Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2016 15:55:53 GMT
Having now actually looked at the Youtube video which Dawkins has got into trouble for "Liking" (see previous post; I had not checked it out previously because I rightly assumed it would be puerile), I side with the feminists on this occasion. The video ends with the Islamist asking the feminist "Is it OK if I rape you now?" to which she replies "It's not rape when a Muslim does it". Such a portrayal, implying that she deserves and even invites such a fate, would be outside the bounds of decency even when applied to a fictitious Ms Generic Feminist; applied to an identifiable individual and posted on the internet, there is unquestionably an element of menace. Dawkins seems completely oblivious to this. (BTW I suspect that if a self-professed religious conservative had posted this atrocity, not only would he be deservedly vilified but it would be used to tar all religious conservatives.) BTW the author of said YouTube video calls himself Sargon of Akkad - the ruler of the first major empire to arise in the Fertile Crescent. Presenting yourself as an oriental despot is an odd guise for a self-proclaimed devotee of reason and civility. I think there are a few things that should be clarified here. The first thing, as minor as it may be, is that the video itself wasn't actually created by Sargon. He did upload it, but it was another Youtuber who actually created it. Secondly, in regards to the crude joke at the end of the video, I believe he explains this in at least one of his other videos (though I don't know if this was before or after the video in question). The reasoning behind this joke had to do with Western feminist "journalists" who seem to make a living writing about "rape culture" and "misogyny" in the West - which could be something as small as cat-calling, "man-spreading" or the temperature of an office (no, I'm not joking) - yet were deafeningly quiet in regards to the very real rapes that happened in Cologne, or else tried to conjure up a story about the right-wing bogey man while pretty much ignoring the actual rapes themselves. Thirdly and finally, I think it should be noted that Richard Dawkins has now distanced himself from the video after discovering the feminist in the video was based on a real person.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Feb 3, 2016 17:21:25 GMT
Secondly, in regards to the crude joke at the end of the video, I believe he explains this in at least one of his other videos (though I don't know if this was before or after the video in question). The reasoning behind this joke had to do with Western feminist "journalists" who seem to make a living writing about "rape culture" and "misogyny" in the West - which could be something as small as cat-calling, "man-spreading" or the temperature of an office (no, I'm not joking) - yet were deafeningly quiet in regards to the very real rapes that happened in Cologne, or else tried to conjure up a story about the right-wing bogey man while pretty much ignoring the actual rapes themselves.. In fairness to said feminists, I can understand that being subjected to that sort of behaviour can indeed be quite stressful, and to the person undergoing it, I can't imagine that it's small for them (I'm a man btw). Of course, compared to rape such behaviour is small, but it doesn't mean that it should be ignored or tolerated (not saying that you are obviously). As for Cologne, to be fair many feminists were quite vocal about what had happened well before the media stepped in (As it happens, I agree that it was a mistake to not report on it, most of all because it added insult to the injury of those who went through it. On the other hand, I have not heard a single person "conjure up a story about the right-wing bogey man" as you put it, but rather many people have quite rightly stated that turning to Islamophobia or the far-right will not solve the underlying problem. If there is any elephant in the room, it is that social libertinism has failed, and the philosophy of "every man for himself" sows the seeds of this kind of evil.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2016 14:28:39 GMT
Secondly, in regards to the crude joke at the end of the video, I believe he explains this in at least one of his other videos (though I don't know if this was before or after the video in question). The reasoning behind this joke had to do with Western feminist "journalists" who seem to make a living writing about "rape culture" and "misogyny" in the West - which could be something as small as cat-calling, "man-spreading" or the temperature of an office (no, I'm not joking) - yet were deafeningly quiet in regards to the very real rapes that happened in Cologne, or else tried to conjure up a story about the right-wing bogey man while pretty much ignoring the actual rapes themselves.. In fairness to said feminists, I can understand that being subjected to that sort of behaviour can indeed be quite stressful, and to the person undergoing it, I can't imagine that it's small for them (I'm a man btw). Of course, compared to rape such behaviour is small, but it doesn't mean that it should be ignored or tolerated (not saying that you are obviously). As for Cologne, to be fair many feminists were quite vocal about what had happened well before the media stepped in (As it happens, I agree that it was a mistake to not report on it, most of all because it added insult to the injury of those who went through it. On the other hand, I have not heard a single person "conjure up a story about the right-wing bogey man" as you put it, but rather many people have quite rightly stated that turning to Islamophobia or the far-right will not solve the underlying problem. If there is any elephant in the room, it is that social libertinism has failed, and the philosophy of "every man for himself" sows the seeds of this kind of evil. That's not my point. My point is that many of the feminists Sargon used as an example are the kind of feminists that will find the most inane things to talk about as some kind of proof that the West is a "rape-culture" and that women are basically seen as second-class citizens; yet when presented with a genuine opportunity to discuss a very real example of rape-culture they dance around it and focus solely on the (potential) reaction of Right Wing groups.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Feb 4, 2016 15:07:42 GMT
In fairness to said feminists, I can understand that being subjected to that sort of behaviour can indeed be quite stressful, and to the person undergoing it, I can't imagine that it's small for them (I'm a man btw). Of course, compared to rape such behaviour is small, but it doesn't mean that it should be ignored or tolerated (not saying that you are obviously). As for Cologne, to be fair many feminists were quite vocal about what had happened well before the media stepped in (As it happens, I agree that it was a mistake to not report on it, most of all because it added insult to the injury of those who went through it. On the other hand, I have not heard a single person "conjure up a story about the right-wing bogey man" as you put it, but rather many people have quite rightly stated that turning to Islamophobia or the far-right will not solve the underlying problem. If there is any elephant in the room, it is that social libertinism has failed, and the philosophy of "every man for himself" sows the seeds of this kind of evil. That's not my point. My point is that many of the feminists Sargon used as an example are the kind of feminists that will find the most inane things to talk about as some kind of proof that the West is a "rape-culture" and that women are basically seen as second-class citizens; yet when presented with a genuine opportunity to discuss a very real example of rape-culture they dance around it and focus solely on the (potential) reaction of Right Wing groups. Antaine, I didn't sat that that was your point. What I did say was that many of those who first highlighted what happened in Cologne were feminists. I'm not aware of anyone who has reacted to Cologne in the way you describe, as distinct from warnings about not chasing down red herrings. Surely there is nothing wrong with that? Of course the perpetrators should be brought to justice, I don't know of anyone who has said otherwise, but I really don't see why religion (or anything else) should be brought into this, especially since AFAIK Islam actually condemns that sort of activity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2016 16:05:34 GMT
Antaine, I didn't sat that that was your point. What I did say was that many of those who first highlighted what happened in Cologne were feminists. I'm not aware of anyone who has reacted to Cologne in the way you describe, as distinct from warnings about not chasing down red herrings. Surely there is nothing wrong with that? Of course the perpetrators should be brought to justice, I don't know of anyone who has said otherwise, but I really don't see why religion (or anything else) should be brought into this, especially since AFAIK Islam actually condemns that sort of activity. No, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with raising awareness as to the possible issues of people slipping into extremism. My point was that the feminists in question focused solely on the right wing element. I believe Sargon has examples in one of his videos (that comes after the controversial video in question). I think it's important to point out that Sargon of Akkad would also classify himself as Centre-Left. In regards to bringing religion, culture, etc (mind you I was focused on culture) into the argument, I would say Taharrush. The Wikipedia page in describes it as a phenomenon that started in Egypt, but there is no doubt that what happened in Cologne fits the description of Taharrush.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Feb 4, 2016 16:07:20 GMT
Antaine, I didn't sat that that was your point. What I did say was that many of those who first highlighted what happened in Cologne were feminists. I'm not aware of anyone who has reacted to Cologne in the way you describe, as distinct from warnings about not chasing down red herrings. Surely there is nothing wrong with that? Of course the perpetrators should be brought to justice, I don't know of anyone who has said otherwise, but I really don't see why religion (or anything else) should be brought into this, especially since AFAIK Islam actually condemns that sort of activity. No, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with raising awareness as to the possible issues of people slipping into extremism. My point was that the feminists in question focused solely on the right wing element. I believe Sargon has examples in one of his videos (that comes after the controversial video in question). I think it's important to point out that Sargon of Akkad would also classify himself as Centre-Left. In regards to bringing religion, culture, etc (mind you I was focused on culture) into the argument, I would say Taharrush. The Wikipedia page in describes it as a phenomenon that started in Egypt, but there is no doubt that what happened in Cologne fits the description of Taharrush. OK Antaine, I take your point.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 7, 2016 18:08:38 GMT
HEre is a beautiful example of atheist clear thought. Those of us who for our sins still have to read the IRISH TIMES will know that its film critic and columnist Donald Clarke is an atheist of insufferable smugness. In a recent piece criticising Atheist Ireland for claiming to speak on behalf of all atheists in denouncing the Easter Rising, he informs us: EXTRACT Forming atheist clubs or attending atheist meetings only encourages the aggressively Christian in their monstrously empty-headed opinion that atheism is a religion. If atheism qualifies even as a “belief system” then stones, hats, binoculars and all other inanimate objects subscribe to that system. None of those things believes in God either. The non-community of atheists really is an absurdly broad . . . well, not church, obviously, but you get the idea. END www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/donald-clarke-this-atheist-dogma-is-beyond-belief-1.2595119 So, according to MR Clarke, inanimate objects are models of reasoning when compared to believers in the supernatural. Perhaps they represent Mr Clarke's ideal in not thinking at all? One thing can be said for them; they don't write silly columns in the IRISH TIMES.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on May 7, 2016 19:19:41 GMT
It's a stupid thing to say. Surely we can only describe a quality as absent if it might potentially have been present. Nobody talks about gluten-free triangles, or asymmetrical smells, or cordless swans.
I accept his larger point, but really, that's not what Christians (interesting piece of sectarianism there) are usually saying when they call atheism a religion. They are usually saying that a particular brand of militant atheism is a religion-- certainly a belief system, since militant atheists usually insist it comes with a commitment to science, reason, intellectual enquiry, etc., none of which necessarily follow from a lack of belief in God or gods.
The really mystery, Hibernicus, is why you are even bothering to read Donald Clarke...
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 8, 2016 0:22:19 GMT
He doesn't just say atheism is a religion - he says it is not a belief system; in other words, that it is self-evidently true and beyond disputation. His blithering about inanimate objects reflects, I think, the sort of mindset that Dawkinsites get into over determinism; they instinctively believe that consciousness and freewill are illusions but they are reluctant to say it in so many words. Such a view would logically imply, amongst other ridiculous things, that inanimate objects are preferable to the animate variety because not subject to delusions. I read Donald Clarke and MOLOCH'S HERALD because my work requires me to keep in touch with current affairs in Ireland and as the journal of record the IRISH TIMES is still essential for that, despite its infestation with Angry Birds. I also think it's important for believers not to inhabit a pious bubble of the sort which makes us overlook the existence and mindset of unbelievers. You must admit, also, that such a priceless pearl of absurdity as the Clarkeism under discussion is a gratifying discovery for anyone with a sense of humour.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 5, 2017 20:51:04 GMT
Another example of why many atheists (not all) strike me as emotional adolescents. Donald Clarke (for whom see above) reviews Martin Scorsese's new film SILENCE about a Jesuit missionary in C17 Japan who is coerced by the authorities to renounce his faith in order to save Japanese Christians from torture and martyrdom. www.irishtimes.com/culture/film/silence-review-the-passion-and-the-tedium-of-martin-scorsese-1.2916506 I haven't seen the film, and it is quite possible that everything Clarke says about its pomposity and limitations AS A FILM may be true, but what is really striking is that Clarke says he can't give a hoot about the dilemma of the central character - not that he can't sympathise, but that he refuses even to try to understand. Now this is a very serious limitation for any critic qua critic. Bear in mind that cinema is a world art form and many of the people who make it have views and cultural assumptions different from those of likely viewers. (To take one example: I certainly don't share Ken Loach's sixties marxism, but this doesn't stop me from trying to assess how far he is making legitimate social observations - and how his views hang together even where I don't agree with them.) Another subsidiary point which Mr Clarke might have considered but didn't is that this concerns someone being made to renounce their deepest beliefs through the arbitrary use of state violence. Does this not strike him as problematic, even if he does not agree with said beliefs? Contrast Anthony Daniels (aka Theodore Dalrymple) who wrote apropos of his visit to 80s Albania, where atheism was enforced by the state - "Where belief is free, I'm an atheist. Where belief is forbidden, I'm a believer." Incidentally, it's probably relevant that one of the earlier novels of Shosaku Endo, the author of the novel on which the film is based, explores the mindset of minor doctors and bureaucrats who are lured by conformity into committing war crimes (lethal experimentation on POWs). The novel is called THE SEA AND POISON, if you come across it. The wartime horrors perpetrated in the name of national solidarity in 1930s and 40s Japan are probably relevant to the actions of the persecutors in SILENCE (which is not to say some of their concerns about Spanish and Portuguese imperialism didn't have substance).
|
|
|
Post by Ilechukwu Alex on Apr 25, 2017 7:13:46 GMT
Get April Mass Readings Calendar
|
|
|
Post by Ilechukwu Alex on Apr 25, 2017 7:16:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 9, 2017 20:02:33 GMT
Apparently "gender fluidity" zealots are now demanding the suppression of references to the role of chromosomes in sex determination,and denouncing the view that sex is linked to reproduction. www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/bill-nye-the-afraid-of-science-guy/comment-page-1/#commentswww.catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=1449I wonder if Richard Dawkins and his pals who are so fond of presenting young-earth creationist cranks as "proof" that religious belief endangers science and reason will take on these clowns? After all, Darwinian natural selection is driven precisely by reproduction. EXTRACT FROM DREHER'S COMBOX Gender theory is now literally, and not merely figuratively, recapitulating Lysenkoism. It’s a doubly bizarre twist, coming less than a decade after faith in the immutable laws of genetic destiny were used as the primary argument for normalizing homosexuality. And suddenly now genetics aren’t even strong enough to determine the one essential attribute that makes sexual reproduction possible in the first place, which has now been reduced to a mere taste preference on par with ice cream flavors. I admit, there’s something deliciously ironic about the prospect of left-wing gender theory putting Darwin’s tree of life out to pasture and accomplishing the work that a century of religious-conservative backlash could not. END OF EXTRACT en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 9, 2017 20:06:18 GMT
I don't think prosecuting Stephen Fry for blasphemy would have done any good. (His comments probably just about fall under "reasoned criticism".) But isn't it characteristic of Stephen Fry that he considers himself entitled to lecture God on how the universe should have been constructed? After all, this is the man who, when he played Oscar Wilde, insisted on substituting his own jokes for Wilde's because he thought he could do better. He couldn't.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on May 9, 2017 21:08:47 GMT
Perhaps this thread should be unpinned? I always worry it looks like this forum is clinging to an age-old controversy.
Stephen Fry is talented but shallow, in my view. I think Christians are savvy enough to realize blasphemy actions would backfire on us right now. I'm certainly not opposed to them in principle.
|
|