This Insult Cannot be Tolerated

[Black Rose]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafir

as distinct from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaffir_%28racial_term%29


In response to those western liberals who claim to 'disagree' with colonial policies, or not to have participated in them: your words, particularly given your failure to fight for them, mean little to those of my brothers and sisters who have lost relatives, or even their entire communities, to the armies of your democratically elected governments.

Look what I found.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HX5-ulcdXc

 

[Lobstrich]

Respect Lobstrich. You will care if they come a knockin' at your door.

Respect? What do you mean? Are you saying that I do not respect people?

And when who comes knocking? The Muslims? Or the people who burn books?

 

[BigApplePi]

Respect? What do you mean? Are you saying that I do not respect people?

And when who comes knocking? The Muslims? Or the people who burn books?

Expect either one. They can arrive at any time.

This "insult" thing is an important one. A party, presumably small, wishes to express its opinion of low status to another. The potentially offended party, I wonder, is always sensitive to this potential low status, whether real or not. Having low status is extremely non-beneficial socially. It is non-beneficial because of reduced benefits. So it is very important that word, true or false, to this effect doesn't get around. If the insulting party keeps it private, no problem. They are just venting. It's when they go public we think of "slander." Slander is illegal. It does real damage.

Afterthought: The insulted party need not have real or imagined low status. That was faulty imagination on my part. They could have high status. But if their public status is lowered by the insult, we have damage.

The West is in competition with the mid-East and vice versa. That is why either side feels open to throwing around insults and is not willing to tolerate receiving them.

 

[Lobstrich]

Expect either one. They can arrive at any time.

This "insult" thing is an important one. A party, presumably small, wishes to express its opinion of low status to another. The potentially offended party, I wonder, is always sensitive to this potential low status, whether real or not. Having low status is extremely non-beneficial socially. It is non-beneficial because of reduced benefits. So it is very important that word, true or false, to this effect doesn't get around. If the insulting party keeps it private, no problem. They are just venting. It's when they go public we think of "slander." Slander is illegal. It does real damage.

Afterthought: The insulted party need not have real or imagined low status. That was faulty imagination on my part. They could have high status. But if their public status is lowered by the insult, we have damage.

The West is in competition with the mid-East and vice versa. That is why either side feels open to throwing around insults and is not willing to tolerate receiving them.

I must admit that I'm not entirely sure what your point is. You're saying that I have to expect them to come knocking? Why? And what's wrong with them knocking? What's going to happen when they knock? Like I said. I'm not entirely sure what you're saying other than that we shouldn't disrespect another nation on our own nations behalf because that can have consequences for the entire nation that you're 'slandering' on behalf.

 

[EditorOne]

It's hard to respect either the malicious offenders or the overwrought offended, in this case. No slur on anyone's religion. We're just seeing two brands of fanaticism.

 

[Lobstrich]

It's hard to respect either the malicious offenders or the overwrought offended, in this case. No slur on anyone's religion. We're just seeing two brands of fanaticism.

Yes, exactly. I don't really think either 'side' deserves anyones respect. They are both acting up.

 

[BigApplePi]

I must admit that I'm not entirely sure what your point is. You're saying that I have to expect them to come knocking? Why? And what's wrong with them knocking? What's going to happen when they knock? Like I said. I'm not entirely sure what you're saying other than that we shouldn't disrespect another nation on our own nations behalf because that can have consequences for the entire nation that you're 'slandering' on behalf.

Lobstrich I threw several thoughts in there at once to be thought about.

About expecting extremists to come knocking at your door ... that was a half joke. I meant you or anyone should be prepared to encounter an extremist some day. I mean to be on the defensive if one should be so unlucky as to meet one. They are so heavily into their own thing, they wouldn't likely listen to reason if you try to reason with them.

 

[Words]

This "insult" thing is an important one. A party, presumably small, wishes to express its opinion of low status to another. The potentially offended party, I wonder, is always sensitive to this potential low status, whether real or not. Having low status is extremely non-beneficial socially. It is non-beneficial because of reduced benefits. So it is very important that word, true or false, to this effect doesn't get around. If the insulting party keeps it private, no problem. They are just venting. It's when they go public we think of "slander." Slander is illegal. It does real damage.

Or does it? to put it in an alternate perspective, what does a group's "damaging/violent reaction" symbolizes? Sensitivity. Fragility.

I think it represents a fragility that could cause greater international threat in the future. If a religion can stir so much individuals, then we have an easily manipulated population. If a charismatic leader arises, then we could have the same antagonistic, idealogical problems we had in the past. ...something about world war 2?

The West is in competition with the mid-East and vice versa. That is why either side feels open to throwing around insults and is not willing to tolerate receiving them.

For the greater value of security, insults should always be tolerated. The mid-East's intolerance is evident, but how has the west not tolerated the mid-East's insults?

Intolerance to insults directly implies intolerance to another party's freedom. The "Laws of Islam" are not universal, just as with any other religion.

Intolerance is a threat to international security.

 

[BigApplePi]

Or does it? to put it in an alternate perspective, what does a group's "damaging/violent reaction" symbolizes? Sensitivity. Fragility.

I think it represents a fragility that could cause greater international threat in the future. If a religion can stir so much individuals, then we have an easily manipulated population. If a charismatic leader arises, then we could have the same antagonistic, idealogical problems we had in the past. ...something about world war 2?

The Western World and the Middle-Eastern Word are in competition. Each side's weakness is fragile to the other side's strength. This pervades everywhere. A charismatic leader or an act of extremism is only the tip of the iceberg.

For the greater value of security, insults should always be tolerated. The mid-East's intolerance is evident, but how has the west not tolerated the mid-East's insults?

Intolerance to insults directly implies intolerance to another party's freedom. The "Laws of Islam" are not universal, just as with any other religion.

Intolerance is a threat to international security.

If tolerance means don't light the fuse, then don't light the fuse. How has the mid-East insulted the west? By having a different culture. Women are lower class citizens. The Taliban destroyed 3,000 year old statues. Those are "insults" to the west just to name two.

 

[Lobstrich]

Lobstrich I threw several thoughts in there at once to be thought about.

About expecting extremists to come knocking at your door ... that was a half joke. I meant you or anyone should be prepared to encounter an extremist some day. I mean to be on the defensive if one should be so unlucky as to meet one. They are so heavily into their own thing, they wouldn't likely listen to reason if you try to reason with them.

Ah yeah, okay, my bad. I'm not very good at reading jokes. I'm alot better at humor in 'real life' especially when there's no smilies no exaggerated text or the likes.

 

[Words]

The Western World and the Middle-Eastern Word are in competition. Each side's weakness is fragile to the other side's strength. This pervades everywhere.

An aside, all states are in competition. It's not exclusive to West vs. Mid-East. There are many Mid-East countries that are highly influenced by the west such as Lebanon, Turkey, Israel, Jordan and U.A.E. There are are aso conflicts within the west and within the mid-east.

True, there is a sense of "Arab unity" and there's also the EU. But the point is which culture promotes intolerance? which culture promotes authoritarianism? which culture demands another culture to step down? The Arab-Islamic's culture of intolerance is a threat, whether physical or political, to every other non-arab-islamic population.

A charismatic leader or an act of extremism is only the tip of the iceberg.
If tolerance means don't light the fuse, then don't light the fuse. How has the mid-East insulted the west? By having a different culture. Women are lower class citizens. The Taliban destroyed 3,000 year old statues. Those are "insults" to the west just to name two.

Has the west retaliated because of these destructions? have they acted based on intolerance? I see military occupations, but the primary reason is economic empowerment. Unjustified, but the world agrees.

 

[BigApplePi]

An aside, all states are in competition. It's not exclusive to West vs. Mid-East. There are many Mid-East countries that are highly influenced by the west such as Lebanon, Turkey, Israel, Jordan and U.A.E. There are are aso conflicts within the west and within the mid-east.

True, there is a sense of "Arab unity" and there's also the EU. But the point is which culture promotes intolerance? which culture promotes authoritarianism? which culture demands another culture to step down? The Arab-Islamic's culture of intolerance is a threat, whether physical or political, to every other non-arab-islamic population.



Has the west retaliated because of these destructions? have they acted based on intolerance? I see military occupations, but the primary reason is economic empowerment. Unjustified, but the world agrees.

That seems a pretty good summary of what's going on. Anyone object?

 

[crippli]

That seems a pretty good summary of what's going on. Anyone object?

*raises hand*

I suppose if one looks at the situation on a large enough scale. But when you pick an individual to study, especially a non confirming arab, then the community comes off as to me non tolerant. You get to be murdered for converting to another religion. I fail to see the insult in this. What's one religion to another?

 

[Lobstrich]

An aside, all states are in competition. It's not exclusive to West vs. Mid-East. There are many Mid-East countries that are highly influenced by the west such as Lebanon, Turkey, Israel, Jordan and U.A.E. There are are aso conflicts within the west and within the mid-east.

True, there is a sense of "Arab unity" and there's also the EU. But the point is which culture promotes intolerance? which culture promotes authoritarianism? which culture demands another culture to step down? The Arab-Islamic's culture of intolerance is a threat, whether physical or political, to every other non-arab-islamic population.

There is an Arab unity. That doesn't mean they do not fight amongst themselves. Like we do.
Saying that the entire Islamic culture is a threat is rather ignorant, no? The majority is, I'd agree. But not "Arab-Islam" as a whole.

 

[Melllvar]

This whole discussion reminds me of a website I found a while ago: Meedan.net, which is supposed to encourage dialogue between arab countries and the west. It's basically news articles that get translated into english/arabic, along with the comments. Just thought I'd throw it out there.

Here's an example article related to the book burning thing.

 

[Words]

There is an Arab unity. That doesn't mean they do not fight amongst themselves. Like we do.
Saying that the entire Islamic culture is a threat is rather ignorant, no? The majority is, I'd agree. But not "Arab-Islam" as a whole.

It's just...when one thinks sociologically, one tends to speak in generalities. Also, the power of the majority is not limited to the physical, but also the psychological. Culture spreads as every person is connected to this invisible "hub" via one person or another. Pressure.

But true, not all will conform. I don't even think societies can ever be 100% cohesive. Not even Japan.

I suppose if one looks at the situation on a large enough scale. But when you pick an individual to study, especially a non confirming arab, then the community comes off as to me non tolerant. You get to be murdered for converting to another religion. I fail to see the insult in this. What's one religion to another?

Apparently, "Insults", like perspectives, can be anything. That is what "Ideology" is about. Valuing any arbitrary idea. Even those that are unreal. misguided.

 

[Lobstrich]

It's just...when one thinks sociologically, one tends to speak in generalities. Also, the power of the majority is not limited to the physical, but also the psychological. Culture spreads as every person is connected to this invisible "hub" via one person or another. Pressure.

Sure, but that doesn't mean one shouldn't continously keep the minorities in mind.

 

[imanilmu]

salam/peace
I have always been a lurker at this forum. However in this case I condemned the burning of the Quran. FYI I am a muslim. What you see is the only words that I type... but what is inside the muslim's heart are a bigger issues. Quran is not a child plaything or game.

 

[BigApplePi]

imanilmu. How strange to find one group has a something that belongs to them they highly value that when another group comes along and discovers that value is something they do not value , they feel free to hold that value in contempt!

Perhaps this only comes when the second group is seeking a value they completely lack that they in their search must in their gusto reject all values which appear not to fulfill.

I'm watching a film about juveniles and this is exactly what happens. A young boy fails at a piano lesson in front of an attractive female teacher. Along comes his successor who turns out to play beautifully. The first boy peers through the window and says to himself, "ass-kisser."

 

[Words]

salam/peace
I have always been a lurker at this forum. However in this case I condemned the burning of the Quran. FYI I am a muslim. What you see is the only words that I type... but what is inside the muslim's heart are a bigger issues. Quran is not a child plaything or game.

I'm also a Muslim...at least culturally. But I don't think symbolical disrespect should traverse beyond the value of peace.

I think peace comes from when people value other people as oppose to other objects.

i
Perhaps this only comes when the second group is seeking a value they completely lack that they in their search must in their gusto reject all values which appear not to fulfill.

I'm watching a film about juveniles and this is exactly what happens. A young boy fails at a piano lesson in front of an attractive female teacher. Along comes his successor who turns out to play beautifully. The first boy peers through the window and says to himself, "ass-kisser."

that's quite unfair for the the successor who can play well, no? Because certain individuals are talented in an area they find no interest in, they are branded with negative labels? When did they choose to be good at something? and/or if they practiced, do they not deserve and value it beforehand?

One word: Ethnocentrism.

People should accept that most values are just not universal.

 

[Black Rose]

I'm also a Muslim...at least culturally. But I don't think symbolical disrespect should traverse beyond the value of peace.

I think peace comes from when people values other people as oppose to other objects.

Are you Sunni?

Or is it irreverent as mysticism still perturbs you.

Not to ask of mall intent but you seem to be kinder in your approach when speaking to me.

 

[Words]

Are you Sunni?

Or is it irreverent as mysticism still perturbs you.

from a Sunni background, yeah. I'm more agnostic now. I still follow some traditions but for alternate non-mystical reasons.

Not to ask of mall intent but you seem to be kinder in your approach when speaking to me.

As always, you confuse me.

 

[Black Rose]

from a Sunni background, yeah. I'm more agnostic now. I still follow some traditions but for alternate non-mystical reasons.

As always, you confuse me.

It has been my experience that some non developed INTP's

Ti only vs (Ti and Ne)

Have resented what I say.

You seem well developed was what I was implying. Less childish.

I am a word smith, Hieratic

You are keen in hieroglyphs

 

[BigApplePi]

One word: Ethnocentrism.

People should accept that most values are just not universal.

I've learned a new word to go along with egocentrism. Thank you Words.

Thought: If I've eaten nothing but potatoes, how do I value potatoes? If I come across a beet, I've discovered something new and of value. But If I'm a fish suddenly flung out of water, I discover how much I value water and don't want to be anywhere else.

So ethnocentrism? I may find my culture a happy place. How will I feel encountering other cultures? On the other hand, what if my culture is my prison? How will I regard other cultures?

 

[Words]

Thought:

I organize it this way. There are two types of values and why people value certain things: Environment and Innate Preference.

Environment is everything external from the person. Behaviorism. Conditioning.

Innate Preference is everything internal. Biology. Temperament.

If I've eaten nothing but potatoes, how do I value potatoes?

If you eat it to survive, then the situation falls under innate preference. You value it when it's breakfast, dinner and lunch---anytime when you're hungry. The more hungry you are, the more you value it. It vanishes when there's no threat. (shows, time-wise, finiteness of values). In terms of temperament, I don't think anyone values specific objects innately. Potatoes are not directly valued because other means(food) could exist.

When you're not hungry, you don't value it unless there's a need to store it. If you require storing potatoes for future consumption, then you're already conditioning yourself to value potatoes. The more you associate potatoes to survival, the more you value it. Also, some behaviorist(s) could intervene and condition you to value potatoes through other positive associations.

If I come across a beet, I've discovered something new and of value.

I think something new is not necessarily something of value. It depends on temperament and external circumstances.

But If I'm a fish suddenly flung out of water, I discover how much I value water and don't want to be anywhere else.

Same with potatoes. Strong innate preference arises abruptly when it's about survival. I don't think fishes can shift values, so maybe, in this case, there's a constant value for water?

So ethnocentrism? I may find my culture a happy place. How will I feel encountering other cultures? On the other hand, what if my culture is my prison? How will I regard other cultures?

Depends on what culture you were brought up in, and your temperament.

...I guess freewill is not included in this equation.

 

[EditorOne]

We must at all costs maintain both that Bush was a fool who stared like a rabbit in the headlights whilst interrupted from his daily reading of 'The Little Goat Who Could', or whatever, and that he was simultaneously a brilliant criminal genius in the tradition of Napoleon or Dr. Fu Manchu.
Claverhouse

Oh, heck, that's no problem. Bush was a blissfully unaware fool used by the brilliant criminal genius who got himself made vice president with him. Bush was a lot like Truman Burbank in "The Truman Show," only he never twigged that his presidency was truly a theatrical performance.