially sanctioned for making an incorrect decision about who should be allowed to use them (making them inaccessible in practice to people with opposing views).

    Nobody cares about seeing both sides of an argument anymore. They want the other side to go away, and if they don't get what they want they'll make unending fuss. The result is that platforms now have to cater to specific political niches, because exposing their audience to opposition would garner outrage from either polarized end. Are there any major news networks that still have politically diverse viewer bases?

    It has a very chilling effect on democratic health. Instead of finding a coherent middle, the chasm between the left and the right just keeps growing...
  • Maw
    1.2k
    The topic and Scruton's remarks could be used for the purpose you're suggesting, since skilful dog whistling does usually look like that. Though in this case I do doubt that their original intent is like that though.fdrake

    I don't know what else Scruton has said or, of course, thought about Jews, but his comments above are an undeniable antisemitic canard, as I've pointed out. I would assume a public intellectual would be familiar with such tropes. Scruton is, it should be noted, friendly with Viktor Orbán, who is an antisemite, despite having said accusations against Orbán as an antisemite were "nonsense", so I can't imagine he has a rosy view of Jews. Wouldn't surprise me coming from a man who said Islamophobia isn't real.
  • fdrake
    2k


    Having an antisemitic friend doesn't make you an antisemite, though I do agree that it is weak evidence (not in a derogatory sense, it is still evidence) in favour of Scruton having little sympathy for Jews, which is in turn weak evidence for him having little sympathy for Muslims.

    Though I don't buy the inference, I can understand why someone would be suspicious, and such suspicion probably warrants his sacking.
  • Maw
    1.2k
    Having an antisemitic friend doesn't make you an antisemitefdrake

    Sure, but I didn't say that, I said that he described accusations of antisemitism against Orbán as "nonsense". I would also add that suggesting Islamophobia isn't real is more than having "little sympathy" for Muslims, especially when you add other comments of his, such as, "sudden invasion of huge tribes of Muslims from the Middle East," when describing refugees and immigrants.
  • fdrake
    2k
    Sure, but I didn't say that, I said that he described accusations of antisemitism against Orbán as "nonsense". I would also add that suggesting Islamophobia isn't real is more than having "little sympathy" for Muslims, especially when you add other comments of his, such as, "sudden invasion of huge tribes of Muslims from the Middle East," when describing refugees and immigrants.Maw

    The connotations of those things aren't particularly good, I agree. And yes, I also agree that it is quite unfortunate that he said those things and also that those things could be dogwhistles. I just think this is more of a case of an educated bloke being an unwitting vehicle for prejudice he would sincerely condemn if asked about it.
  • Maw
    1.2k
    The connotations of those things aren't particularly goodfdrake

    I think one could reasonably go so far as to say they are very bad actually!
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.