Do I actually need to come to Koth's defense here? Because he's right, Battuta is trolling rather than engaging in discussion. His responses such as "I'm sorry you had to waste words", "can you even read", "do you actually have a disability", "so I can figure out what is getting lost between your eyes and your brain", "someone who spends so little time reading the things said to him", and so forth are personal attacks. In fact, Battuta has spent more time making attacks and throwing fits in this thread than he has made any arguments.
these are not personal attacks
No, those are, in fact, personal attacks. (How can you accuse Kosh of not reading what you wrote if you don't seem to be reading them either?)
, they are attempts to figure out why the hell he keeps dodging away from actually debating. if he gives nothing to debate beyond his own personal conduct and constant evasion, what else is there to question?
If you wanted to figure out why he kept dodging, as you say, then wouldn't it have been better to specifically ask him? Re-post a point you made, and then ask him to respond specifically to one of your points. But you didn't do that; you kept carrying on with different insults.
no goob, this is not what happened; what happened is that i tried to explain to koth that none of these points he was bringing up were relevant because I have never argued that Turkish society is secular or that fundamentalist Islamic custom in Turkey (or anywhere else, including the USA) does not lead to atrocious behavior
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Let me post this again, restoring the part that you clipped:
i'm not posting as a moderator here, i'm just posting to draw out the fact that there is apparently no thought behind your beliefs, just blind faith; you're regurgitating something you've been told without criticism or intent to evaluate empirically. as someone who's been engaged in both science and social justice this is profoundly disappointing, exactly the kind of charade that undermines these causes.
I'm sorry but this is patently incorrect. Koth cited the statistics on "belief in evolution" (which, regardless of your position on it, does indicate that Turkish society is not secular). He also cited the article on honor killings, which is specifically due to Islamic custom. In fact, there have actually been a couple of honor killings in the US due to fundamentalist Muslim immigration.
And then, when Koth said "Show me an Islamic country on par with western Europe in terms of social values," which is by definition an empirical question, you ignored it and responded by attacking him.
no goob, this is not what happened; what happened is that i tried to explain to koth that none of these points he was bringing up were relevant because I have never argued that Turkish society is secular or that fundamentalist Islamic custom in Turkey (or anywhere else, including the USA) does not lead to atrocious behavior
Or, to summarize:
Battuta: Kosh is basing his argument on blind faith, without evaluating it empirically.
Goober: Actually that's incorrect; Kosh supported his argument empirically in at least two different ways, belief in evolution and honor killings.
Battuta: no goob, this is not what happened; what happened is that i tried to explain to koth that none of these points he was bringing up were relevant because I have never argued that Turkish society is secular or that fundamentalist Islamic custom in Turkey (or anywhere else, including the USA) does not lead to atrocious behavior
I fail to see how this point addressed in any way the point about empiricism.
you're missing the point as badly as he did, and that's disappointing. the argument here is not about the social values of muslim nations, it's about how those values come to be
kara got it, and he summed it up better than I have
Actually, kara made the same mistake you did. Here is a restatement of the argument:
Kosh: Turkey's problems, such as its human rights record, are due to Islam.
Battuta: Turkey's problems, such as its human rights record, are not due to Islam but are due to other causes.
That seems to me to be a legitimate topic of discussion. But you and karajorma have both made the mistake of taking your own position as an assumed premise of the argument: Turkey's problems are not due to Islam because they are not due to Islam. This is a logical fallacy.
whatever happens in turkey is the result of a complex byplay of sociocultural factors and history. blaming islam alone for it is just as facile and naive as blaming race.
Then argue to that effect instead of making personal attacks. You said you're "a pro total expert on Turkey", so demonstrate that. In the past you've cited papers and studies in support of your arguments. Here the most you've done is link to two articles on Wikipedia.
It is also important to note that Islam is a much more, yes,
nuanced and complicated issue than a simple checkbox on a "what is your religion" questionnaire. It has a large history of societal, cultural, and religious development behind it. So the argument that Islam is responsible for such-and-such is not
prima facie unreasonable. It may be incorrect, but it is not something you just write off.
if it makes you happy, goob - and i think it will - i'd be as quick to spring to the defense of christianity
I appreciate that, but this thread is not an "All Teams At War" between Islam, Christianity, and secularism. You'll note that Kosh said he'd be just as quick to bash Christianity. I'm not particularly fond of Kosh, but I'm defending him here because he seems to have been monkeyed unjustly.
I'm sorry but this is patently incorrect. Koth cited the statistics on "belief in evolution" (which, regardless of your position on it, does indicate that Turkish society is not secular). He also cited the article on honor killings, which is specifically due to Islamic custom. In fact, there have actually been a couple of honor killings in the US due to fundamentalist Muslim immigration.
All of which were arguments against a strawman. He was arguing (as he has repeatedly) that Islam is the problem in those countries. There was no attempt to engage in discussion with the people telling him it's not Islam but other factors. He just repeatedly pointed out the situation and said "See, Islam is to blame!"
The problem is, that's
not a strawman. If anything is a strawman it was your unfounded reduction of Islam, a complex societal, cultural, and religious development with extensive history, to a simple attribute such as skin color. By monkeying Kosh you are calling his entire position invalid and saying that he cannot participate in the thread without accepting Battuta's side of the argument. That is a logical fallacy, as I described above.
fundamental islam could very well be the problem right now in these countries, absolutely, but that's like saying 'the patient is bleeding to death' after they've been shot a few times; the real question is 'who shot them and why?' fundamentalism is only a symptom
But Kosh is arguing that fundamentalist Islam is the cause, not the symptom. Which is part of the premise that you're assuming.
kara's doing a better job of this than me so i'm off to nap, and fwiw kosh, i apologize if i pushed things too personally, but there are Muslims reading these threads who are hurt by this type of generalization
Heh. You think Christians aren't hurt by (to pick on Nemesis6 now) Nemesis6's frequent posting of articles hostile to Christianity, complete with his own derogatory commentary?
