If anybody is curious, here is a new video of an Islamic male who beheaded his sister for 'shaming' his family. You can find the video in the link description below. Lord, have mercy.http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=405_1357236945
waoooooI'd like to say the truth have been said but does it belong to the world?(the west)The only way to move forward is to live by the truth and allow all those whom GOD has gifted such as Dr. David, Br. Sam Shamoun, Dr. White Br. Spencer, Br. Christian Prince ......etc the list is long to have seminars with the G 8 countries, EU, to hold talk with western governments, to educate the world( muslims included, because from my little experience I came to conclusion that many muslims do not know up to 5% of their religion.)Otherwise the only way if we want to live is to live under slavery status.Well said Pat.Thank you Dr. David and team. Best regards to your lovely family.Many thanks again for the great job you guys are doing.GOD BLESS you all.
David, Here's a more accurate title: "Pat Condell: Poisoning the Well"Almost at every turn he well-poisons with insinuations intended to impugn the motives or character of those living in the "West" (whatever that means in this context). A textbook fallacy, yes? By the way, I hope when he says "we are racists" he's referring to himself and not speaking for me or anyone else I know. P.S.: I think this message posted several times. Please only post one.
@Derrick, did you actually watch the video? He isn't just calling people racists (that would be a logical fallacy), but explains WHY they are being racist. "By the way, I hope when he says "we are racists" he's referring to himself and not speaking for me or anyone else I know"I don't know. Do you, or anyone you know believe Arabs should be held to a lower standard than everyone else? Then you or they are a racist. How is he "well poisoning" or racist, by poiting out we don't hold Arabs in the middle east to the same standards as everyone else? This doesn't make any sense! Do you disagree that giving palastinians a free pass when they commit genocidal murder is potentially racist?Don't you agree that it is horendous to condemn Isreal when she defends herself and fail to ignore the calls of genocide from their Arab neighbors?
Foolster41, I don’t get your comment. Yes, I did watch the video. There’s much to condemn about it, and there’s much to laugh at. I’ll put aside the humorous bit and focus on the condemnatory aspect of his video. For one thing, the fallacy of poisoning the well is a species of the ad hominem fallacy in which one literally makes the attempt to impugn someone’s objectivity by suggesting or claiming that s/he has a personal or vested interest in the view s/he defends. Listen carefully to the video and you’ll easily see Condell is guilty of it in the span of 2 minutes. What’s condemnable about the video is that even if “we” are guilty of special pleading or favoritism towards the Palestinians it doesn’t follow that our motive is a specifically racist one. Being inconsistent can result from a lapse of moral judgment, lack of epistemic justification, or just plain myopic ignorance. However, I take racism to be a moral failing and, in particular, a social evil. To be guilty of it requires a hell of a lot more than inconsistency or special pleading. In that sense, Condell’s view isn’t unique. It’s part of a larger thesis that interest in the Palestinian cause is merely a thinly veiled cover for anti-Semitism, a thesis defended at large by historians, journalists, political pundits, and fellow travelers who typically tilt towards the right side of the political spectrum. They claim that no one can consistently defend the Palestinians (or be an anti-Zionist) and not be an anti-Semite. Condell’s rant is just another instantiation of that thesis. You ask: “Do you, or anyone you know believe Arabs should be held to a lower standard than everyone else? Then you or they are a racist.”In fact, I don’t know anyone who believes Arabs – wait, we’re talking about Palestinians right? - should be held to a lower standard. If Condell believes Arabs are held to a lower standard, then he should be specific and forthcoming with references. His unanimous, univocal “we” doesn’t help. You ask: “Do you disagree that giving palastinians a free pass when they commit genocidal murder is potentially racist?Don't you agree that it is horendous to condemn Isreal when she defends herself and fail to ignore the calls of genocide from their Arab neighbors?”The Palestinians aren’t guilty of “genocidal murder” or anything akin to that. They (those responsible) are guilty of terrorism and unjustified violence. As I said above, it’s special pleading to hold the Palestinians to a lower standard than, say, Israel. But special pleading is not akin to racism.
"However, I take racism to be a moral failing and, in particular, a social evil. To be guilty of it requires a hell of a lot more than inconsistency or special pleading."So, "you take it as", meaning it is your opinion (and I have a feeling few with agree with this "feeling") that one has to be concouslessly a racist to be a racist? This is false. You can easily have a racist assumptions about someone without actually hating the person (like say, thinking a black person might want fried chicken or watermellon). "wait, we’re talking about Palestinians right?"Yes. Palastinians are Jordanian Arabs. There never was a country, nationality or peoples called "palastinians" except when Rome refered to the people of that reigon - the Jews. The name was invented as a means of warfare against Isreal. You notice the west bank never seeked independence as a people group from Jordan. "The Palestinians aren’t guilty of 'genocidal murder' or anything akin to that"hahaha. Oh, all this time my lying Kufir eyes have been seeing the HAMAS charter, leaders in palastine calling for the extermination of jews and teaching as such to children on HAMAS state TV, including blood libels against the Jews, and firing rockets at civilians, but now I'll listen to you despite the evidence! http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/10/hamas-mp-the-jews-are-behind-each-and-every-catastrophe-on-the-face-of-the-earth-this-is-not-open-to.htmlThis is quite distrubing that you make this claim. You are either very very ignorant of what's going on in palastine, or you are trying to lie to cover for genocide! "They claim that no one can consistently defend the Palestinians (or be an anti-Zionist) and not be an anti-Semite."Well, the problem is this is true. The palastininas in their actions have not shown any disresire for peace, no matter what concessions Isreal makes (short of the suicide of remove the walls that protect them, or cease firing back at terrorist's rockets). their charter still calls for the extermination of Jews. They still preach genocide, and teach their children, Yes, critisizing Isreal is not automaticly anti-semetic, however, trying to delegitimize Isreal (the false claim Isreal has no right to exist and ignoring that this would make Jordan illegetimate as well, only or exessively critisizing Isreal and ignoring palstine's war crimes as our leftitst media politicians and intelectuals have done, ignoring that it was Muslims who started all of the wars since 1948) are antisemetic. Pretending that that the palastinians are just fighting for rights is insulting to my intelligence. it's a false narrative, and I suspect you know this already. "As I said above, it’s special pleading to hold the Palestinians to a lower standard than, say, Israel. But special pleading is not akin to racism." If one race is being favored over an other, because of the assumption they can't help themselves then I don't know what else to call it. However, I may agree. It's not really ARABS that are being given special privalges and a free pass, therefore it's not racism at all, but "Islamaphobia" (The real kind, and not the accusation used against critics of Islam), since it is ISLAM that is being given the free pass!
Foolster41, You haven't adequately responded to my main claim, particularly that Pat Condell is guilty of poisoning the well. I'll take your silence as a concession.
"Adequately " whatever that means. I did respond. I noted your charge of "poisoning the well" assumes one has to be overtly racist to be racist, and Condell is saying the motive is racism (which he never does). I gave the example of the black person who is assumed to enjoy watermellon and fried chicken.Perhaps you'd like to respond to my claims rather than sniffing that it's not "adequate" enough? I notice you don't respond to the fact that palastinians are committing genocide against Jews, or that to treat the "poor" palastinians as nothing but victims when they are the ones instigating the violence is indeed bigoted (Isalaphobia, Jew hatred), so I'll take it as a concession.
Also, I hear over and over how being anti-zionist is anti-semetic from muslims and skinhead conspiracy NWO theorists, but I n ever get a definition of what it is. If Zionism is the liberation movement for the Jewish people in the last of Isreal (I.e. "Zion", or Bethelam) then yes, anti-zionism is indeed racist.
Derrick -your defensiveness is very lame since you're NOT hearing what these commentators are saying! I don't blame them for not wanting to comment anymore (about what you're saying) since you aren't listening/reading what is actually being said: there is NO defense for what islam believes as justification for what it DOES - PERIOD!
Derrick - I don't blame these commentators for not responding (conceding, as you say) to your post(s) since you're NOT listening to what they're saying/responding! There is NO defense for what islam is doing in the name of allah and their 'prophet.' Mercy killings, honor killings, suicidal killings, etc. are all WRONG. There is no defense/belief that supports any right or goodness in ANY of that...
Foolster41, Your blatant evasion is surreal! Here’s what I said: “For one thing, the fallacy of poisoning the well is a species of the ad hominem fallacy in which one literally makes the attempt to impugn someone’s objectivity by suggesting or claiming that s/he has a personal or vested interest in the view s/he defends. Listen carefully to the video and you’ll easily see Condell is guilty of it in the span of 2 minutes. What’s condemnable about the video is that even if ‘we’ are guilty of special pleading or favoritism towards the Palestinians it doesn’t follow that our motive is a specifically racist one. Being inconsistent can result from a lapse of moral judgment, lack of epistemic justification, or just plain myopic ignorance. However, I take racism to be a moral failing and, in particular, a social evil. To be guilty of it requires a hell of a lot more than inconsistency or special pleading.”So where do you stand? Do you agree or disagree? Condell’s commission of the poisoning the well fallacy is so patently obvious it’s clear to anyone who knows what the fallacy is. Interestingly, Condell is guilty of the commission even if the biographical facts in question are true or false; that is, even if “we” are inconsistent with respect to our attitudes towards Palestinians and Israelis Condell is guilty of committing the fallacy. Here’s Condell’s reasoning more formally. (P) “x is inconsistent” (C) “x is a racist” [Note: Condell actually starts with the assumption that “we” are racists, but he clearly reasons from P to C] It doesn’t take much mental energy to see that the inference from P to C is a clear-cut non-sequitur. The reason it’s a non-sequitur is that it’s logically possible for someone to hold inconsistent beliefs racial kind K and not be a racist towards K. Worse still: one can’t reason from someone’s inconsistency and reach a conclusion about someone’s motives. People are inconsistent for a variety of reasons and there are a plethora of explanations around to explain them. But one can’t impugn someone’s objectivity by claiming they have a vested interest in the topic they defend. If Condell is confident about “our” racism then he owes us an explanatory story how he knows it. You might respond that Condell believes racism is the best explanation. That is: (p) “x is inconsistent”(c) “The best explanation of x’s inconsistency is racism”That’s possible, but the inference to the best explanation has epistemic conditions (simplicity, explanatory scope/range, explanatory power, non-adhocness, etc.), epistemic conditions conspicuously absent from Condell’s video. To reach the explanadum the explanans must be sufficient. Again, how does Condell know “our” attitudes? By what procedure was he able to adduce “our” racist attitudes? Is his explanation simple? Does it have enough explanatory scope and power to knock out rival explanations? Is it ad hoc? A simple set of questions for a simple-minded comedian.
Foolster41/ Gdwyr:Furthermore, I asked this question before and I’ll ask it again: who does “we” refer to (hence my use of scare quotes)? Does it refer to everyone living in the “West” or thereabouts? (“West” of what, exactly?) Does it refer to liberals? Does it refer to conservatives? What about libertarians? Does it refer to self-hating Jews? Muslims? Arabs? Closet Heaven’s Gate cultists? Without a clear idea who qualifies as “x” Condell’s ranting reduces to overheated bluster. Lastly, racism is a moral failure (as opposed to a moral lapse of judgment) and a social evil. To be guilty of it one must not only be inconsistent with respect to one’s attitudes towards racial kinds, but one must equally harbor morally appalling attitudes about racial kinds. It’s a social evil because races are (I believe) social kinds (pace the view that races are biological kinds). What renders racism specifically evil is that there’s no justification for it – no one deserves it. I should also add I don’t believe racism is reducible to morally perverse attitudes, but most racist views are attitudinal in essence; I say attitudinal to include illocutionary utterances and rule out inaccurate racial generalizations (e.g. “Blacks eat chicken and watermelon”). So whatever link Condell believes exists between “our” alleged inconsistency and “our” racism the link must be airtight. It’s my contention that the inference from “our” inconsistency and alleged racism is so large one can literally drive Texas right through it.
Foolster4/Gdwyer: What does the above say about Condell? Not much, really. The posting of the video (and the pathetic responses to it) does say something about the “Answering Muslims” blog and its readership, however. I mentioned this in my previous post. Condell’s stance isn’t novel. It’s a stance taken by many who consider themselves to be opponents of the “new anti-Semitism” rampant in the Muslim world and elsewhere. When you and others like you who form laughable judgments about my epistemic procedures are not busy accusing me of ignorance take the time to read Gabriel Schoenfeld’s 2003 book The Return of Antisemitism or Ron Rosenbaum’s anthology Those Who Forget the Past: The Question of Anti-Semitism and you’ll see exactly what I mean. Both authors (and the contributors in the latter book) proceed in the way Condell does: 1. Offer vague definitions of racism (or anti-Semitism)2. Assume critics of Israel are a priori racists (or anti-Semites)3. Point out apparent inconsistencies (e.g. “Why focus on Israel and not the Arab world?”) in the work of the critics of Israel irrespective of the intention of the authors4. Conclude that what’s “really” at work is anti-Semitism barely hidden beneath the surface. Both books (in more ways than one) regurgitate the fallacy of poisoning the well, a fallacy no one should commit in public or private. But that fallacy is on display in Condell’s video and questioned by absolutely no one other than yours truly. What does that say about the argumentative character of the Answering Muslims blog? What does that say about its contributors (or at least one) who post items with textbook fallacies undergraduate philosophy students are taught to avoid? What does that say about Answering Muslim blog’s readership? I don’t deny that many Muslims in general and Arabs in particular do harbor anti-Semitic attitudes. It’s just fallacious to reason in the way Condell does and insinuate that “we” in the “West” harbor such despicable attitudes on the basis of our inconsistencies. And if you can’t see the apparent fallacy or its exemplification elsewhere then I suggest you think twice before you point your finger and cluck your tongue about who the “ignorant” one is between us.
Foolster41, You state: “I did respond. I noted your charge of 'poisoning the well' assumes one has to be overtly racist to be racist, and Condell is saying the motive is racism (which he never does). I gave the example of the black person who is assumed to enjoy watermellon and fried chicken."Firstly, the poisoning the well fallacy doesn’t presuppose overt racism. You apparently didn’t read my previous post. Re-read it and respond. Secondly, generalizations like “blacks like chicken and watermelon” or “Jews are money obsessed” are stereotypes and do not reduce to racist presuppositions or attitudes. At best they’re hasty generalizations about racial/ethnic kinds typically uttered by racists. But to utter them doesn’t mean the speaker is a racist or holds racist attitudes. To be honest, I'm not so sure it's crystal clear how to drive a wedge between racially excitable generalizations and hasty ones. Consider this belief held by yours truly: “Indian Muslims typically eat spicy food.” Is it true or false? Tough to say, but I believe it based on two facts. (1) I’ve eaten with many Indian Muslims; (2) my wife is an Indian Muslim. I consider the belief to be a safe generalization acceptable to just about anyone who is familiar with South Asian domestic life. It's akin to what the philosopher Robert Stalnaker calls a social or communally accepted proposition (or "common ground"). I'm sure there's someone out there who might take offense to my generalization. Anyhow, if making generalizations about racial/ethnic kinds is such a huge issue then what does that say about the generalizations formed here on this blog by readers about Muslims/Arabs?Thirdly, I didn’t respond to your point about Palestinian “genocidal murder” because it’s too hilarious to take serious and a red herring. Lastly, a bit of advice from your Muslim correspondent: If you want to partake in a dialogue the best thing to do is to respond to what your correspondent actually says. If you want to be shut out of decent conversation, please continue to bypass the salient points for ones you like. Gdwyer, With red herrings like yours I probably should listen less. The discussion isn’t (nor was it ever) about Islam or Islamic inspired violence. The topic (in so few words) is the following: Is Pat Condell guilty of committing the fallacy of poisoning the well? I answer in the affirmative. What say you?
Surreal evasion? Here is the relevant part I answered:"even if ‘we’ are guilty of special pleading or favoritism towards the Palestinians it doesn't follow that our motive is a specifically racist one. "I noted you are making the ASSUMPTION that Condell is claiming a racist MOTIVE (thus you are claiming that Condell is claiming they are motivated by racism (thus poisoning the well, or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean, but you use the word "motive" over and over.). As I pointed out TWICE now. one can be racist without it actually being their motive, or even realizing their motives. (See: Assumptions of black dining). But you don't explain this, but keep repeating about how Condell is saying people's motive is racist, and don't explain how he is saying their motive is racist. It gives me the impression you aren't reading what I say. Who is "we"? American and western liberal intelectuals, media personalities (news) and politicians on both sides of the isles, and the UN. This easy to see in news reports and actions and words by our politicians. "When you and others like you who form laughable judgments about my epistemic procedures are not busy accusing me of ignorance"I notice you don't actually respond to what I said, just brush me off as "laughable". I called you "ignorant" not because of yor eistemic procedures, but the lie that there is no genocide being carried out by palastinains. (HAMAS charter, rockets fired at civilians, teaching children murder and blood libel against Jews). 2."Assume critics of Israel are a priori racists (or anti-Semites)"I and Condell did no such thing. and in fact the opposite, I said those who criticize Israel are not automatically anti-Semites. Well, to deny an obvious genocide IS ignorant. Even if I am wrong about Condell usign a fallacy, that doesn't change this. As I said, I do disagree with Condell, it's not racist at all. It's Islamaphobic, western media and politicians are making the assumption that muslims in the muslim world can't help but be viuolent, and so we give them a free pass.
Missed something: "I should also add I don’t believe racism is reducible to morally perverse attitudes, but most racist views are attitudinal in essence; I say attitudinal to include illocutionary utterances and rule out inaccurate racial generalizations (e.g. “Blacks eat chicken and watermelon”). So whatever link Condell believes exists between “our” alleged inconsistency and “our” racism the link must be airtight. It’s my contention that the inference from “our” inconsistency and alleged racism is so large one can literally drive Texas right through it"So in other words, you're going to completely brush aside ("rule out") the idea one can be racist without realizing it and my examples of how this can be, without any explanation why. And you wonder why people aren't taking you seriously? Why does racism have to be active and conscious? Can't a person have racist attitudes without realizing their racist? (The answer is yes they can).
"The posting of the video (and the pathetic responses to it) does say something about the “Answering Muslims” blog and its readership"I'm curious what does this say about the Answering Muslim Blog and its readership?
Foolster41I wasn’t explicit in my previous posts about how I understand Condell’s video. I take Condell as saying that we’re racist because we ignore Arab violent behavior and focus on specifically on the malfeasance of the Israeli government. That is, because we’re anti-Semites deep down we excuse or exonerate violence committed by Arabs and fixate on Israel. That’s one possible reading, the reading I prefer and assumed throughout my exchange with you. Another interpretation is the suggestion that he considers us racists because we lower our moral standards for Arabs (in particular Palestinians), and, in essence, treat them like uncivilized baboons incapable of moral advancement. Let’s assume that Condell is saying just that. Let’s assume that Arab violence (unjustified I suppose) is excused or minimized because we think they’re somehow inferior. The question still remains: how does he know we’re racists? How does that reading fare better than my original one? Isn’t he still guilty of poisoning the well?By the way, I didn't answer your question about Palestinians and genocide because it's beside the point.
Post a Comment