That way they will have social stability without it being based on a terrible ideology that, among other things, promises boys in heaven. — Ilya B Shambat

Yes, in Christianity, you can have boys on Earth, at the alter. Reward minus the waiting time.

Two can play cultural pissing contest. The game itself, of course, is the worst thing about it all to begin with.

Othering.

They are not us. We don't do this shit.

That's the PM's excuse for Australia producing a nationalistic terrorist.

And so he does not have to admit his culpability in the crime, despite years of presenting the sort of thing found in the OP here.

The Christchurch terrorist was one of us. He was born in a town a few tens of kilometres away from my home town. He experiences the same sorts of things as we experienced. He chose to act based on those experiences. And what he did was appalling. — Banno

You are so out of line in every single post I see you make on this forum, it's unreal.

Thank you.

Othering.

They are not us. We don't do this shit. — Banno

People everywhere do this because it hurts to admit that your own culture sucks.

But I believe the pile-on we see with this thread has to do with the OPs target. If the target had been Christianity or everyone's favorite: the USA, would so many buttons have been pushed?

I dont think so. The pile-on would have favored the OP instead. So the real issue here is that Islam is seen as an underdog in need of protection, and in some places it is that. But there is still othering going on there. It's a comfortable, condescending thing where Islam is like an innocent child instead of a very old and mature religion.

Well the thing is he is making an absolutist claim in the OP.

I don't think we do need to ground enlightenment values in something else. Rather, those who reject them ought explain why. — Banno

Probably the only thing that seems self evident is universal basic freedoms because there doesn't seem to be any morally relevant ground to say one or another individual has special claim to anything. The lottery of birth argument seems enough to counter any sort of counter claim. There also doesn't seem to be any fundamental justification for any restriction or constraint on freedom - which themselves would be positive 'ought's' that need to be justified. Freedom is in a way an empty term since it just refers to a lack; a lack of constraint. Obviously things like do not steal or kill are rules I believe in but they're justified by social contract, unless you can think of another argument.

What I think needs to be justified are universal basic rights since they make positive claims about what people are entitled to. I think the rawlsian approach is an excellent enough justification, but that is an argument nonetheless.

Is there no such thing as the reasonable man - or woman? If there isn't, what are we, anywhere, about?

Americans continue to make the claim that they are morally superior to everyone else. It is time that this claim be addressed, not as part of war between everyone else and the USA, and not as some relativistic doubletalk, but on the basis of values and institutions that actually make other nations superior to the USA.

• The other nations do not have people electing an overweight sociopathic narcissist man-child with orange skin and strange hair as their leader.
• The other nations do not have such poor freely chosen lifestyles that life expectancy is decreasing.
• The other nations do not have the highest incarceration rate. While the United States represents about 4.4 percent of the world's population, it houses around 22 percent of the world's prisoners.

...

Other nations are morally superior to the USA. And it is time that more people say so outright.

The other nations do not have people electing an overweight sociopathic narcissist man-child with orange skin and strange hair as their leader. — praxis

So we're picking on fat people now? Is that what it is?

But yeah, the USA is a large stupid beast.

Banno's post was the most nonsensical post I've read on this forum and so I feel biased towards this "othering" concept mainly because of how he brought it up. Can you explain what "othering" is and why you feel it's important to bring up here?

Banno's post was the most nonsensical post I've read on this forum and so I feel biased towards this "othering" concept mainly because of how he brought it up. Can you explain what "othering" is and why you feel it's important to bring up here? — Judaka

We often think of ad hominem as countering an argument with insults, but there's another meaning that's along the lines of "well, you would say that." So if I'm a poor person and I'm accusing rich people of crimes, someone might ignore what I'm actually saying and point to my poverty to undermine my credibility. "Of course, you would say that, you're jealous!"

This kind of ad hominem is often accompanied by some kind of psychoanalysis and it's a way to draw attention away from the content of an argument.

This is basically what Banno was doing. He tells us a story about the Ilya which pictures him as a westerner (possibly Australian) who condemns some other group in order to raise himself up. He entirely discounts the content of the OP in the process. Banno's point is interesting, and worthy of discussion. I would like to hear what Ilya thinks about it, but he seems to have left the party and I don't blame him.

What do you think about the OP?

Americans aren't morally superior, obviously. They are morally equivalent to a lot of other people. Our elites seem kind of depraved. They should probably br rounded up and stored in gulags somewhere -- maybe the Aleutian Islands? Alaska? North Dakota?

— praxis

• The other nations do not have people electing an overweight sociopathic narcissist man-child with orange skin and strange hair as their leader.
• The other nations do not have such poor freely chosen lifestyles that life expectancy is decreasing.
• The other nations do not have the highest incarceration rate. While the United States represents about 4.4 percent of the world's population, it houses around 22 percent of the world's prisoners.

I loathe Trump, but he's no more of a sociopath than many of the political elite in Washington. (I realize this is damnation by faint praise.) Strange hair? He's clearly too old for such nonsense. I hear he uses spray on tan. It tends to turn a body orange.

Life expectancy is not dropping across the board. It's an average, and the group that is dragging it down the most are disadvantaged middle aged white folk who for various reasons have been left in the economic lurch by the elites. They are killing themselves (deliberately and accidentally). Now, many of our health indicators are below a number of other countries--and we can and should do better. But again, this is somewhat localized. People who live in what's called the "fried fish belt" of the se United States, have a number of dietary habits (lots of fried fish, barbecue, sweet tea, side pork, and such) that contribute to an earlier demise than might otherwise be the case. Make them eat kale.

We have the highest incarceration rate because it's elite policy to have a high incarceration rate. It isn't just any old random person that tends to be arrested and convicted. It tends to be black males who get arrested. I don't know whether they are disproportionately more criminally inclined than your average white guy, but the elites prefer to stock prisons with black men.

You don’t find the conflation of Muslim Jihadists and Muslims in general a little misplaced?

I’d also ask why focus on Islam in particular and its radical groups without comparisons with other morally inferior regimes like North Korea, Germany, China or the US? Or is the US superior to all other western countries? I certainly wouldn’t lump all western countries into one group anymore than I’d lump all muslims or christians into the same group. As for morality being religious or not doesn’t dictate to me that one is more or less morally upright.

Banno makes a fair comment about how we disown the abhorrent rather than face that side within ourselves and our surroundings.

Are cannibal tribes in Papua New Guinea “inferior” too in an absolute sense? Thee are plenty of religious people doing their best and they sometimes cause more harm than good. The political side of religion is always a problem though.

Generally speaking I don’t see how it helps to call a large group of people lesser and expect them to change their ways. I do think the international community could possibly do more to help Saudi Arabia, but I also think it is unrealistic to make severe changes in the immediate now and expect a smooth transition. This is of course of little comfort to those oppressed in the now, but it could just be that in this instance an incremental change is better than a revolution (which inevitably means war and several more generations of hatred and fanaticism).

Just be thankful such difficult decisions and knowledge lie outside out your immediate sphere of influence and encourage freedom (only if you understand freedom comes at a cost).

What do you think about the OP? — frank

We should start thread on why Russians and those with Russian ancestry are huge bigots, about the detrimental effect they have on our tolerant Western society, how bad and immoral the Russian society is and how superior our West European/North American values are to their values... :wink:

No really, the OP shows clearly how difficult it is to talk about differences in culture. It shows clearly that when talking about Western values and morals etc. the tone easily gets to be condescending and offensive, especially when the contrast to Islam is discussed. Actually, I've noted that when today 'Western culture/values' are generally discussed, the narrative is typically how Western freedoms, ideals and morals contrast to ISIS and the intolerance of the present day Muslim culture. The huge elephant in the room then, China and Chinese culture are totally left out from the argument as are other Asian cultures.

Not a fan of the present day PC culture, but I still uphold some level of cordiality. And in my view Western culture doesn't need this kind of pep talk.

Western and Islamic civilizations have much in common. They both have their cultural roots in Mediterranean Iron Age. They both remember Abraham, Jesus, and Aristotle. We might call them cousins, and one is not more moral than the other.

Islam has problems with sexism and it’s not comparable to western sexism because of the obstacles to reform that exist in Islam. Those who ignorantly glide past this fact are like the white people Alice Walker describes, who tripped over themselves to support Idi Amin because they thought it was the righteous, liberal thing to do.

I don’t know what sort of problems Australia has with religious intolerance, and I’m not in a position to tell them what to do about it. But we are not going to stomp over the bones of Muslim victims in Egypt or Saudi Arabia just because there were victims in New Zealand.

Western and Islamic civilizations have much in common. They both have their cultural roots in Mediterranean Iron Age. They both remember Abraham, Jesus, and Aristotle. We might call them cousins, and one is not more moral than the other. — frank

Not only remember, basically it's the same God, actually. Yet you seldom hear anyone referring to the fact that both Christianity and Islam are Abrahamic religions.

The OP opens with “Jihadists say ...” well, so what? Why pay attention to a bunch of nutters? If you wish to take up a debate with people who have no intent of debating, well ... what’s the point?

In the same light that some people may sympathise with their positions they can still condemn their actions. In the UK the issue of Northern Ireland has caused deeply condemnable actions on both sides. I can sympathise with both sides to a certain degree, yet I’m still capable of condemning acts by both too. Of course such conflicts are much more closer to home than the middle east so we have at least some better appreciation of the general cultural substructures and the history surrounding it (as clouded and murky as it is due to propaganda on both sides and purposeful misuse of information to bolster position a or b). It does certainly appear that Islam needs a reformation of some kind yet due to the sociopolitical structures, the geopolitic climate, the economics (resource management), and the doctrines of the various sects and ethnic divisions, it doesn’t appear to be a religious institute that is going to come quietly into the 21st century.

From my sparse knowledge on the subject I’d say the key lies with Saudi Arabia. If the Saudi’s cannot bring about some kind of reform (and there are some signs that this is beginning to happen despite the current slump) then it will likely bolster the Iranian opposition and create another kind of horror. I don’t really think the religious institutions are to blame in and of themselves, but I’m not letting them off the hook easily either! Human societies will continue to struggle balancing secular ideas with religious ones in terms of law and order - I think they’re BOTH necessary for a productive society yet I also believe that “religion” as a whole possesses something important beyond the superficial view of some people by regarding it all as “backwards” and “archaic”; by this I don’t necessarily mean what you think I mean. I convey opposition to any authority yet I also understand a need for authority (my general need to fight back is due to my displeasure with any idea of ABSOLUTE authority be it from a “religious” perspective or otherwise).

I would say that generally speaking “western” ideals have led to great moral and economic progress. It’s been a bumpy road and much blood has been spilt along the way.

I got no reply from the poster of the OP about my replies. I asked why such obvious inferences and conflations were being made and what the point of them was. I’m assuming no reply will be forth coming but now I’ve said this maybe a calm reply will come my way?

Note: everyone writes something that could’ve put across in a more concise manner. I assume the OP may have not meant to convey message X yet some have taken it to mean X. Once that is established then we can possibly discuss and compare our views on the matter (I’m sure what it is yet!)

The post that Banno made on this thread is the most repugnant and absurd comment I've ever read. The logic used is nonsensical, the insinuation is offensive and he's leveraging a tragedy for political purposes. Clearly, we've interpreted it very differently and so let's not argue about that. I still don't understand why "othering" is important here. What accountability should non-Muslims be taking for Muslims and what is being denied by "othering"?

As for my thoughts about OP, It's not interesting. Most of the posters on this thread are just really immature. @StreetlightX @Banno @christian2017 @Maw and maybe I missed a few are guilty of the same thing as OP which is taking an extremely complicated and large thing like a religion being followed by a billion people or the West and taking a sliver of truth as using that to create venomous generalisations. I call this problem an issue of interpretative relevance and the named people don't even attempt to be balanced or nuanced, it's shameful.

Any kind of Islam vs the West is answered by interpretative relevance and I don't enjoy it. It's also the same with Islam, we all know there are millions of honest, kind and generous Muslims and we all know that some Muslims do terrible things in the name of their religion. We all know Islam has some vile interpretations (at least from a Non-Muslim perspective) but we also know that there are many interpretations of Islam which are much like reformed Christianity. I would argue that some people downplay how bad it is and many people who ignore every other factor in order to throw salt.

I believe that Muslims should be judged for what they believe and do and not the religion they follow, even if the two can be linked.

As for specifically what OP says, I am a complete moral relativist, he says the West is objectively more moral than Islamic countries and so obviously, I disagree.


It's a matter of interpretative relevance, I don't agree with his analysis but I don't agree with any of the other posters in this thread either. The issue is that there is no "Islam", it's a religion based off a convoluted book written over a thousand years ago, seemingly mostly in poetry and to this day many people make a living studying and interpreting what the Quran and the other relevant materials mean. Islamic scholars don't even agree with each other and when you break things down into further nuance, every single practitioner of Islam integrates their beliefs differently into the various aspects of their thinking and the way they live.

So I think there's no way to say what is and is not the "real" Islam and people should just give up even trying to declare there is one.

*yawn*. Banno's point - that murderers like the Christchurch shooter were precipitated out of the same culture which we tend to call 'ours' - is fairly reasonable (in fact the shooter's 'manifesto' was, among other things, a literal repository of well-known, very public, cultural memes) - and frankly it's your reaction which seems rather overblown and out of proportion. And, dare I say, pointing out 'the West's' complicity with the atrocities committed in the name of Islam is hardly a revolutionary position, and is something well known by anyone with an understanding of the geopolitics of the Middle-East and Muslim majority countries. I would suggest Karen Armstrong's The Battle For God, as a relatively gentle introduction to these issues, or Fawaz Gerges The Far Enemy for something more in depth.

The post that Banno made on this thread is the most repugnant and absurd comment I've ever read. The logic used is nonsensical, the insinuation is offensive and he's leveraging a tragedy for political purposes. Clearly, we've interpreted it very differently and so let's not argue about that. I still don't understand why "othering" is important here. What accountability should non-Muslims be taking for Muslims and what is being denied by "othering"? — Judaka

You’ve obviously led a sheltered life then ;) haha! I’m poking fun a little ... forgive me!

The “othering” goes both ways. The Muslim population says “they’re not us” and the Australian population says “he doesn’t represent us”. Either you you agree with both or neither of these statements.

If banno is suggesting that it’s okay for muslims to allow their “religion” to be sullied by the actions of fanatics but it’s not okay for others to do so, then yes, it is very reckless and detestable statement and I’d require a more fuller explanation of this position - I may have wrongly assumed he didn’t mean what you think he means; or rather what I think you think he means? (I could go on trying to guard myself but I think y’ get the idea.)

The general underlying point seems to me to be that we’re incredibly quick to distance ourselves from another’s crime so as not to face up to the fact that we’re capable of the same kind of acts (being human) and that the societal norms we’re born into may just have played a part in the crimes. The veery fact that we can consider these crimes is a good thing - in and of itself it’s little more than misdirected “action” given the form of outrage without consideration of what leading human beings to commit such extraordinary acts.

Regardless of religious attitudes it seems to me that people are just pretty confused creatures floundering around trying to make sense of something so vast and overwhelming complex that they inevitably resort to chaotic forms of madness brought on by holding to some form of “authoritarian rule” because their day-to-day interactions with the world leave them emotionally destitute for any number of complex reasons that may be little more than simply having too much or too little social interaction. Today we’re forced to deal with “others” all the time and often against our will. The weltanschuuang has a modernist form of infinitude that leads us to either face our existential being, turn to nihilism or disregard the infinitude we’re faced with and resort to a “religiosity” of some format.

I believe that Muslims should be judged for what they believe and do and not the religion they follow — Judaka

And we have a winner for the "Illogical statement of the day"-competition.

Continuing with your immaturity with the "yawn", I enjoy the consistency. Australian citizens commit rape, murder, steal, commit incest, betray people, believe the Earth is flat and the list the goes on. So either it's fair to say Australia has a rape culture, doesn't value loyalty or other peoples' property and is anti-science or Australia is filled with individuals who each make their own choices and some of those don't jive well with the rest of the population or the culture. Let's actually look at his comments

That's the PM's excuse for Australia producing a nationalistic terrorist.

And so he does not have to admit his culpability in the crime, despite years of presenting the sort of thing found in the OP here. — Banno

He explicitly states that the PM has cuplability in the mass murder of dozens of innocent people because he makes negative comments (not exactly sure what) about Islam. Instead of "othering" a mass murderer, he wants us to what? Take a good look in the mirror at how we're part of the problem?

I agree with that your comment is not factually untrue, the problem is that the West refers to over a dozen countries with distinct cultures and your only approach to the situation is to talk about the undemocratic, covert operations carried out by a handful of people, relatively speaking. You aren't correct just because you said something true, I wonder if that will fly over your head or not.


You think that Muslims should be judged for being Muslim rather than as individuals? You can't blame an individual for your problems with the group they belong to especially when the reasons you dislike the group aren't even applicable for a specific member, surely you agree?


I do agree with both though those examples are not similar. A more reasonable comparison might be school shootings in the US because here we've got the same thing happening many times over by different people all across the country.

I'm not sure I understand or agree with how you've characterised my problem with Banno's post. I have further explained to StreetlightX.

The general underlying point seems to me to be that we’re incredibly quick to distance ourselves from another’s crime so as not to face up to the fact that we’re capable of the same kind of acts (being human) and that the societal norms we’re born into may just have played a part in the crimes. The veery fact that we can consider these crimes is a good thing - in and of itself it’s little more than misdirected “action” given the form of outrage without consideration of what leading human beings to commit such extraordinary acts. — I like sushi

I don't disagree at all with this but you're just being generous to Banno, this isn't even close to what he's talking about and I feel like that's farily obvious based on his insinuations and earlier comments in this thread.

I think you're taking a needed philosophical approach to the topic which is sadly lacking in most of the posts here. We need to take a specific problem to have meaningful dialogue about it, OP kind of set us up for a bad time I think.

He wants us to what? Take a good look in the mirror at how we're part of the problem? — Judaka

Is this abhorrent to you?

Oh, and also, our PM, Scott Morrison, is a shitbag enabler who is most certainly culpable - though not alone - for fostering the kind of environment in which the shooter became who he is. And of course Australia is riven with all kind of systemic and cultural issues - rape, domestic violence, murderous treatment of minorities, immigrants, and the poor, and all the rest of it. Why is it so horrifying for you that this might be the case?

There is an easy way to resolve this.

Banno, is my interpretation of your words overly generous or not? I can see what Judaka is inferring and I believe their interpretation is lacking generosity yet it does appear easy enough to view your words as being a “conflation” too.

I get the impression if people don’t reply either they missed the post, disagreed so strongly that they couldn’t bring themselves to reply, or agreed so strongly that it felt pointless remarking - I often naively assume the later to boost my ego and sense of self-importance! :D

Generally speaking Judaka I find the OP poor and have voiced my concerns about this already.

It's not a question of truth, it's a question of interpretation. I don't blame you for terrorist attacks on the West by Muslims because you are publicly talking about how badly the West has ruined things for them. People who dislike and express concerns about Islam (for whatever reason) aren't culpable for mass murder in any sense.

What I think is that you don't care whether you can actually demonstrate that the culture is the problem or not. Do you actually think you could win an argument about whether Australia has a bigger rape/domestic violence problem than the majority of countries in the world? Oh right, by the way, those things happen across the world, that's why your list of problems for Australian culture is garbage, the cause of these problems can't be found in the flaws of a single culture.

Between your response to OP and your response to me, it is clear that you are making very specific interpretative choices. Your way of thinking is not balanced, I don't know exactly why you choose to interpret what you do and the way in which you do but it is clearly pathological.

People who dislike and express concerns about Islam (for whatever reason) aren't culpable for mass murder in any sense. — Judaka

Perhaps you can point out where I said they are. Or where I spoke of a 'single culture'. Perhaps my pathology is a function of your illiteracy.

You think that Muslims should be judged for being Muslim rather than as individuals? — Judaka

No. Just as Christians shouldn't be judged as Christian, but as individuals.

My point is that the beliefs of a Muslim, by it's definition of a muslim being an adherent of Islam, means that they follow their religion. Hence your statement earlier is illogical.

Oh, and also, our PM, Scott Morrison, is a shitbag enabler who is most certainly culpable - though not alone - for fostering the kind of environment in which the shooter became who he is — StreetlightX

Explain this comment.

And of course Australia is riven with all kind of systemic and cultural issues - rape, domestic violence, murderous treatment of minorities and immigrants and all the rest of it. — StreetlightX

So your position is that rape and domestic violence are cultural issues for all the cultures in which these things take place? Rather than just admitting that even if a culture condemns those things, they happen anyway because the cause isn't cultural? Which would be logical considering it's obvious to anyone with any sense that most of the said cultures (or at least people living in them) explicitly condemn those things? If not that, then at least in Australia.


I think we have a different understanding of what "judged" means. I was not saying Muslims don't follow Islam lol.

Explain this comment. — Judaka

Get stuffed. I'm not giving you a crash course on Australian politics because you think I'm implying something that I did not. Maybe you can read up about the time that parliament here literally put forward a racist meme to be voted on. Or the time Morrison argued that the party should play up anti-Muslim sentiment for votes. Or read up on the multiple instances of race and immigrant baiting documented everywhere by Morrison and his shithouse of a cabinet (read up on 'Sudanese gangs' in Melbourne). Or how Morrison resisted for weeks before deciding to put preference votes (do you even know what those are?) of a literal racist party behind those of Labour. No, if you think that I'm calling him out because he merely 'dislikes and expresses concerns about Islam', then your ignorance is yours to deal with, not mine. Educate yourself before you spout this trash.

So your position is that rape and domestic violence are cultural issues for all the cultures in which these things take place? Rather than just admitting that even if a culture condemns those things, they happen anyway because the cause isn't cultural? Which would be logical considering it's obvious to anyone with any sense that most of the said cultures explicitly condemn those things? — Judaka

My position is that Australia is riven with all kind of systemic and cultural issues such as rape, domestic violence, murderous treatment of minorities and immigrants and all the rest of it. Your word salad of a translation of this is senseless and doesn't even get the subject of the sentence right (hint: it's 'Australia', not 'culture'), let alone anything else. Get the basic grammar right and maybe there'll be a bare minimum of a discussion to be had.