With Merkel's Foes in Disarray, Germany Defies the Trump Trend

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-01-2017, 01:03 PM)Dill Wrote: You claim the stats I offered on gun ownership are flawed because of sample size. So what is the sample size of the stats on gun ownership? So far you have not answered.

This is absolutely untrue, you're mentioning two separate disagreements.  The per capita argument involved my pointing out issues with sample size.  My issues with your poll were due to the flawed methodology of the poll.  It's difficult to debate with someone who apparently can't read or confuses one disagreement with another.  This is ironic considering your claims later in this post.

 

Quote:You cannot demonstrate that you know how these stats were calculated. To ask that you do this is not to ignore your point. It is to ask for further specification, without which the point cannot stand. You brush off the request saying you have "already addressed" the point.  Sometimes you deflect the request by saying it is "boring" to repeat your point. Other times you say that we can agree to disagree, as if there were no means of logically and factually deciding the issue.  Your impression vs my impression. 

Again, not true.  I am known for addressing every point made.  In fact, it was one of the chief complaints about a now defunct poster.  I will not endlessly repeat myself though, especially to someone who appears to lack the capacity to even recall what is being discussed.

Quote:Ok, so you don't know. I would have let it go, despite all the puffery about how you know stats and I don't.

Again, you're discussing two separate issues and treating them like they're one.  This is why you're insanely boring to attempt to converse with.

Quote:But here we are again.

Here is the pattern: 1) You challenge someone to support a claim. 2) The person responds with a substantive argument, logical and supported argument.  3) You launch into denial, making unsupported assertions about one or more points in that argument, often just quips. (Verbal abuse regarding others' character is not "support.") 4) When a quip/assertion is challenged as unsupported, you say you have "already addressed the issue," as if mere assertion does the job. 5) When it is pointed out that you most certainly have not addressed the issue, you insist you have, and repetition is "boring."  Sometimes, as in your post #150 above, you assert someone's point is wrong, then proceed as if the matter is now settled on your say so, without staying to hear objections. You have "already addressed" it. Here we are on another thread now, and already up to point 3.  Hence the Deja vu.

This "point" is so blatantly untrue as to be laughable.  I have issue with the three headed sock puppet hydra, you, GMDabo and Fred.  All three of you engage in the same BS, you dodge points or deliberately misconstrue arguments being made.  I have these issues with no one else.  Let me repeat it as you seem to have comprehension issues.  I have these issues with no one else. 

Quote:Accusing someone of plagiarism you cannot even specify--again grounding your entire claim on an "impression"-- is desperate. Just deflection.

I addressed your points at the same time I, correctly, accused you of plagiarism.  So, once again, this is a sad attempt to make a point.  One need only scroll up to see which one of us is correct in this regard. 

Quote:As is the claim that, after four substantive posts on the issue of Islam in contemporary politics, I "have no answers" and am "not even trying to address anything now" because of a side response to Dino, not you.  My posts are still there. And I have explained what you have not understood.

Once again, I address all the "points" you made.  Where is your response?  One need only scroll up to see which one of us is correct in this regard.

Quote:Tired of "repeating yourself"? Break the pattern.

Quote:  Establish premises (not private impressions), then induct or deduct conclusions from them. Use those conclusions to build your next point.  Respond to questions about factual accuracy and logical consistency without deflection and verbal abuse. Don't throw up a flailing barrage of negative quips. Avoid idle reporting of your feelings and speculation about who else agrees with you.  No more "copypasta" smoke screens. Get back on the issues and the arguments which have been laid out.  Do you see Masterp's response in post #159 below? Can you post something sustained, on that level?
 

Once again, I address all the "points" you made.  Where is your response?  One need only scroll up to see which one of us is correct in this regard.

[Dill]

(05-01-2017, 04:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I addressed your points at the same time I, correctly, accused you of plagiarism.  So, once again, this is a sad attempt to make a point.  One need only scroll up to see which one of us is correct in this regard.
Once again, I address all the "points" you made.  Where is your response?  One need only scroll up to see which one of us is correct in this regard.
Once again, I address all the "points" you made.  Where is your response?  One need only scroll up to see which one of us is correct in this regard.
Once again, I address all the "points" you made.  Where is your response?  One need only scroll up to see which one of us is correct in this regard.
Once again, I address all the "points" you made.  Where is your response?  One need only scroll up to see which one of us is correct in this regard.
Once again, I address all the "points" you made.  Where is your response?  One need only scroll up to see which one of us is correct in this regard.
Once again, I address all the "points" you made.  Where is your response?  One need only scroll up to see which one of us is correct in this regard.

I see "Scroll up" is the new form of "I already addressed that."  If there was any substance in your previous posts, it has thinned out even more in this one.  Jeezus, why would you put this in a thread right next to a post where you claim Dino and Fred dodge points?

OK, so I am going to "scroll up."

1. Yes, I see you accused me of plagiarism. You still don't get that bald assertions aren't proof. Nothing "correct" about the claim anywhere but in your head. Adding words like "blatantly" don't constitute proof. "Scrolling up" won't change anything. Your anxious, inarticulable impression remains the ground of this attack on my character.

2. You are known for "responding to every point" with quips and bald assertions and ad hominem. I see that when I "scroll up"--talk of "three-headed sock puppets" and claims others are "boring" and what you imagine you are "known for."  And you again address the flawed methodology question from the Venezuela thread by claiming there were really two disagreements, perhaps forgetting you challenged the methodology in each and I challenged your challenge in each case. Gun ownership stats aren't just compiled from phone surveys, and surveys are controlled for deceitful response. Your answer to that is--surprise surprise--you have already addressed the issue. The per capita argument is unclear. First my data sucks, then you claim you don't contest national statistics. But my data still sucks, right? And you already addressed that issue. Fred's posts #86 and 89 ended the sample-size deflection.

2. When I scroll up I also see that your post #146  misses my point from post #144. "Why then do we get such disparate results from their faithful, again, not only now, but centuries ago?" you ask? Because in the diaspora Jews had to value tolerance I answer. Minority status does this to all the Abrahmic religions. After yourself raising the issue of history ("centuries") your response is the Bill Maheresque "that was 2,000 years ago." Doesn't matter if it was 10,000 years ago if this is how Jews, Christians and Muslims adapt to minority status. To disprove the point you need to argue that minority status does not have the claimed effect and did not in my examples.  I respond to your misunderstanding in post #153. But when I scroll up, I see no response to that counterargument at all from you. Not even a quip or an insult.

3. When I scroll up, I do see lengthy, well argued posts in my name (115,117,119,144,153) demonstrating some breadth of knowledge and resources regarding current debates over Islam--all in critique of religious/ethnic stereotyping. In your name I see unsubstantiated accusations and flailing quips and ad hominem in defense of religious/ethnic stereotypes. THAT is what you are "known for." I saw one objection based upon a misreading or misunderstanding.  I did not respond to that objection by claiming "I already addressed it" followed by some comments on your manifest inability to follow an argument. I specified where the misunderstanding was, recapped my argument and addressed it again. Getting it right is not "boring."

So Deja vu.  You once again you throw out a challenge, get a substantive response, go into denial mode punctuated by flailing quips and ad hominem and bald assertions. When called on the bald assertions, you continue to claim "I already addressed that"--or excuse me, now the tactic is "scroll up," even as you claim it is laughably untrue that you do what you do as you are doing it.  

I have put up substantive arguments, which I can restate, clarify and extend from any angle on the spot, drawing examples from across wide historical and geographic range. Your very claim I plagiarized is an unintended validation of substance.  But for every pound of substantive argument offered I'm met with a penny's worth of quip and accusation. 

  Scroll up indeed!!

[Dill]

(05-01-2017, 01:41 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote:  The question here is, what is the right degree of vetting those we allow to enter into the U.S.  Between the extremes of no one from a certain religion  and everyone from everywhere, lies the spectrum.  The problem I believe is that to reach the right balance we must be a bit more open to using "facts"/surveys (facts here in quotes to really mean some defensible reasoning/interpretation obtained from facts or studies, not the actual data itself) to understand any population's "fit" for our cultural fabric.  I'm sure you would agree that this will at least inform us either way on what would be the expectations when people with different values are allowed to enter.  And at the least provide a framework not only to clarify what exactly our values are, but to appreciate how we differ from other regions of the world, and how our immigration policies reflect how we strengthen the framework of our own values and to inform our population why people whom we've allowed to immigrate here, are actually a reflection of those policies.  And to get here, I think one of the things we must understand better is why certain populations of Muslims in Western Europe hold certain views that are at least on the surface,  antithetical to the core values  of those nations.  This would definitely include a thorough analysis on whether such "surveys" were actually conducted properly and without skews etc.   I feel like you've actually come around to my point in the first place.  What I'm calling for is a detailed discussion which would also educate some of the less educated views in the populace and hopefully provide a defensible reasoning for whatever policy results from such an endeavor.  Now if we can arrive at the factors which would prime someone to hold views which we find are not conducive to our core values, we can create policies which have the right level of scope, i.e. I'm not doing surgery with an ax, but a scalpel.  Maybe we find out we don't even need surgery in the first place, and now our population is aware.  

Another thoughtful post, Masterp. I will try to do it justice. Let me be clear that I am not confusing you with those Trumpsters who do not take this kind of care in articulating their thoughts, and certainly do not choose scalpels over axes.

And I want to acknowledge that we certainly agree discussion is needed.  Educating the populace—including ourselves—about Islam is very important at this moment in US history, though I would add that this education cannot just be about Islam. It has to be about the history of policy as well.

Here are our areas of apparent disagreement.

1. We assign different roles to religion as a guide to vetting, especially Islam.  In the 1970s, known IRA terrorists were forbidden entry into the U.S., but so far as I know, no one considered “Catholic” an optimal term of categorization in that exclusion.  The terrorism was not seen as intrinsic to Catholicism as a world religion, though it certainly was intrinsic to terrorist identity in that case. Excluding these terrorists was not anti-pluralist, though excluding Catholics certainly would have been.  I would make the same analogy to Islam. People from certain regions or with certain backgrounds certainly need to be vetted, but tracts purporting to help us understand monolithic concepts like “Islam” or “Sharia” are not much help.  Nevertheless, it is the intent of some groups in the US to make Islam the central criterion of defining Middle Eastern terrorism—a thing which has to be understood to grasp terrorism rather than specific regional conflicts and their various histories.

2. This brings us to a second area of disagreement—the use of polls and “facts” about Islam. These produce a kind data which can be deployed in context-free fashion. A nose-count of who thinks homosexuality is an abomination or whether adulterers should be stoned supposedly gives us adequate clue to what any random Muslim thinks, or even what Muslims in aggregate think.  Consider this—in Qatar (the most liberal of the Gulf states) two things are important about the death penalty for adultery: The first is that it be written into their laws, the second is that it never actually be carried out.  In no other place that I have lived have “unwritten” laws had such force. This presupposes a rather different concept of and stance toward laws than we commonly find in “The West.”  I can think of similar examples applying to the UAE, especially Dubai.  So what would you make of a poll in which 60% of Qataris  agree that adultery should be punished with death, but the poll does not add that since the institution of government in the 19th century no one ever has been stoned in that country? Qatar also has the death penalty for murder, but your chances of execution for that crime are arguably greater in Texas than in Qatar. The execution rate in Texas is comparable to China or Saudi Arabia.

From your post, it is not clear exactly what role polls would play in vetting immigrants. Would we poll a country and then make policy based upon a poll?  Also, who is interpreting the polls—Steve Bannon or Elizabeth Warren? Would you agree with me that some of those wielding polls in contemporary debates about Islam do not care much about adding contextualizing information to those polls? Their goal is not to educate but to increase hostility towards Muslims.
Is it possible that we already have the tools for excluding dangerous terrorists, but some would enlarge the toolbox to include an entire religion?

I like the idea of “clarifying our values.” When people brag about the US, as I pointed out in an earlier post, they do not point to the Trail of Tears or the Chinese Exclusion Act or the internment of Japanese Americans to affirm American values.  Even conservatives are eager liberals in this respect, touting “FREEDOM” in everything from choice of religion to  consumer goods. For liberals, of course, the history of the US is a conflict between those who would exclude Catholics and Jews and Italians and Russians and Native Americans and African Americans and those who would add them to the melting pot—a battle between those who would stereotype exclude based upon race, religion and ethnicity and those who would exclude intolerance.

In each of the aforementioned exclusions, concerns about American culture and even Anglos as a "race" were at the forefront of the discussion.  It is supposed that even a small number of the offending population can "pollute" or otherwise threaten the whole.  While we are educating Americans about Islam, we ought to be educating them out their own history as well, and which policies choices have brought us to the current state of "American values" and which have been rejected.

[masterpanthera_t]

(05-02-2017, 06:18 PM)Dill Wrote: And I want to acknowledge that we certainly agree discussion is needed.  Educating the populace—including ourselves—about Islam is very important at this moment in US history, though I would add that this education cannot just be about Islam. It has to be about the history of policy as well.

Here are our areas of apparent disagreement.

1. We assign different roles to religion as a guide to vetting, especially Islam. 

From this post, I don't really see much disagreement.  The main point of my posts was that an open discussion of the factors which create the viewpoints of populations must be characterized as well as possible.  I was not specifying what weight religion itself must have in this, except to mention that if it plays a part among other things, then it must be accounted for in the discussions which eventually lead to policy decisions.  This would (at the surface IMO), show differently for different parts of the world (within and without the Islamic part).
 

Quote:I would make the same analogy to Islam. People from certain regions or with certain backgrounds certainly need to be vetted, but tracts purporting to help us understand monolithic concepts like “Islam” or “Sharia” are not much help.  Nevertheless, it is the intent of some groups in the US to make Islam the central criterion of defining Middle Eastern terrorism—a thing which has to be understood to grasp terrorism rather than specific regional conflicts and their various histories. 

I think this falls in line with my previous paragraph.  I want to delineate what "Islam" or "Sharia" means in different parts of the world, what political factors play into them, etc, to create a more specific understanding of different parts of the world and their ability to seamlessly integrate into our core worldviews.  

Quote:This brings us to a second area of disagreement—the use of polls and “facts” about Islam. These produce a kind data which can be deployed in context-free fashion. A nose-count of who thinks homosexuality is an abomination or whether adulterers should be stoned supposedly gives us adequate clue to what any random Muslim thinks, or even what Muslims in aggregate think.  Consider this—in Qatar (the most liberal of the Gulf states) two things are important about the death penalty for adultery: The first is that it be written into their laws, the second is that it never actually be carried out.  In no other place that I have lived have “unwritten” laws had such force. This presupposes a rather different concept of and stance toward laws than we commonly find in “The West.”  I can think of similar examples applying to the UAE, especially Dubai.  So what would you make of a poll in which 60% of Qataris  agree that adultery should be punished with death, but the poll does not add that since the institution of government in the 19th century no one ever has been stoned in that country? Qatar also has the death penalty for murder, but your chances of execution for that crime are arguably greater in Texas than in Qatar. The execution rate in Texas is comparable to China or Saudi Arabia.

My point has been that once we delve into the details of the endeavor, it will contextualize how we view different factors that prime various populations to their views.  If we are able to properly contextualize these "polls" then it only informs us more on what the significance of those is, and therefore prevents us from "broad brush"ing over the significant details.  Again, I think your point arrives at the same thing I've been calling for all along.  Specifically about the poll that you mentioned, I would delve into how Qataris think today, how they value "western values" and whether they're able to supersede those values over their cultural viewpoints, but this is not a science that I am an expert on, so I would leave the experts to this, all the while wanting as a citizen, a clear explanation of how conclusions were reached.

Quote:From your post, it is not clear exactly what role polls would play in vetting immigrants. Would we poll a country and then make policy based upon a poll?  Also, who is interpreting the polls—Steve Bannon or Elizabeth Warren? Would you agree with me that some of those wielding polls in contemporary debates about Islam do not care much about adding contextualizing information to those polls? Their goal is not to educate but to increase hostility towards Muslims. 

Is it possible that we already have the tools for excluding dangerous terrorists, but some would enlarge the toolbox to include an entire religion?

I think my previous paragraph clarifies a lot of this.  Contextualizing is the key word here, and clearly agendas will play a role in the objective and unbiased execution of the contextualizing.  Now I'm not sure who would fit the bill here, but possibly some well vetted panel of academics?  

Quote:I like the idea of “clarifying our values.” When people brag about the US, as I pointed out in an earlier post, they do not point to the Trail of Tears or the Chinese Exclusion Act or the internment of Japanese Americans to affirm American values.  Even conservatives are eager liberals in this respect, touting “FREEDOM” in everything from choice of religion to  consumer goods. For liberals, of course, the history of the US is a conflict between those who would exclude Catholics and Jews and Italians and Russians and Native Americans and African Americans and those who would add them to the melting pot—a battle between those who would stereotype exclude based upon race, religion and ethnicity and those who would exclude intolerance. 


In each of the aforementioned exclusions, concerns about American culture and even Anglos as a "race" were at the forefront of the discussion.  It is supposed that even a small number of the offending population can "pollute" or otherwise threaten the whole.  While we are educating Americans about Islam, we ought to be educating them out their own history as well, and which policies choices have brought us to the current state of "American values" and which have been rejected.

Agreed.  This would be part of the clarification of our "values".  My interest in something less than pluralism is more from the point of view of certain core values not being compromised, for example all of our values on "freedom", not necessarily "culture" insofar as "culture" of immigrants does not conflict with our core values.

[Dill]

(05-03-2017, 01:55 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: I think my previous paragraph clarifies a lot of this.  Contextualizing is the key word here, and clearly agendas will play a role in the objective and unbiased execution of the contextualizing.  Now I'm not sure who would fit the bill here, but possibly some well vetted panel of academics?  

Agreed.  This would be part of the clarification of our "values".  My interest in something less than pluralism is more from the point of view of certain core values not being compromised, for example all of our values on "freedom", not necessarily "culture" insofar as "culture" of immigrants does not conflict with our core values.

A  vetted panel of academics sound good, but we are living in the time of Trump (what do "experts" know about anything) and the Islamophobes will have their "experts" too. Not great scholars, perhaps (one thinks of Fox commentators like Sebastian Gorka), but that will become a fight over criteria of expertise.

I am not sure that a group of experts working out of sight will do much to calm anxieties about Islam and Sharia. You are aware that as of 2012, some 21 states were considering a ban on Sharia. Oklahoma did pass a law supposedly banning Sharia.  https://ballotpedia.org/Oklahoma_International_and_Sharia_Law,_State_Question_755_(2010)#Sharia_Law

Even though this one has been ruled unconstitutional (https://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/08/16/oklahoma-ban-on-sharia-law-unconstitutional-us-judge-rules/), it gives some indication of the fear of monolithic Islam even in places where there are

The Oklahoma lawmaker in the link below selects lines from the Qu' ran and the Sunna and then forms them into a questionnaire for Muslims students, asking if, for example, they beat their wives. 
http://kfor.com/2017/03/05/oklahoma-lawmaker-receiving-backlash-after-asking-muslim-students-to-fill-out-hateful-questionnaire-before-meeting-with-them/

More recently, a Texas lawmaker did something similar, sending a "poll" to Texas mosques, demanding, among other things, that they declare they will not harm apostates. https://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas-legislature/2017/01/19/state-lawmaker-sends-sharia-law-poll-texas-mosques

Fortunately, Faith Impact, a group of religious leaders, made a public statement condemning the tactic and urging Muslims in Texas to disregard it.

These crazy polls are the sort of practice I fear most--people who know nothing about Islam or history reading "facts" from books they think they understand ("See, it says STONING right there!"). 

You would condemn fear mongering, of course. But I think it is fear mongering that has raised people's concerns about American core values being compromised. I say they are compromised when we pass anti-sharia laws, and they are upheld when courts reject anti-Sharia laws as unconstitutional. 

So what I am saying is that I don't see where a few Muslims scattered in pockets around the US pose any threat at all to American core values. The issue for me is still Islamophobia, not Islam, Islamophobes, not Muslims, being the greater threat to our "core values."


 I think that people coming into the US have to obey US laws. But they don't necessarily have to become Americans or adopt American values. What sort of "freedom" are we offering when we say "our way or the highway"?

[masterpanthera_t]

(05-03-2017, 03:47 PM)Dill Wrote: So what I am saying is that I don't see where a few Muslims scattered in pockets around the US pose any threat at all to American core values. The issue for me is still Islamophobia, not Islam, Islamophobes, not Muslims, being the greater threat to our "core values."


 I think that people coming into the US have to obey US laws. But they don't necessarily have to become Americans or adopt American values. What sort of "freedom" are we offering when we say "our way or the highway"?

I have left out the rest of your post, which seems to address the "how" part of the endeavor, which I've already stated is "above my pay grade", if you will.  Maybe if you could persuade me that my response is required, I can take a second look.  But I believe that is part of the nuanced discussion, to which I'm definitely amenable.

As for the quoted part:  I agree with your first statements here (I've argued the same thing over the last year or so and the value of this endeavor would be to clear up this Islamophobia).  However, I do disagree that importing people who harbor views that are antithetical to our core values of "freedom" is itself an affront to our values.  That is not to say that we're importing such people, but in theory, you surely cannot tell me that people who are fundamentally opposed to the foundations of nation (such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech) or certain cultural values that go to our core (women's rights, gay rights, minority rights  -- I realize there are some variances here, that may not be universally held within our country, but overall, I think it's valid), should be imported because that is an expression of "freedom".  It would neither be prudent, nor even in theory consistent with values we hold dear (i.e if we do not tolerate intolerance, doesn't mean that our intolerance is wrong).  This disagreement applies equally to the import of Islamophobes, as to terrorists, to people who denigrate women, to people who perpetrate violence on gays or whatever.  Now, maybe it's possible that you feel that importing such people will not endanger our core values, because you believe in the ability of our nation to impress our values into the newly immigrated population simply by the "greatness" (in quotes as it may mean different things to different people) of our nation.  If this is your argument, maybe it's something to ponder.  I would guess that that's not your argument since you've pointed out parts of the nation's history which will not attest to that greatness.  At the least, I have to wonder what parts of these "polls" in other fairly civilized nations of the West requires further evaluation (if we're discussing the greatness of America being able to overcome antithetical views).  

Agree or disagree, I'm glad we're  having a discussion on the merits of topics and areas which in our opinion needs further scrutiny, re-informing our own understanding etc. instead of lobbing conversation ending insults with little to no substance addressing the merits of the discussion.  

[Dill]

(05-03-2017, 04:29 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: As for the quoted part:  I agree with your first statements here (I've argued the same thing over the last year or so and the value of this endeavor would be to clear up this Islamophobia).  However, I do disagree that importing people who harbor views that are antithetical to our core values of "freedom" is itself an affront to our values.  That is not to say that we're importing such people, but in theory, you surely cannot tell me that people who are fundamentally opposed to the foundations of nation (such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech) or certain cultural values that go to our core (women's rights, gay rights, minority rights  -- I realize there are some variances here, that may not be universally held within our country, but overall, I think it's valid), should be imported because that is an expression of "freedom".  It would neither be prudent, nor even in theory consistent with values we hold dear (i.e if we do not tolerate intolerance, doesn't mean that our intolerance is wrong).  This disagreement applies equally to the import of Islamophobes, as to terrorists, to people who denigrate women, to people who perpetrate violence on gays or whatever.  Now, maybe it's possible that you feel that importing such people will not endanger our core values, because you believe in the ability of our nation to impress our values into the newly immigrated population simply by the "greatness" (in quotes as it may mean different things to different people) of our nation.  If this is your argument, maybe it's something to ponder.  I would guess that that's not your argument since you've pointed out parts of the nation's history which will not attest to that greatness.  At the least, I have to wonder what parts of these "polls" in other fairly civilized nations of the West requires further evaluation (if we're discussing the greatness of America being able to overcome antithetical views).  

Agree or disagree, I'm glad we're  having a discussion on the merits of topics and areas which in our opinion needs further scrutiny, re-informing our own understanding etc. instead of lobbing conversation ending insults with little to no substance addressing the merits of the discussion.  

Ha Ha, amen to the last point.

As to the rest, I am still trying to figure out how to express some of these points clearly and succinctly.

1. Let me reaffirm, first, that we already have some laws on the books that everyone has to follow regardless of cultural/religious background. E.g. it is not ok to beat your wife, whatever your religious text says.  And you may not be married to more than one spouse at one time. You may believe whatever you want about husband-wife relations--you still can't break the law.  If people coming into the country understand this, I am satisfied.  I further note that in many countries where homosexuality is punishable by death and the majority Muslim population believes it should be, they still don't kill homosexuals. What people "believe" may still be very different from what they do.

2. Given the massive population of the US, and the miniscule number of Muslims arriving on our shores, it is very unlikely that predominately Christian Americans will very soon be advocating death for Muslim apostates or whatever the big fear is. If you check my post #144 above, you will see a discussion of how minority status affects Jews, Christians and Muslims across the board. If one-hundred million Islamists arrived and were given the vote, we would certainly have something to worry about. (Are there even 100 million Islamists?)   Two Muslims in Oklahoma city who think polygamy is ok just are no threat to Oklahoman values.

3. And finally, you bring up an issue I did not, but which I think should definitely be in the mix.  People who arrive in the US are influenced by our culture and values. Not parents necessarily. But the children usually grow up "American." Sometimes US culture seems alien and immoral, so parents try to protect their children from it (just as our own fundamentalists do). But this is another reason why I am little worried about "them" changing "us" beyond introducing us to new foods or jewelry or clothing accessories.

4. There is one threat that I do see from communities of new Muslim immigrants, and that is the one created by alienation, by the refusal of the dominant society to welcome and integrate them. Forcing a 100,000 people to feel unwelcome because of their faith while on the internet people are calling their children to fight for that faith is not a good situation. Out of that 100,000, expect 5 or 6 to snap and "defend the faith" in the manner prescribed by ISIS or Al Qaeda.  We don't address that problem by demanding they sign loyalty pledges and by "outlawing Sharia."

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-03-2017, 03:47 PM)Dill Wrote: A  vetted panel of academics sound good, but we are living in the time of Trump (what do "experts" know about anything) and the Islamophobes will have their "experts" too. Not great scholars, perhaps (one thinks of Fox commentators like Sebastian Gorka), but that will become a fight over criteria of expertise.

I'm curious about this statement.  You've already discounted Sam Harris as someone who is credible on this subject, i.e. not a "great scholar" (Which btw, you'd have an insanely hard time making a rational argument on this point, but I digest).  This leads me to my question, would you consider Christopher Hitchens a "great scholar"?

[Dill]

(05-04-2017, 02:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm curious about this statement.  You've already discounted Sam Harris as someone who is credible on this subject, i.e. not a "great scholar" (Which btw, you'd have an insanely hard time making a rational argument on this point, but I digest).  This leads me to my question, would you consider Christopher Hitchens a "great scholar"?

Scholar, no. Great journalist, yes, and public intellectual, yes.
 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-04-2017, 05:22 PM)Dill Wrote: Scholar, no. Great journalist, yes, and public intellectual, yes.
 

OK, can you please define the traits that one must possess to be, in your opinion, a scholar.

Also, could you please provide an example or two of a person who you believe is one.  I'm betting Noam Chomsky makes the list.

[Dill]

(05-05-2017, 11:33 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: OK, can you please define the traits that one must possess to be, in your opinion, a scholar.

Also, could you please provide an example or two of a person who you believe is one.  I'm betting Noam Chomsky makes the list.

Not in "my opinion," but traits of scholars as internationally recognized by institutions like universities, think tanks, governments, and international research organizations--sure, I can do that.

Well Noam Chomsky certainly is. Whose list would he not be on?

But since we have been talking about Sam Harris and Middle Eastern issues, I am going to stick to that theme. I have already mentioned some in previous posts, like Edward Said and Bernard Lewis and Azizah Y. Al-Hibri.

1. In the March 2014 issue of Journal of Contemporary Iraq Studies, Guenther Cristoph published "The land of the two rivers under the black banner: Visual communication of al-Qaida in Iraq," an article which examines modes of visual communication deployed by the Islamic state evolved over the last two decades, and how these embed their contemporary message in traditional Arab Muslim narratives to acquire authority.  This is a peer-reviewed journal, and any publication in it has to pass the review of 3-4 area experts. One "trait" of what I am calling scholarship is that it passes such reviews. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/intellect/ijcis/2014/00000008/00000001/art00003;jsessionid=f2n6xf8nq0o6.x-ic-live-02  His primary audience would be Iraq/Islam scholars, but the work would also be of interest to intel professionals of the US and Europe.

2.  Another example would be Peter Adamson, currently on the faculty of ancient philosophy at the Ludwig-Maxmilliens Universitaet in Munich. His Al-Kindi (2006) introduces advanced students and scholars to the work of a 9th century Arab scholar who translated many Greek works into Arabic, stimulating a Greek "renaissance" in Arabic philosophy over the next four centuries. https://www.amazon.com/Al-Kindi-Great-Medieval-Thinkers-Adamson/dp/0195181433  To accomplish this work, he must move from ancient Greek to Syrian Arabic and back. In addition, he edits other serious work dedicated to Greek and Arabic philosophy of the Medieval period. His audience is largely other scholars, and his work fills out "gaps" in the contemporary field of ancient philosophy studies--gaps only known to and discussed by other scholars. Scholarship conserves the past and makes it relevant to the present.


3. Not all scholarship is addressed to other scholars. In post #119 and above I mention Azizah Y. Al-Hibri, a legal scholar at the University of Richmond. She is currently editing a series of works on Islamic jurisprudence to help inform the general (Western) public about that subject. She has written the first volume herself. The Islamic Worldview: Islamic Jurisprudence―An American Muslim Perspective https://www.amazon.com/dp/1627222847/?tag=newbooinhis-20  This work is not only to enable Muslims to learn about their own tradition, but also Westerners seeking to understand the grounds and logic of the four schools of Islamic Jurisprudence--in a way that passes muster with other scholarly experts in this subject area.

A primary trait that 1-3 above also foreground is LEARNING. A scholar must know his/her subject matter in depth, including the requisite languages. If Al-Hibri wants to write a book about what she thinks of neuroscience, it might be interesting, but I doubt neuroscientists would consider it an addition to the field or even pay much attention to it.

To cap this off, I want, by way of contrast, to offer an example of something which is manifestly not "scholarly." Bridget Gabriel's Why they Hate is the personal account of an Americanized Lebanese Christian who travels the world denouncing Islam in toto. "History" in her book is just Muslims doing bad things. Always. No history or context necessary.
https://www.amazon.com/Because-They-Hate-Survivor-Islamic/dp/0312358385/ref=sr_1_sc_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1494003543&sr=1-1-spell&keywords=bridgett+gabrial  The book is not for scholars, but for the ignorant and haters. She created the website ACT, from which Oklahoma representative John Bennett collected the "questions" for his poll of Muslims in Oklahoma back in 2013. http://kfor.com/2017/03/05/oklahoma-lawmaker-receiving-backlash-after-asking-muslim-students-to-fill-out-hateful-questionnaire-before-meeting-with-them/ "Do you beat your wife? Must Muslims rule over Kafir? It says so right here."

Now if we bring Sam Harris into the picture, is his work more like 1-3 or more like Gabriel's?  I'd say it was more like Gabriel's. He is sharing his personal thoughts on Islam, incorporating it into a pre-existing argument for atheism, and supporting it with quotations of translated English which, combined with some news media reports, are enough for him to distill the essence of Islam. There is no evidence that he understands Islam or the history of the Middle East beyond what one would learn from the Israeli state's websites or Wikislam. He does not understand how texts are read differently through different traditions and in differing historical and cultural contexts.  How would Middle East scholars respond to his website? Would they say his musings advance knowledge of Islam or Middle East history? Who is his audience? I think there is considerable overlap with Gabriel's.

1-3 above are not really suitable for supporting arguments in internet forums. Especially 1 and 2, they presume too much knowledge already. Using them would be "boring."  But Harris' work presumes virtually no knowledge of Islam or Middle Eastern history, and lends itself easily to such purposes.  He has a Ph.D in neuroscience, right? A smart guy to tell you all about Islam.

[masterpanthera_t]

(05-05-2017, 02:27 PM)Dill Wrote: Now if we bring Sam Harris into the picture, is his work more like 1-3 or more like Gabriel's?  I'd say it was more like Gabriel's. He is sharing his personal thoughts on Islam and supporting them with quotations of translated English which, combined with some news media reports, are enough for him to distill the essence of Islam. There is no evidence that he understands Islam or the history of the Middle East beyond what one would find on the Israeli state's websites or Wikislam. He does not understand how texts are read differently through different traditions and in differing historical and cultural contexts.  How would Middle East scholars respond to his website? Would they say his musings advance knowledge of Islam or Middle East history? Who is his audience? I think there is considerable overlap with Gabriel's.

1-3 above are not really suitable for supporting arguments in internet forums. Especially 1 and 2, they presume too much knowledge already. Using them would be "boring."  But Harris' work presumes virtually no knowledge of Islam or Middle Eastern history, and lends itself easily to such purposes.  A smart guy to tell you all about Islam.

I will say this about Harris.  He is very persuasive as an intellectual, and he brings a very rational style of discourse which seems to invite open exploration of ideas.  However, there was a video where he debated Reza Aslan (who I don't find particularly unbiased or open to criticism of his ideas) and he did not seem to have a cogent answer as far as his understanding of the centuries of Islamic cultural evolution with context of scholarship and the factors addressed.  Whenever he reasoned based on the current climate of terrorism and surveys etc. to point to dangerous concepts in the Islamic texts, he seemed to have won the argument. However, anything that delved further into centuries of Islamic history (i.e. internal to Islam and not its "influences" to the outside world), seemed well outside of his expertise. His argument for being wary of Islamic culture, while defensible from the context that he makes it, (such as the polls and the factors that seem to draw a minority to terrorism and other cultural practices which we find abhorrent), doesn't seem to have a depth of understanding of the cultural evolution of the various populations of the Islamic world nor a deep understanding of the sects or whatever sort of denominational differences within. I would say that his arguments are certainly worthwhile to listen, but are certainly not comprehensive in terms of drawing conclusions about the beliefs of more than a billion people.  In this respect, I don't find him to be a scholar on Islamic studies, but a great rational thinker who can articulate the concerns of those outside of Islam in an objective fashion, which can ultimately derive answers from the scholarly community itself.  The question is does he perform an oversimplification, to arrive at his conclusions? If nothing else, the Islamic scholarly community, perhaps among other groups, would be behooved to show that is indeed the case (if it is so).

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-05-2017, 02:27 PM)Dill Wrote: Not in "my opinion," but traits of scholars as internationally recognized by institutions like universities, think tanks, governments, and international research organizations--sure, I can do that.

That's not an answer to my question.  I asked what qualities one must possess for you to acknowledge them as a "serious scholar"  Making reference to a vague consensus of other organizations, none specific, is not sufficient.

Quote:Well Noam Chomsky certainly is. Whose list would he not be on?

That's an interesting reply.  Please delineate the differences in Noam Chomsky and Chirstopher Hitchens that includes the former and excludes the latter.

Quote:But since we have been talking about Sam Harris and Middle Eastern issues, I am going to stick to that theme. I have already mentioned some in previous posts, like Edward Said and Bernard Lewis and Azizah Y. Al-Hibri.

I've quoted this bit to differentiate it from the copypasta that follows.  These are the last of your own words in this post for some time.

Quote:1. In the March 2014 issue of Journal of Contemporary Iraq Studies, Guenther Cristoph published "The land of the two rivers under the black banner: Visual communication of al-Qaida in Iraq," an article which examines modes of visual communication deployed by the Islamic state evolved over the last two decades, and how these embed their contemporary message in traditional Arab Muslim narratives to acquire authority.  This is a peer-reviewed journal, and any publication in it has to pass the review of 3-4 area experts. One "trait" of what I am calling scholarship is that it passes such reviews. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/intellect/ijcis/2014/00000008/00000001/art00003;jsessionid=f2n6xf8nq0o6.x-ic-live-02  His primary audience would be Iraq/Islam scholars, but the work would also be of interest to intel professionals of the US and Europe.

2.  Another example would be Peter Adamson, currently on the faculty of ancient philosophy at the Ludwig-Maxmilliens Universitaet in Munich. His Al-Kindi (2006) introduces advanced students and scholars to the work of a 9th century Arab scholar who translated many Greek works into Arabic, stimulating a Greek "renaissance" in Arabic philosophy over the next four centuries. https://www.amazon.com/Al-Kindi-Great-Medieval-Thinkers-Adamson/dp/0195181433  To accomplish this work, he must move from ancient Greek to Syrian Arabic and back. In addition, he edits other serious work dedicated to Greek and Arabic philosophy of the Medieval period. His audience is largely other scholars, and his work fills out "gaps" in the contemporary field of ancient philosophy studies--gaps only known to and discussed by other scholars. Scholarship conserves the past and makes it relevant to the present.


3. Not all scholarship is addressed to other scholars. In post #119 and above I mention Azizah Y. Al-Hibri, a legal scholar at the University of Richmond. She is currently editing a series of works on Islamic jurisprudence to help inform the general (Western) public about that subject. She has written the first volume herself. The Islamic Worldview: Islamic Jurisprudence―An American Muslim Perspective https://www.amazon.com/dp/1627222847/?tag=newbooinhis-20  This work is not only to enable Muslims to learn about their own tradition, but also Westerners seeking to understand the grounds and logic of the four schools of Islamic Jurisprudence--in a way that passes muster with other scholarly experts in this subject area.

What 1-3 above also have is LEARNING. A scholar must know his/her subject matter in depth, including the requisite languages. Of A-Hibri wants to write a book about what she thinks of neuroscience, it might be interesting but I doubt neuroscientists would pay much attention to it.

To cap this off, I want, by way of contrast, to offer an example of something which is manifestly not "scholarly." Bridget Gabriel's Why they Hate is the personal account of an Americanized Lebanese Christian who travels the world denouncing Islam in toto. "History" in her book is just Muslims doing bad things. Always. No history or context necessary.
https://www.amazon.com/Because-They-Hate-Survivor-Islamic/dp/0312358385/ref=sr_1_sc_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1494003543&sr=1-1-spell&keywords=bridgett+gabrial  The book is not for scholars, but for the ignorant and haters. She created the website ACT, from which Oklahoma representative John Bennett collected the "questions" for his poll of Muslims in Oklahoma back in 2013. http://kfor.com/2017/03/05/oklahoma-lawmaker-receiving-backlash-after-asking-muslim-students-to-fill-out-hateful-questionnaire-before-meeting-with-them/ "Do you beat your wife? Must Muslims rule over Kafir? It says so right here."

This is more copypasta from you without a source link.  You do this quite often.  It's either to pass the words off as your own or to avoid acknowledging a potentially dodgy source.  I've underlined and enlarged a key statement from the copypasta that shows why it is obviously copypasta.

Quote:Now if we bring Sam Harris into the picture, is his work more like 1-3 or more like Gabriel's?  I'd say it was more like Gabriel's. He is sharing his personal thoughts on Islam and supporting them with quotations of translated English which, combined with some news media reports, are enough for him to distill the essence of Islam. There is no evidence that he understands Islam or the history of the Middle East beyond what one would find on the Israeli state's websites or Wikislam. He does not understand how texts are read differently through different traditions and in differing historical and cultural contexts.  How would Middle East scholars respond to his website? Would they say his musings advance knowledge of Islam or Middle East history? Who is his audience? I think there is considerable overlap with Gabriel's.

This is all opinion, and poorly substantiated or fact based opinion to boot.  I'm getting the impression that "serious scholar" for you is someone who agrees with you on this subject.  Of course you as much as said exactly that in the post above as I'll directly quote;

(05-03-2017, 03:47 PM)Dill Wrote: A  vetted panel of academics sound good, but we are living in the time of Trump (what do "experts" know about anything) and the Islamophobes will have their "experts" too. Not great scholars, perhaps (one thinks of Fox commentators like Sebastian Gorka), but that will become a fight over criteria of expertise.

This is a not so subtle attempt to label anyone who disagrees with you on this subject as both an islamaphobe and, most certainly, not a "serious scholar".  In so doing you've both declared the discussion over before it begins and expose the weakness you perceive in your own argument.  By condemning everyone on the other side of an issue to the ranks of the unlearned plebeians you attempt to stifle any attempt to have a rational debate or to acknowledge that the other side possesses the expertise to even discuss the subject with you.

Quote:1-3 above are not really suitable for supporting arguments in internet forums. Especially 1 and 2, they presume too much knowledge already. Using them would be "boring."  But Harris' work presumes virtually no knowledge of Islam or Middle Eastern history, and lends itself easily to such purposes.  He has a Ph.D in neuroscience, right? A smart guy to tell you all about Islam.

Let's stick to the Hitchens disagreement.  I'll ask again, what qualifications did Christopher Hitchens lack that prevented you from viewing him as a "serious scholar"?

[Dill]

(05-05-2017, 02:43 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: I will say this about Harris.  He is very persuasive as an intellectual, and he brings a very rational style of discourse which seems to invite open exploration of ideas.  However, there was a video where he debated Reza Aslan (who I don't find particularly unbiased or open to criticism of his ideas) and he did not seem to have a cogent answer as far as his understanding of the centuries of Islamic cultural evolution with context of scholarship and the factors addressed.  His argument for being wary of Islamic culture, while defensible from the context that he makes it, (such as the polls and the factors that seem to draw a minority to terrorism and other cultural practices which we find abhorrent), doesn't seem to have a depth of understanding of the cultural evolution of the various populations of the Islamic world nor a deep understanding of the sects or whatever sort of denominational differences within.  I would say that his arguments are certainly worthwhile to listen, but are certainly not comprehensive in terms of drawing conclusions about the beliefs of more than a billion people.  In this respect, I don't find him to be a scholar on Islamic studies, but a great rational thinker who can articulate the concerns of those outside of Islam in an objective fashion, which can ultimately derive answers from the scholarly community itself.  

I think his persuasiveness is pretty well demonstrated, but it is also contingent upon the audience addressed.

The evidence in his arguments works mainly off what I would call "surface phenomena" like polls and de-contexualized translations of Arab texts.   These bits are then filtered through a liberal "free speech" argument based upon de-historicized and de-contexualized premises.

Five or six years ago I would have agreed he is posing useful questions and maybe driving the conversation forward, but he seems not to have grown over that time--especially when defending Israel. That suggests he may be selecting his exposure to the "other side's" arguments.  Real intellectuals don't do that.  

[Dill]

(05-05-2017, 02:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That's not an answer to my question.  I asked what qualities one must possess for you to acknowledge them as a "serious scholar"  Making reference to a vague consensus of other organizations, none specific, is not sufficient.

That's an interesting reply.  Please delineate the differences in Noam Chomsky and Chirstopher Hitchens that includes the former and excludes the latter.

I've quoted this bit to differentiate it from the copypasta that follows.  These are the last of your own words in this post for some time.This is more copypasta from you without a source link.  You do this quite often.  It's either to pass the words off as your own or to avoid acknowledging a potentially dodgy source.  I've underlined and enlarged a key statement from the copypasta that shows why it is obviously copypasta.

I have to run,  but I'll give a quick response to these points right now.

1. You asked for a list of what qualities one must possess for me to acknowledge him/her a serious scholar etc. I gave you a list of those qualities linked to supporting examples. I do not have "personal" standards for scholarship separate from those currently prevailing in the type of institution to which I referred.  I am not sure why universities and scholarly organizations are "vague" to you. You do not know what universties are, or are you not sure they support scholarly standards? And I didn't just "refer" to them. I explained what the standards are. Here are some specific scholarly organizations for you: The Modern Language Association https://www.mla.org/, The Middle East Scholars Association http://mesana.org/, and the Association for Jewish Studies  http://www.ajsnet.org/mission.htm.  All would agree with my criteria for what scholarship is. If you think not, then specify which along with your evidence.  


You asked for an example of someone I considered a serious scholar. I gave you three examples with links to their published work.

And all this was not "sufficient" for someone given primarily to bald assertion.  Once again you asked a question and got a pretty thorough, well supported reply which treated your question with respect. As usual, you denied that I answered you, threw in personal attack, and took it a step farther this time by insisting that while providing answers, examples, definitions, and criteria I was somehow "stifling debate."

2. One difference would be that Chomsky has spent a lifetime producing scholarship, starting with his work in linguistics. If you studied linguistics, you would have to read Chomsky at some point to understand current problems in the field. Hitchens is a journalist. He has spent a lifetime writing personal essays and journalistic exposes.

I think now it is about time now that you tell me what you mean by "scholar" or "scholarship."  Seems like you can't really keep up or follow my points, so you just keep asking questions and highlighting "copypasta," while I do all the work of defining, explaining, linking examples and the like. Which of Hitchens works would qualify as scholarship and why?

3. If you have a "potentially dodgy source" from which my "quotes" were taken, then show me. That will prove your point. Otherwise your charge "is all opinion, and poorly substantiated" to boot. I just walked you through examples of scholarship, with links to the works and authors referenced. I specified the criteria which make them scholarly. Rather than acknowledge your question sufficiently answered, or disputing the examples of criteria for scholarship, you again turn to personal attack.  Do you think I made up the term "peer-reviewed"?  You assume I cannot, myself, in my own words, explain what peer-reviewed means or how scholarship is related to a "field"? 

I refer to my own post 119 and you even call that "copypasta." My god, WHY DO YOU NEED A LINK TO MY OWN POST IN THIS THREAD????   Copypasta directly from some outside source?  I refer to MY POST 119 in this thread and that is plagiarism??

In general, I would say its time to stop asking me questions and start putting up something yourself besides assertions and personal attack. Highlighting and ENLARGING words does not demonstrate plagiarism anymore than just calling them "copypasta." Is it possible that beyond pointing and asserting, you do not now how to construct arguments based upon textual evidence?  Are you making up plagiarism charges that you cannot prove because you cannot believe that I really know what I demonstrate I know? That's a very bad move for someone who concerned about declaring debates "over" before they begin and "exposing weaknesses" before debate even begins.

[Dill]

(05-05-2017, 02:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Let's stick to the Hitchens disagreement.  I'll ask again, what qualifications did Christopher Hitchens lack that prevented you from viewing him as a "serious scholar"?

Well I've set forth the requirements of serious scholarship above. I am not aware of any contributions Hitchens has made to any field of scholarship. If he did, that would qualify him as a serious scholar.  Has he published in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal? Has he researched and then advanced scholarly knowledge in some field with a publication accepted by an academic press?  Has he learned some subject area and then published a text introducing it to students of that area? Did he write a dissertation or masters thesis? That might at least make him a scholar, if not a serious one.

I have not read everything Hitchens has published. What I know of his work, as said before, would fall under the category of investigative journalism (like books on Kissinger and Mother Theresa) or personal essays. He wrote a ton of magazine and journal articles, many supporting the Iraq war for example. Could you perhaps nominate something of his as "scholarship"? Has he contributed something to Islamic or Middle Eastern Studies that I am unaware of?

And while you are at it, perhaps you could lay out what you think counts as serious scholarship. Do your standards differ from mine?

[Dill]

(05-05-2017, 02:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote: A  vetted panel of academics sound good, but we are living in the time of Trump (what do "experts" know about anything) and the Islamophobes will have their "experts" too. Not great scholars, perhaps (one thinks of Fox commentators like Sebastian Gorka), but that will become a fight over criteria of expertise.

This is a not so subtle attempt to label anyone who disagrees with you on this subject as both an islamaphobe and, most certainly, not a "serious scholar".  In so doing you've both declared the discussion over before it begins and expose the weakness you perceive in your own argument.  By condemning everyone on the other side of an issue to the ranks of the unlearned plebeians you attempt to stifle any attempt to have a rational debate or to acknowledge that the other side possesses the expertise to even discuss the subject with you.

This is quite a long way from saying "anyone who disagrees with me is an islamophobe and not a serious scholar." Especially when you just got a set of critieria for scholarship which is independent of anyone's stance on Islam.

And are you saying there are no islamophobes? 

Or are you saying there ARE islamophobes, but some of them are serious Islam scholars. You know this and can provide examples?

Calling people "assholes" and telling them to shut their pie hole declares discussion over, certainly, but merely asserting that Islamophobes will put forward experts to advance Islamophobia does not, in itself, do anything like that, even if I suggest their scholarship is not good.

Do you think both sides of every issue are "equal" in knowledge and quality of argument? I have never read a good argument in support of racism, not even by "scientific" Nazis, certainly not a scholarly one, though I have read Nazi scholarship.  Oops--did I just declare a discussion over before it begins? No. I'll listen to what the Nazis have to say. If can identify logical inconsistencies and factual errors and unwarranted claims then I will. If I cannot I will reconsider my objections to racism.

I do a pretty good job of letting all comers "discuss the subject" with me.  Presenting good arguments with support does not shut down discussion with people who want good arguments with support.

And my post said that once we start talking about "expertise", Islamophobes will nominate their team and that will become a fight over criteria of expertise. Obviously that didn't shut down discussion as you stepped right into the fight over expertise, demanding to know why people who have no scholarly credentials on the subject of Islam can't be experts too and demanding to know what my criteria are.  You got those criteria and so far have supplied none of your own.

[Dill]

(05-05-2017, 02:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Now if we bring Sam Harris into the picture, is his work more like 1-3 or more like Gabriel's?  I'd say it was more like Gabriel's. He is sharing his personal thoughts on Islam and supporting them with quotations of translated English which, combined with some news media reports, are enough for him to distill the essence of Islam. There is no evidence that he understands Islam or the history of the Middle East beyond what one would find on the Israeli state's websites or Wikislam. He does not understand how texts are read differently through different traditions and in differing historical and cultural contexts.  How would Middle East scholars respond to his website? Would they say his musings advance knowledge of Islam or Middle East history? Who is his audience? I think there is considerable overlap with Gabriel's.

This is all opinion, and poorly substantiated or fact based opinion to boot.  I'm getting the impression that "serious scholar" for you is someone who agrees with you on this subject.  Of course you as much as said exactly that in the post above as I'll directly quote;

Some questions here you are not answering. Is Harris' work more like that of Adamson and Gunther and Al Hiri, or is it more like Gabriel's?
This is your chance to show us all what a well substantiated, fact-based case looks like.  I hope you don't let us down.

Are you saying Harris is not sharing his thoughts on Islam by pointing to translated quotes as the basis for condemning an entire religion?
Until you can show that, then my words are not "all opinion."

Which Middle East scholars have responded to his work? I am getting the impression that "opinion" is your word for any argument you disagree with but cannot refute. Are we going to see anything like an extended argument from you? I don't mean you just quoting me and calling it all "copypasta" or "opinion."  I refer you again to Masterp's posts. He speaks to the subject matter, exploring the Islam-US politics issue. Focused on the facts of the case, he doesn't substitute accusation for argument.

Or is all discussion, dialogue, argument just over once you cannot call "opinion" or "copypasta" on what you don't like or don't understand?

Don't claim you can't carry on a discussion with someone who plagiarizes or some such excuse and bail out on me. Don't claim you have "already addressed" anything. Don't tell me to "scroll up" and look at another unsupported assertion. If you cannot really argue yourself, can you put up something by Harris in text form which refutes anything I have said? I don't mean a lazy link to a youtube video with a vague verbal gesture like "that's what I think."

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-05-2017, 04:29 PM)Dill Wrote: I have to run,  but I'll give a quick response to these points right now.

1. You asked for a list of what qualities one must possess for me to acknowledge him/her a serious scholar etc. I gave you a list of those qualities linked to supporting examples. I do not have "personal" standards for scholarship separate from those currently prevailing in the type of institution to which I referred.  I am not sure why universities and scholarly organizations are "vague" to you. You do not know what universties are, or are you not sure they support scholarly standards? And I didn't just "refer" to them. I explained what the standards are. Here are some specific scholarly organizations for you: The Modern Language Association https://www.mla.org/, The Middle East Scholars Association http://mesana.org/, and the Association for Jewish Studies  http://www.ajsnet.org/mission.htm.  All would agree with my criteria for what scholarship is. If you think not, then specify which along with your evidence.

So, to be clear, you have a clearly delineated, narrow view of what makes someone a "serious scholar".  A person can be extremely educated, erudite, articulate and knowledgeable on a  subject, but unless they've published in peer reviewed journals or completed a dissertation they can't be considered a "serious scholar"?

Let us use Mirriam Webster's definition of "scholar".

Definition of scholar

1. 1:  a person who attends a school or studies under a teacher :  pupil
2. 2a :  a person who has done advanced study in a special fieldb :  a learned person
3. 3:  a holder of a scholarship
   

It would appear to me that a men such as Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens would certainly have met definition one at some point in their life, definition two either currently or up until the time of their death and I don't know about number three.

Quote:You asked for an example of someone I considered a serious scholar. I gave you three examples with links to their published work.

You did, much appreciated.  Now, could you please provide me with an example of a "serious scholar" who disagrees with you and agrees with me on this issue?

Quote:And all this was not "sufficient" for someone given primarily to bald assertion.  Once again you asked a question and got a pretty thorough, well supported reply which treated your question with respect. As usual, you denied that I answered you, threw in personal attack, and took it a step farther this time by insisting that while providing answers, examples, definitions, and criteria I was somehow "stifling debate."

Please calm down with your histrionic about personal attacks.  You and GM make this accusation so often it has lost all meaning.  Disagreement with your assertions, as illustrated above, is none of the things you just claimed.  As for stifling debate, you're doing it again right here.  The funny thing is you don't seem to realize this.

Quote:2. One difference would be that Chomsky has spent a lifetime producing scholarship, starting with his work in linguistics. If you studied linguistics, you would have to read Chomsky at some point to understand current problems in the field. Hitchens is a journalist. He has spent a lifetime writing personal essays and journalistic exposes.

Both have studied subjects extensively and produce cogent, well researched and supported argument.  You later use Hitchens support fot the second Iraq war in an odd attempt to discredit him.  I could use Chomsky's unflagging support for the socialist hell in Venezuela in the same manner.

Quote:I think now it is about time now that you tell me what you mean by "scholar" or "scholarship."  Seems like you can't really keep up or follow my points, so you just keep asking questions and highlighting "copypasta," while I do all the work of defining, explaining, linking examples and the like. Which of Hitchens works would qualify as scholarship and why?

Yes, I am far too stupid to keep up with an obvious razor sharp intelligence such as you display on a frequent basis.  I gave my definition above, a well learned, erudite person who can speak with authority on a subject citing examples as they do.  The need for the formal circle jerk of peer review, which any college professor, of which I know several, will tell you is as much an insiders "Mean Girls" arena as you are likely to find.

Quote:3. If you have a "potentially dodgy source" from which my "quotes" were taken, then show me. That will prove your point. Otherwise your charge "is all opinion, and poorly substantiated" to boot. I just walked you through examples of scholarship, with links to the works and authors referenced. I specified the criteria which make them scholarly. Rather than acknowledge your question sufficiently answered, or disputing the examples of criteria for scholarship, you again turn to personal attack.  Do you think I made up the term "peer-reviewed"?  You assume I cannot, myself, in my own words, explain what peer-reviewed means or how scholarship is related to a "field"? 

Uhm, that was kind of my point, no source was provided.  Also, again, calm down with your histrionics regarding personal attacks.  Reiteration does not equal truth.

Quote:I refer to my own post 119 and you even call that "copypasta." My god, WHY DO YOU NEED A LINK TO MY OWN POST IN THIS THREAD????   Copypasta directly from some outside source?  I refer to MY POST 119 in this thread and that is plagiarism??

I'll own this one, my bad.  The quote in question does not indicate copypasta.

Quote:In general, I would say its time to stop asking me questions and start putting up something yourself besides assertions and personal attack. Highlighting and ENLARGING words does not demonstrate plagiarism anymore than just calling them "copypasta." Is it possible that beyond pointing and asserting, you do not now how to construct arguments based upon textual evidence?  Are you making up plagiarism charges that you cannot prove because you cannot believe that I really know what I demonstrate I know? That's a very bad move for someone who concerned about declaring debates "over" before they begin and "exposing weaknesses" before debate even begins.

I just apologized for the inaccuracy in my allegation.

(05-06-2017, 12:34 AM)Dill Wrote: Well I've set forth the requirements of serious scholarship above. I am not aware of any contributions Hitchens has made to any field of scholarship. If he did, that would qualify him as a serious scholar.  Has he published in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal? Has he researched and then advanced scholarly knowledge in some field with a publication accepted by an academic press?  Has he learned some subject area and then published a text introducing it to students of that area? Did he write a dissertation or masters thesis? That might at least make him a scholar, if not a serious one.

So authoring numerous books on historical subjects, people and religion doesn't make one a scholar?  I'd refer you to his bibliography, especially two superb works; 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson:_Author_of_America

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine%27s_%22Rights_of_Man%22:_A_Biography

Both excellent, I would say "scholarly" pieces of work.

Quote:I have not read everything Hitchens has published.

Then you admit to arguing this point from a position of profound ignorance.  Yet this hasn't kept you from your strident claims that the man cannot be considered a "serious scholar"  You essentially just admitted you have no argument, well done.

Quote:What I know of his work, as said before, would fall under the category of investigative journalism (like books on Kissinger and Mother Theresa) or personal essays. He wrote a ton of magazine and journal articles, many supporting the Iraq war for example. Could you perhaps nominate something of his as "scholarship"? Has he contributed something to Islamic or Middle Eastern Studies that I am unaware of?

And while you are at it, perhaps you could lay out what you think counts as serious scholarship. Do your standards differ from mine?

I just cited two examples above and I've answered the second question in this very post.  I would add one thing for certain, arguing that a person cannot be considered a "serious scholar" when you haven't read a single thing they have written exposes you as a person with a set point of view, one reached with no really evidence or factual basis for their position.  Again, not very scholarly. 

(05-06-2017, 01:03 AM)Dill Wrote: This is quite a long way from saying "anyone who disagrees with me is an islamophobe and not a serious scholar." Especially when you just got a set of critieria for scholarship which is independent of anyone's stance on Islam.

It is absolutely not.  You flat out state that the opposition to you on this issue can count no one among them that could be considered a "serious scholar".  By making such a claim you completely invalidate the position of the other side before debate has even been joined.  The fact that you don't see this, or realize but fail to admit your error, doesn't speak well for you.

Quote:And are you saying there are no islamophobes? 

A phobia is an unreasonable fear.  As islam has quite adequately demonstrated that they are an ideology whose teaching should quite logically be feared by anyone who cherishes Western democratic and secular values then such fear cannot be considered unreasonable.

Quote:Or are you saying there ARE islamophobes, but some of them are serious Islam scholars. You know this and can provide examples?

Islamaphobia is your term, not mine.

Quote:Calling people "assholes" and telling them to shut their pie hole declares discussion over, certainly, but merely asserting that Islamophobes will put forward experts to advance Islamophobia does not, in itself, do anything like that, even if I suggest their scholarship is not good.

I did tell you, facetiously I might add, to shut your pie hole.  I did not call you an "asshole".  Mixing lies in with truth is not a good way to convince people you are right.

Quote:Do you think both sides of every issue are "equal" in knowledge and quality of argument? I have never read a good argument in support of racism, not even by "scientific" Nazis, certainly not a scholarly one, though I have read Nazi scholarship.  Oops--did I just declare a discussion over before it begins? No. I'll listen to what the Nazis have to say. If can identify logical inconsistencies and factual errors and unwarranted claims then I will. If I cannot I will reconsider my objections to racism.

No, but you did use a Nazi comparison, an analogy so intellectually lazy and lacking in nuance that one wonders why you couldn't conjure up an example not so obviously loaded.  Your blatant attempts to equate your opponents with racism, a common tactic by your ilk or Nazi style fascism is noted though.  Nothed and sadly predictable.

Quote:I do a pretty good job of letting all comers "discuss the subject" with me.  Presenting good arguments with support does not shut down discussion with people who want good arguments with support.

If you say so.

Quote:And my post said that once we start talking about "expertise", Islamophobes will nominate their team and that will become a fight over criteria of expertise. Obviously that didn't shut down discussion as you stepped right into the fight over expertise, demanding to know why people who have no scholarly credentials on the subject of Islam can't be experts too and demanding to know what my criteria are.  You got those criteria and so far have supplied none of your own.

Excedpt when the "other side" nominates a spokesperson you immediately dismiss them as not a "serious scholar".  Are you beginning to see the problem here?

(05-06-2017, 10:47 AM)Dill Wrote: Some questions here you are not answering. Is Harris' work more like that of Adamson and Gunther and Al Hiri, or is it more like Gabriel's?
This is your chance to show us all what a well substantiated, fact-based case looks like.  I hope you don't let us down.

I'm not familiar with any of the people you've mentioned so, unlike you, I wil not make a judgment from a position of ignorance.

Quote:Are you saying Harris is not sharing his thoughts on Islam by pointing to translated quotes as the basis for condemning an entire religion?
Until you can show that, then my words are not "all opinion."

He's using "quotes" from islam's "holy" books.  He's using real world examples and he's using the stated opinions of millions of muslims.  Remember, you seem to trust polls when they say things you like.

Quote:Which Middle East scholars have responded to his work? I am getting the impression that "opinion" is your word for any argument you disagree with but cannot refute. Are we going to see anything like an extended argument from you? I don't mean you just quoting me and calling it all "copypasta" or "opinion."  I refer you again to Masterp's posts. He speaks to the subject matter, exploring the Islam-US politics issue. Focused on the facts of the case, he doesn't substitute accusation for argument.

I do to, just not in a way you like.

Quote:Or is all discussion, dialogue, argument just over once you cannot call "opinion" or "copypasta" on what you don't like or don't understand?

I love it when you condescend to me, it turns me on.

Quote:Don't claim you can't carry on a discussion with someone who plagiarizes or some such excuse and bail out on me. Don't claim you have "already addressed" anything. Don't tell me to "scroll up" and look at another unsupported assertion. If you cannot really argue yourself, can you put up something by Harris in text form which refutes anything I have said? I don't mean a lazy link to a youtube video with a vague verbal gesture like "that's what I think."

See, here's the problem.  You like to cherry pick what is and is not acceptable.  You like one poll but not another; polls are good but now they're bad.  A well reasoned and argued point on YouTube, or anywhere else, is not negated by the medium they are transmitted.  You come off as very elitist in this discussion.  Only "serious scholars" need apply.  Only "peer reviewed" opinions are valued, regardless of their veracity or how well educated the speaker is on the subject.  That's fine, you do you, just don't expect the rest of us to kow tow to your preconceived ideas of what is, and is not acceptable and who is, or is not, educated enough on a subject to deign to have an opinion about it.  

[Dill]

(05-07-2017, 03:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill: Don't claim you have "already addressed" anything. Don't tell me to "scroll up" and look at another unsupported assertion. If you cannot really argue yourself, can you put up something by Harris in text form which refutes anything I have said? I don't mean a lazy link to a youtube video with a vague verbal gesture like "that's what I think."

See, here's the problem.  You like to cherry pick what is and is not acceptable.  You like one poll but not another; polls are good but now they're bad.  A well reasoned and argued point on YouTube, or anywhere else, is not negated by the medium they are transmitted.  You come off as very elitist in this discussion.  Only "serious scholars" need apply.  Only "peer reviewed" opinions are valued, regardless of their veracity or how well educated the speaker is on the subject.  That's fine, you do you, just don't expect the rest of us to kow tow to your preconceived ideas of what is, and is not acceptable and who is, or is not, educated enough on a subject to deign to have an opinion about it.  

1. If you think I cherry pick “what is and what is not acceptable” then demonstrate that. Don’t natter on about unnamed polls I like and unnamed polls I don’t. I have no idea what you are talking about, though I can easily imagine a poll which provides perfectly useful, if limited knowledge, for one application but not for another. Someone who crudely thinks that one just “likes” polls or does not, regardless of context and application, would of course be confused by that (“polls are good but now they’re bad”).

2. Actually this is a mischaracterization both of what I have said and the peer-review process. Speaker “veracity” and “education on the subject” are exactly what the peer-review process establishes. It is at present the highest bar for publication in any knowledge field.  Calling it a “circle jerk” and referring to college professor friends who see “mean girls” keeping them from publication do not disestablish this. That’s just your effort to lower the bar so people without expert knowledge of Islam can “speak with authority” for you on the subject.

3. And are you speaking for the rest of the forum again? You are, aren’t you. How does adherence to an international standard like the peer-review process (among other criteria) as a means of establishing a scholar as “great” or “serious” in a subject area turn into a “preconceived idea” which is only mine? Have you somehow garbled my criteria for a “great scholar” into a claim that only people with peer-reviewed knowledge may speak in this forum? Rather a Merriam Webster definition of “scholar”?  Sounds like a plea for lowered standards all around—for Islamic experts, for your Youtube sources, and for you. (And my complaint about your Youtube link was not about the medium, but about the lazy gesture. You still have not yourself laid out a Harris argument you think refutes anything I have said. Are you ever going to?)

4. We are talking about elitist, “peer-reviewed” knowledge now only because you took issue with this:

A  vetted panel of academics sound good, but we are living in the time of Trump (what do "experts" know about anything) and the Islamophobes will have their "experts" too. Not great scholars, perhaps (one thinks of Fox commentators like Sebastian Gorka), but that will become a fight over criteria of expertise.

My comments here were not originally addressed to you, but to Masterp’s suggestion that a panel of academics be formed to vet knowledge about refugees and their countries of origin. I pointed out that criteria of expertise would quickly become the issue (as of course it did for you).  What sort of person should qualify as an expert on Islam and Middle Eastern countries?  My suggestion was/is, someone who is learned and vetted in these subject areas; not someone who is not, and hates Islam to  boot.

For every political/scientific/policy debate it is not a given that each side is represented by equally qualified, equally knowledgeable persons.  It appears that you assume the contrary, at least concerning debates over Islam.  So if I say there are no “great scholars” who support Islamophobia, you first treat that as an empirical claim. There must be, but I have “shut down debate” by defining the opposition as inexpert from the outset.  And I don’t even see how I have shut down debate; I “fail to admit my error.”

But apparently you do not see my error either, for you go right on to debate. So much for "shut down." You yourself cannot think of any serious scholars of Islam or Middle East history who aren’t Islamophobes—though that would settle the issue on the spot—so  you try a different road: you expand the definition of “serious scholar” to include people you want to include. Your Mirriam Webster definition opens the field to everyone from a six-grader in a public school to Sam Harris.

But whoa! Your definition is too democratic. Lower the standard so far most everyone is a scholar. So you stipulate “erudition” and “learning” and people who “speak with authority.” All that would imply standards, some means discriminating between the erudite and the unlearned. But what standards? Whose?  It is not so clear at this point what counts as “learning” or how your scholars establish their authority over their subject matter and for whom. Does publishing do that? So Sam Harris is your example. He has a Ph.D. in Neuroscience. He has published books on religion. That means he can speak with authority on Islam by your “preconceived” standards?  High enough to require publications but not so high as to make them accountable to subject area experts--the perfect scholarly standard for your present needs. little bit of "elitism" to the rescue--just enough.

My definition addresses the question of standards, but rather differently, and I think more clearly. I say someone is not a serious scholar in Islam and/or Middle Eastern politics/ history if he/she cannot read Arabic, for example, has not lived and studied in the Middle East, and produced formal writing (Ph.D., journal articles, books) vetted by other experts who would recognize errors, untruths, bad research and bad arguments.  And a “great scholar” would have to do a lot of that—contribute new knowledge to the field, break new ground, change the way people addressed their subject matter.

Elitist? LOL too bad.