Scenario : A Muslim blows himself up in a cafe or beheads an infidel live on the internet. There is a public outcry from the moderate Muslim world that these murderers do not represent Islam. Some non-Muslims agree. Other non-Muslims insist that the moderate Muslims explain why their religion is peaceful and demand the moderates go to task against the fanatics. Many of us demand that moderate Muslims themselves should be the front line soldiers in the fight against extremism. This is essentially the argument made by Sam Harris. I do not disagree.
However ! Second scenario : A young white supremacist walks into a black church and kills a group of innocent black people . We are all- hopefully- deeply offended and filled with compassion for the victims. People of all races rightfully denounce the actions of this young man and his hate-filled belief system. It is nice to see people of all skin colors come together at times like this.
I am having a difficult time finding arguments from white folks ( I am one of French Canadian and Syrian background} clearly defining why white supremacy is a fallacious and evil doctrine . Is the responsibility for destroying white supremacy largely on the shoulders of white folks? I sure believe it is.
One claim made by white supremacists is that the mixing of the races is destroying our culture. What culture do they mean ? When I was young I listened to my parents record collection. We had Johnny Cash and Duke Ellington . James Brown and Loretta Lynn. We did not have tea time at four. My father was one of the first preachers in his denomination to perform inter- racial marriages. We were fed largely by my Damascan Grandmother and ate dolma , mujuddara , and kibbi along with New England Boiled Dinners. My sister in law is from Mexico and I also have also married across racial lines. My daughter is a beauty and we joke a lot about creating a planet filled with "Cappuccino" people. Her husband is latino and romanian gypsy .
Race is a social construct only. Jared Diamond debunks white supremacy beautifully and scathingly in "Guns , Germs , and Steel". The Genome Project has revealed more ways that we are interconnected than ever imagined.
Can you help me to create a thread debunking the racial myths of old. What does it mean to you to be white , black , brown , gold , or copper? White folks , do you feel the need to explain why the KKK does not represent you ?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Stopping white supremacy takes a similar step to how I feel we should stop religious indoctrination. Chimp put it out that he feels that ending white supremacy is a 'white' problem for whites to put an end to. As someone who grew up next to Texas and couldn't pass for anything other than see-through, I understand this to be the wrong way to approach it. If the only people someone like a Klansman are exposed to are open-minded whites, then that still wouldn't change their opinion of what they thought about minorities one iota. If anything, it would continue to solidify their idea as non-whites as being deceivers and manipulators. After all, in their eyes, look at this fine, upstanding white person who still fell for the crafty misinformation of the coloreds/Jews. What more proof do I need to complete my confirmation bias? Real change can only occur when people like this are exposed to outside influences that don't conform to their worldview regularly.
The same goes for the religious bigots. Think of all the people who fell out of fundamentalist sects who only did so as soon as they were able to see cultures other than the microcosms they were forced to stay in.
As a personal example: I used to harbor a lot of negative thoughts and feelings towards homosexuals, with almost all of it coming from my exposure to Christian indoctrination. Years later, I skewed my education on sociology, biology, and psychology to fit this worldview. The worst part about it was that it wasn't as blatant as I'm making it out to seem. I didn't proclaim the villainy of the queer menace or burn rainbow flags. I just didn't care for gay people. Then I went to college, where the demographic went from the 'Roman Protestant South' to something more inclusive. I witnessed a large number of different people I'd never met before, and that included gays and lesbians. Since then, and especially since my deconversion, I've noticed a marked shift in my notions.
Intriguing idea for a thread......
It is my belief that it is fundamental to the nature of our species to act/react in what may be described as a "tribal" manner.
If we disregard issues of skin tone....what are we left with ..... completely fabricated internal divisions that we construct to define "us" from "them".......
eg. I am a Briton....(by definition White..European..Island dweller)
Traditionally Britons are suspicious/wary of those "not of these islands".... historically the Spanish ,the French ,the Danes ,the Germans......all notably also White ,also Europeans .
So ...remove these "outlanders" and what do you find ?
The inhabitants of the islands have reservations about other inhabitants...... the English ,the Welsh ,the Scots ,the Irish ...all also White ,also all Britons (as in inhabitants of the British Isles)
So ,focus in on individual "nations" lets say "the Welsh"....(my heritage..) the North Welsh loath and detest the South Welsh....(I can remember my great aunts telling me that those in the south weren't "proper welsh".There was something wrong with them. )
The Scots ? the wars of the clans are legendary.... The Irish ?....well....say no more.
It seems the only thing that keeps the island together is the mutual hatred of the English..... and speaking of which....in days gone by the English in the north rather than accept rule from southern England invited a Viking noble to rule them instead....twice...(the guys name was Eric Blood Axe....so you can guess how that worked out)....
But the point Im trying to make is that faced with no obvious differences....we'll make some up...be it belief ,skin tone ,hair colour (bloody gingers), accents , manners , etc,etc.
We are a tribal animal...
(I have encountered something similar amongst some West Indian Islanders.... inhabitants of certain islands are said to eat monkey or some times crow..... but again the populations are the same ( Black ,ex slaves ,under colonial rule...) but instead of finding unity they opt for division....odd.
The (insert color) supremacy angle evades me. I think it's just hate. The same hate permeates all men who are prone to it and striking out against another culture is just one vent for it that has become high profile and cross-cultural.
The "angle", as I make note of above, is the indoctrination of hate people suffer from their own cultures, against others, and it's spread in a seemingly innocuous, yet very evil way.
My father told me once that if the world was to expect to relieve itself of bigotry it should start by focusing on all the grandmothers. They're the ones raising grandchildren, while the parents work long hours, and fill the kid's heads with the bigotry old women conjure up and embellish based upon stories dating to antiquity. Old ladies can do some real damage to a young person's pride and ego by keeping the old fires of bigotry alive.
Do we think the current IS leadership is solely responsible for harkening back to a time when their culture reigned supreme in the form of the Ottoman Empire? Not hardly. This kind of thinking was imbued in them by the maternal side of the culture. This is really anthropology 101, though, and a little Margaret Mead might be an appropriate read at this juncture.
The maternal influences on whole societies is usually wholly undetected and typically misunderstood if identified at all. Moreover, how can anyone seriously cite good ol' innocent granny for such a disservice to her family? Don't dismiss this "angle" about supremacy. It starts in the home.
The problem is that there is no pure race. Hasn't been in about 500 years. In fact there probably has never been a pure race since the neanderthal met homo-sapiens. There hasn't been a pure culture since the Japanese were forced to open their ports to the west.
All these cries for pure race, pure culture, is absolute bullshit. And yes Jared Diamond proved that no race is dominant by genetics.
Whenever a society feels pressure they will look for scapegoats. It was the invention of witches. It has always been an obvious difference that garnered misguided hatred.
I think it has to do with pattern seeking character we have.
I think it arises from the idea of us wanting to be friends with people who are similar to us first.
This creates groups and like what happens in basically everything, groups tend to be competitive and defensive of each other.
basic example:
So if I have a disagreement with a guy in my group we fight and it ends there, but if I have a disagreement with someone in another group it could easily end up in a group fight.
This is the beginning of conflict, hate, bias and tribalism.
One thing seems apparent though.
The more distance groups/people have between them the more this aspect(bias) grows while the closer the distance the more chance of peaceful solutions there are.
Really? I have never read anything that would confirm that. In fact everything I have read is that mankind has always sought differences not similarities. It apparently is an instinct that naturally benefits the general gene pool.
Part of what you state may be true sociologically, but a very small part. But Then again I kind find one bit of info that you COULD have used to PROVE your assertion. I did the work for you, here it is:
"Similarity/Attraction Theory
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Similarity/attraction theory posits that people like and are attracted to others who are similar, rather than dissimilar, to themselves; “birds of a feather,” the adage goes, “flock together.” Social scientific research has provided considerable support for tenets of the theory since the mid-1900s. Researchers from a variety of fields such as marketing, political science, social psychology, and sociology have contributed to and gleaned information from empirical tests of similarity/attraction theory. The theory provides a parsimonious explanatory and predictive framework for examining how and why people are attracted to and influenced by others in their social worlds.
A large body of research investigates the role that similarity of attitudes plays in attraction. According to studies by Ellen Berscheid and Elaine H. Walster (1969) and Donn Byrne (1971) in general people are most attracted to others who share similar attitudes. Additionally people who share similar important attitudes (e.g., attitudes concerning home and family) are more likely to be attracted to each other than those who share less important attitudes (e.g., attitudes toward certain fabric softeners).
There are several reasons why people prefer the company of others who espouse attitudes, especially important attitudes, which are similar to their own (Berscheid and Walster 1969; Byrne 1971). Most importantly perhaps, sharing similar attitudes provides corroboration that a person is not alone in his or her belief; they might even be correct to hold the attitude in question. Other possible reasons suggested for why people prefer others who are similar to themselves are that (1) knowledge of similar attitudes may help people to predict others’ future behaviors, providing a predictive “window” into the other’s behavioral predilections, and (2) people may be more likely to assume that others who hold similar attitudes to themselves have a greater chance of being attracted to them, a “likeness begets liking” explanation.
In addition to people’s inclinations to be attracted to those who share similar attitudes, people are also attracted to others who manifest personality characteristics (e.g., optimism, self-esteem, shyness, conscientiousness) that are similar to their own. In fact people may choose to associate with certain others because they have similar personalities. For example friends are more likely to share personality traits than nonfriends. Moreover, marital partners share more similar personalities than people in randomly assigned pairs. Indeed personality similarity may play a key role in marital happiness and longevity (Berscheid and Walster 1969; Byrne 1971).
Furthermore people are attracted to romantic partners who share similar physical characteristics and levels of physical attractiveness. Tall people are more likely to marry tall partners than short ones, and attractive people are more likely to marry attractive partners than unattractive ones.
People’s preference for similarity in social partners is not limited to the aforementioned domains, though. Research has demonstrated that people report greater liking for and attraction to people who are like them in the following areas as well: socioeconomic status, religious beliefs, social habits (e.g., frequency of attending parties), bad habits (e.g., drinking and smoking), ethnicity, and intelligence.
Similarity/attraction theory may not hold in all social instances, however. For example some scholars have suggested that people may be more likely to be attracted to partners who complement rather than replicate certain attributes. This complementarity view of attraction explains, for example, why attractive younger women may form successful marital unions with much older, wealthier men. Along similar lines people may not like others who share negative personality traits with them. Rather than be constantly reminded of their faults in a given dimension through the presence of someone similar, people may prefer to interact with others who they believe will “bring out the best” in them.
Additionally some researchers, such as Milton Rosenbaum in a 1986 study, have suggested that attitudinal dissimilarity, rather than attitudinal similarity, drives the similarity-liking link. According to the dissimilarityrepulsion view people’s motivation to avoid social interactions with dissimilar others is stronger than, or at least as strong as, people’s desire to affiliate with like-minded others. Indeed a 2000 study by Ramadhar Singh and Soo Yan Ho revealed that, under certain circumstances, the influence of attitudinal similarity and dissimilarity may exert equivalent and opposite effects on liking. Further in some cases, dissimilar attitudes may have a stronger influence on interpersonal attraction than similar attitudes (Singh and Ho 2000).
In summary similarity-attraction theory attempts to explain and predict interpersonal liking by asserting that people are attracted to others who are similar to themselves. Consistent with this view, research has revealed that people prefer to affiliate with those who share similar attitudes, personalities, physical attributes, and a host of other characteristics compared to others who do not. Though similarity/attraction theory explains many cases of interpersonal attraction, it may not accurately predict all attraction outcomes. In some cases complementarity or avoidance of dissimilar others may better explain certain patterns of human liking.
SEE ALSO Attitudes; Friendship; Personality; Personality, Cult of; Psychology; Romance; Social Relations; Trait Theory
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Berscheid, Ellen, and Elaine H. Walster. 1969. Rewards Others Provide: Similarity. In Interpersonal Attraction, 69-91. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Byrne, Donn. 1971. The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
Rosenbaum, Milton E. 1986. The Repulsion Hypothesis: On the Nondevelopment of Relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (6): 1156-1166.
Singh, Ramadhar, and Soo Yan Ho. 2000. Attitudes and Attraction: A New Test of the Attraction, Repulsion and Similarity-Dissimilarity Asymmetry Hypotheses. British Journal of Social Psychology 39 (2): 197-211.
Jorgianne Civey Robinson
Cite this article
Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography.
MLA
Chicago
APA
"Similarity/Attraction Theory." International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. 2008. Encyclopedia.com. 6 Apr. 2016 .
Learn more about citation styles
Related newspaper, magazine, and trade journal articles from Questia
Including press releases, facts, information, and biographies
Effects of Gender Similarity/dissimilarity, Gender Stereotyping and Culture...
Magazine article from: Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict
...investigate whether gender similarity or dissimilarity of...which we call flirting theory. The above review...gender similarity theories and flirtation or flirting theory) albeit competing...Gender similarity theories (GST) of the similarity attraction paradigm, ...
Reactions to Intergroup Similarity: Examination of the...
Magazine article from: Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science
...rather than intergroup attraction, particularly when...out - group (the similarity - differentiation...from social identity theory (SIT) which states...63). Intergroup similarity leads to in - group...differentiation because such similarity makes it difficult...theory (BCT) is that ...
Who Shall Govern? CEO Board Power, Demographic Similarity, and New Director...
Magazine article from: Administrative Science Quarterly
...in the organization theory, economics, and management...increased demographic similarity between the CEO and...whether increased similarity results in a more generous...increased demographic similarity using longitudinal data...enhances interpersonal attraction (Byrne, Clore, and...
Gender and Culture Diversity Occurring in Sell-Formed Work Groups
Magazine article from: Journal of Managerial Issues
...Blau asserts that similarities on one nominal parameter...Research on both similarity-attraction theory (Byrne, 1971...also supported the similarity-attraction hypothesis...have looked at the similarity-attraction hypothesis...
Why Differences Make a Difference: A Field Study of Diversity, Conflict, and...
Magazine article from: Administrative Science Quarterly
...norm, Byrne's (1971) similarity-attraction theory suggests that people prefer similarity in their interactions. Like wise, theories of selection (Chatman, 1991...be all that surprising. No theory suggests that a workgroup...
A Framework of the Foundation Theories Underlying the Relationship between...
Magazine article from: Research and Practice in Human Resource Management
...the identity theory, categorisation theory and social comparison theory. Interaction...include the similarity attraction paradigm...combination, these theories and concepts...combinations of similarities and differences...
Right-Wing Authoritarianism as a Moderator of the Similarity-Attraction Effect
Magazine article from: Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science
...a moderator of the similarity-attraction effect in a bogus stranger...norms and values. The similarity-attraction effect...consistent moderator of the similarity-evaluation effect...Rokeach's (1960) theory of prejudice. Résumé Deux...
International Experience Heterogeneity Effects on Top Management Team Advice...
Magazine article from: Management International Review
...TMT members comprise. Theory and Hypotheses Communication...Primarily based on attraction-similarity arguments (Byrne 1971), demography theory suggests that communication...1983), is that such similarities provide a common vocabulary...
A Longitudinal Investigation of Race and Sex as Factors in Children's...
Magazine article from: Child Study Journal
...relation to the similarity-attraction hypothesis of...that the dominant theory in social psychological...attraction is the similarity-attraction hypothesis...largely driven by similarities (or perceived...target persons. Similarities motivate the ...
Factors Influencing Online Trust
Magazine article from: Academy of Marketing Studies Journal
...Social impact theory provides a framework...Traditional communication theories cannot explain these...refer to two general theories. The first one was...the social impact theory as any of the "changes...situations. Similarity-Attraction Hypothesis Early research...focused mainly on ...
For more facts and information, see all results
Trending topics
Education
Careers
For students and teachers
Encyclopedia.com provides students and teachers facts, information, and biographies from verified, citable sources, including:
Encyclopedia.com provides students and teachers facts, information, and biographies from verified, citable sources, including:"
That was really lengthy so here's the site, or am I just being childish?
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3045302452.html
"Really? I have never read anything that would confirm that. In fact everything I have read is that mankind has always sought differences not similarities."
We don't really know what happened at the beginning of mankind, but looking at how small tribes behave, it is nearly always friends that happen before differences are pointed out among different groups.
" I did the work for you"
Thanks but It wasn't exactly my point, I did not just claim that that people "are attracted to others who are similar", I just stated that before pointing our differences people tend to look at similarities first else a single person will find himself pointing his finger at everybody which is kinda weird.
Read again my sentence:
"I think it arises from the idea of us wanting to be friends with people who are similar to us FIRST."
Do you want to claim that before we form groups we try to find the differences and provoke fights?
I do not deny that it cannot happen but usually it ends up with getting feared or isolated unless the guy bullies everyone which usually does not work unless he has a small gang.
I see it to be much more likely that groups are formed first then the distinctions of differences are pointed out and discriminated.
"Part of what you state may be true sociologically, but a very small part."
Which very big part do you disagree with?
Basically us pointing the differences is a byproduct of our pattern seeking mammalian nature.
That is all I am saying.
I just pointed out that you didn't support any of your claims in your initial post. You have no problem claiming that I am childish when I supposedly didn't support my claims (even though I did), and yet you seem to feel that you can just make a claim and we all have to except it.
Overall I agree with your initial post that people tend to find common ground and gravitate to those groups for a number of reasons, comfort, protection, etc..., but you can't call people childish for not supporting their claims and then not fully support your own claims.
My lengthy post was to point out that first, you are being hypocritical and condescending for not practicing what you preach, and also to illustrate that sometimes when citing a link that supports a claim it is more practical than posting the entire information that that link provides to support a claim.
You said "Basically us pointing the differences is a byproduct of our pattern seeking mammalian nature."
Do you have any proof of that? Are we just suppose to accept it because you said it? Is everything you say law or is it just you unsubstantiated opinion? As far as I can see, it's just your opinion that you pulled out of thin air. If I were imitating you I would address your statement as being "childish". I am not you and instead I posted support with real facts to support your claim.
BTW pointing out differences is not restricted to mammals. All animals notice and react to distinct differences within their own species. There, there is a blanket statement by me unsupported (even though I could easily prove it).
When I start a sentence
"I think"
It is implied that it is my personal opinion, i do not need to support that with anything.
I am not saying it happened in this way, I am saying i think it should happen in this way.
You can agree and disagree, since I am not stating facts but putting forward my opinion.
It is my choice if I provide all the data that made me arrive to that conclusion or not.
Much different then stating something as a fact like this:
"The problem is that extremist in the west ARE inciting violence for not having respect for Islam."
"That doesn't mean that those opinions don't incite violence. Yes the convention in Dallas did incite violence which was one of the reasons for the convention."
You are making claims not just displaying your personal opinion on a subject.
When you claim things then you must support them.
Please understand the difference, I am not picking on you, I just pointed out that you made a claim and did not support it.
"BTW pointing out differences is not restricted to mammals."
I never said it was.
What you failed to realize is that I actually did provide evidence and you just dismissed it. I quoted James Madison and the Federalist Papers, then post the link. I quoted the U.S. Constitution and the Cornell Constitutional Law center, then posted the link. I quoted Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, then posted the link. I quoted the Southern Poverty Law Center, then posted the link. I posted links to the New York Times and the Washington post that covered Paula Geller. You dismissed all of that and had the unmitigated gall to call me childish. Even if I hadn't done the do-diligence to post all that supporting information, you could have accepted that it was my opinion, but no you went on a rampage dismissing supporting data and just call me childish.
So if I dismiss the fact that you may have put "I think" in your post, it is no different than your treatment of my post, as if YOUR opinion has MORE weight and credibility than mine.
You don't like the fact that I was dismissive of "your opinion." Well, you reap what you sow.
"What you failed to realize is that I actually did provide evidence and you just dismissed it."
"The problem is that extremist in the west ARE inciting violence for not having respect for Islam."
"That doesn't mean that those opinions don't incite violence. Yes the convention in Dallas did incite violence which was one of the reasons for the convention."
I copy pasted what you did, I see no links there that supports your claim.
I am starting to lose my patience with your lies.
You did not support those claims I quoted, you did not quote where they(links) support your claims.
(You might think you did)
Showing that there are other people that think that they(cartoonists/convention) did something wrong is not evidence, it is irrelevant.
I dismissed all the things which were irrelevant to your claim because they were irrelevant.
Nowhere there even hinted that the convention did a wrong thing, the closest you got was a partial absurd claim that "unregulated speech can cause violence", which I fully addressed and you did not even dare to debate it.
Stop lying.
I never said you are childish but it seems you are behaving like one now with all the lies.
If you wish to accuse me(or anyone) of anything QUOTE the offence please.
Don't put your interpretation of it.
This is the last time I will be nice and help you understand where you can improve in your debates.
I stated things as my opinion on this topic and everybody knows that, even you.
You stated things as facts here:
"The problem is that extremist in the west ARE inciting violence for not having respect for Islam."
"That doesn't mean that those opinions don't incite violence. Yes the convention in Dallas did incite violence which was one of the reasons for the convention."
If you cannot see the difference in the way you have written those things then you indeed are childish as you seem to think I called you.
"Yes the convention in Dallas did incite violence which was one of the reasons for the convention."
No, It did not, the violence was already there by Muslim arrogance in controlling free speech illegally of a civil society by threatening people.
The convention reveled the cause of violence which was already there more vividly for us to see.
It is intolerant people who displayed their violet behavior where they should have behaved themselves in a civil way.
NO the convention was not intended to incite violence at all.(this is a fact, not my opinion)
(violence was feared/expected to happen but that was not the reason of the convention)
The convention was criticizing Islam and showing that Islam is a subject that can be criticized like any other subject.
(free speech)
Showing to us all that we can practice our free speech on any subject and the only acceptable reply is a heated debate on it, not violence.
If violence was the reply it means that the convention did in fact a good thing.
It was indeed needed.
It showed how intolerant some Muslims are and that they need to be arrested and removed from a civil society.
You were actually claiming that if we have a bully in the house, that demands silence on a topic with pain of death if we don't comply, we need to bow down else we are inciting violence if we say something on it.
You are either insane or have no idea what the free speech is all about.
(I do hope you are ignorant of the meaning of free speech)
Even if I insult you right now.(demonstration only)
And call you a little child of 5 years old.
your response to this provocation should not be
"I will kill you"
(else police will come and pick you up since you are the one displaying violence)
but it should be:
"Why are you claiming that?"
"Where is your evidence?"
(if the reply is not satisfactory, then one could consider suing him)
That is a mature reply.
The following is childish reply:
"You are the 5 year old kid!!!!
(Everything this guy will say I will say it is wrong/flawed because I don't like him and i want him to be seen as childish.)
I will show he is the 5 year old kid not me :P"
1) You didn't copy and paste the whole of what I said and presented as evidence, which is not only dishonest and misleading, it is basically a lie.
2) I have tried to be reasonable with you, but you have decided to be smug, condescending, and have resorted to name calling and fight bating.
3) You have completely dismissed valid evidence that I have provided and the reason that you have done so is that you disagree with my view of the issue and you can't support your view.
4) You claim that I haven't provided any evidence to support my claims, yet you yourself have made claims about this issue and have not once provided ANY evidence about the matter. What you have done is make a salacious slander of my person, dismissed my evidence, and lied about what I have said and provided as evidence.
You ignore my post concerning case law, the Federalist Papers, quotes from Oliver Wendell Holmes, and James Madison, data from The Southern Poverty Law Center and other credible media outlets, like the New York Times.
Now to the issue:
Paula Geller tried to get the convention in several venues in the Dallas area but was turned down for the reason that it was hate mongering and would incite violence. She was finally able to secure the obscure Garland Convention Center because
1) It needed the money
2) They really didn't know nor care who Paula Geller was or what her intentions were.
"1) You didn't copy and paste the whole of what I said and presented as evidence, which is not only dishonest and misleading, it is basically a lie."
Yea I never said I copy pasted your entire post, anybody can go there and see that you did not support your claim that free speech actually incites violence.(i just pointed them to where to look)
here I make it easier:
Edit:
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/atheist-hub/my-dialog-muslim-extre...
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/atheist-hub/my-dialog-muslim-extre...
Actually you haven't even supported the claim that insulting someone incites violence at all.
If I insult you right now, by law you should not be violent.
I am still waiting for you to support this absurd insane claim.
"2) I have tried to be reasonable with you"
You might think you did, but you did not.
"3) You have completely dismissed valid evidence"
All your evidence is irrelevant to your claim.
"4) You claim that I haven't provided any evidence to support my claims, yet you yourself have made claims about this issue and have not once provided ANY evidence about the matter"
My claim was that some Islamist are violent because Islam made them like that.
Then when they are challenged, they expose their violent behavior.
I am ready to support this but I do not need to, since you made the opposite claim first.
You claimed that the free speech is the one inciting violence.
"you disagree with my view of the issue and you can't support your view."
Yet you again insist that I need to support any claims before you support yours like a broken record.
Is your argument that weak?
"You ignore my post concerning case law"
irrelevant to your claim.
"the Federalist Papers"
irrelevant to your claim.
"What you have done is make a salacious slander of my person"
You did it to yourself with your behavior.
All I am asking is for evidence, and you either do not know what evidence means or are filing that gap with fallacies.
"Now to the issue:"
Finally he will present real evidence that actually relates to your claim.
"Paula Geller tried to get the convention in several venues in the Dallas area but was turned down for the reason that it was hate mongering and would incite violence."
OWW man again. I was wrong.
How hard it is to accept the fact that opinions of people are not evidence.(I already explained this)
The entire world could agree with you right now, and your evidence would still be a a big fat ZERO.
"She was finally able to secure the obscure Garland Convention Center because"
"1) It needed the money
2) They really didn't know nor care who Paula Geller was or what her intentions were."
It does not matter how wrong, corrupt and evil the woman is.
It is irrelevant.
No amount of insulting or provocation should create violence, unless the person involved is violent for some other reason.
Violence is not tolerated and is punished by law.
Whoever disrespect the law is at fault.
How can you shift the blame on the convention is beyond me.
EDIT:
She could have held a convention on how Woman could rape MEN for all I care.
If all men stormed the convention and beat her up.
The MEN are at fault.
Did she incite violence or did she expose violence?
She exposed it.
The only civil option for MEN is to complain about it, or maybe sue her because that is what free speech is all about.
I am through with you. All you do is insult, dismiss, condescend, and fight bate. You're arrogant, smug and immature. I've reported you. If you'd read what people on this forum have said about you, you'd realize that the problem is you.
If you'd had actually read what I said about the matter, you'd know that I condemned that violent reaction to her provocation. I don't remember how many times I wrote that they are both wrong. Your little comparison scenario is irrelevant as it isn't a fair or even just comparison
She didn't expose violence, she incited it. I didn't shift blame, I included it.....BIG difference.
Just because YOU dismiss good evidence doesn't make it "NO " evidence. The law and case history agrees with me.
Here is why my evidence is relevant.
The issue IS that all speech is not free under the law. Speech that that incites violence for that purpose is a crime. we are not talking about satire or editorials, we are talking about speech or actions that are made for the sole purpose to incite violence.
Case law proves that incitement is a crime. Opinions from SCOTUS on the matter ARE relevant. The Federalist papers and the opinions by Madison on the constitutionality of free speech are also relevant. Simply dismissing that evidence is by all accounts dishonest. What is also dishonest is to claim that I shift the blame. I didn't and I don't. I attribute blame to both parties. I blame the people that incite violence, and I blame the people that carry out their retaliation in the form of violence.
Here is a link to prove it. I will post the link because the entire information is germane but too lengthy to post here.
http://www.soundvision.com/article/incitement-to-violence-pamela-geller-...
So get off of your high horse and READ the facts instead of insulting and dismissing.
"If you'd read what people on this forum have said about you, you'd realize that the problem is you."
Lol yea another argument of popularity fallacy.
That is the best you have to support your claim?
" I've reported you."
Thanks
"If you'd had actually read what I said about the matter, you'd know that I condemned that violent reaction to her provocation."
I did and replied back, saying provoking is not inciting violence.
You just failed to reply to that point or chose to ignore it.
"I don't remember how many times I wrote that they are both wrong."
Yes and we are debating why they are not both wrong and the violent ones are at fault.
Actually I am debating, you are just claiming things without supporting them.
You have failed to show that there is any blame at all from that convention/cartoonists for inciting violence.
"I didn't shift blame, I included it.....BIG difference."
You are shifting part of the blame on them and failed to provide evidence.
"The issue IS that all speech is not free under the law."
Not all speech but the cartoonist and the convention was breaking no laws.
You failed to show they are connected.
The ones you are referring to are when one breaks the peace or such thing(Unregulated).
A convention was regulated, the cartoonists are drawing cartoons about what they think, they do no harm what so ever.
Threatening to do harm if one says something or does something is breaking the law,
It is called threatening people which does incite violence.
"Case law proves that incitement is a crime. Opinions from SCOTUS on the matter ARE relevant. The Federalist papers and the opinions by Madison on the constitutionality of free speech are also relevant. "
Where? quote?
Don't put the links only
Quote where they actually prove that that convention incited violence?
Just don't dare say it is their opinion again.
Man opinions change, before, burning gays alive was accepted by law because the church's opinion was final.
gay rights
gay marriage
We can also go and fine very "relevant" court cases on the matter that supported the idea of no rights for gays.
Is that valid evidence or even relevant at all?
NOOOOOO
What doesn't change is evidence and unless you manage to provide those, you cannot support your claim.
"Simply dismissing that evidence is by all accounts dishonest."
Opinions are not evidence. Irrelevant
"What is also dishonest is to claim that I shift the blame."
You are shifting part of the blame, that is a fact.
"I blame the people that incite violence"
me too but you are blaming the wrong people because you think the cartoonist and the convention are inciting violence.
They are provoking, which is a totally different thing.
"I blame the people that carry out their retaliation in the form of violence."
Yea me too, but i give them all the blame they deserve, you seem you want to put some of the blame of inciting violence on the people who are practicing free speech and you have no right to do that without evidence.
I am still waiting for it.
http://www.soundvision.com/article/incitement-to-violence-pamela-geller-...
Again no quoting wtf?
Can you even understand English?
Nowhere in there, is there evidence that free speech incites violence, what there is, is a biased article about how some other crazy nuts liked the accused propaganda and committed hideous acts in her name.
This happens all the time, people try to find other popular people that agree with their beliefs and quote them to justify their actions.
All the dam time.
Inciting violence is when you are directly responsible, not when you have an opinion on something.
Opinion:
"We should stop the Islamization of America"
Inciting Violence
"Destroy all mosques and burn those beasts alive."
Unless you quote something like that from their speeches you are at 0 evidence.
You are just a liar and nothing more.
My argument that moderate Muslims are responsible for explaining why their version of Islam is peaceful is not to place responsibility for criminal actions upon innocent shoulders. It is my opinion that moderates are enabling extremists by perpetrating violent myths and cherry picking the nice bits from a cornucopia of bad ideas. "White"washing away the nastiness , sweeping it under the rug. Same holds for all other theologies.
It is also my opinion that white people are perpetuating myths about race when they march in St Patrick Day parades or celebrate Columbus Day. If one celebrates Columbus Day it is a statement of cultural identity. I believe it is that persons role to explain that statement and be tested in the market place of ideas.
The discovery of the America's by Vespucci and Columbus led to one very valuable result. The debunking of the millennia old myth of the terraqueuous globe and ushering in the age of science and reason. That discovery also being very , very bad for at least 10s of millions of dark skinned people.
If race is a social construct based on mythology should we be the vanguard in dismantling our own cultures erroneous concepts ? If not who's responsibility is it? If we as atheists feel empowered to debunk the claims of all religions are we empowered to debunk the racial myths of everyone else too? I think so, but we better be nice about it. I will stick with dismantling the concepts of white culture . That is a job that will keep this amateur field sociologist busy for a lifetime.
I look at london. There is no behavioural difference between the various colors of people that I can see. Dev patel is basically like any other london actor :P
I have found racism is in every race from the KKK types to the New Black Panther types. How to remove it well got me there. Education maybe.
The KKK is far different from the Black Panthers, far far different. The KKK is racist and persecutes people for not being white. The Black Panthers are trying to prevent abuse against blacks AND abuse against anyone. They are decidedly not racist as a rule. Individuals within the Black Panthers maybe racist but the group is against any form of racism. The KKK wants to institute racism and to be a member you MUST be racist.