A young man is languishing in an Islamic prison right now, for a terrible crime. Look at this travesty of justice, this product of primitive morality.
Sayed Pervez Kambaksh, the student journalist sentenced to death for blasphemy in Afghanistan, has been told he will spend the next 20 years in jail after the country’s highest court ruled against him – without even hearing his defence.
…
It later emerged he was convicted by three mullahs, in secret, without access to a lawyer. The sentence was commuted to 20 years on appeal. At that appeal, in October, the key prosecution witness withdrew his testimony, claiming he had been forced to lie on pain of death. The prosecution then appealed to the Supreme Court to reinstate the death sentence. The defence appealed to quash his conviction altogether.
Meanwhile, the student has been languishing in a Kabul jail, fearing for his life. Islamic fundamentalists have been baying for his blood while moderate groups have led marches countrywide demanding his release.
What was his crime? This is as bad as the criminality of the kangaroo court that convicted him.
Mr Kambaksh was found guilty of blasphemy and sentenced to death last year for circulating an essay on women’s rights which questioned verses in the Koran.
Don’t question. Don’t support women. We’ll kill you if you do either. Is that the message?
And remember – this is a government Americans are dying to protect.
A sad result of fundamentalism in any religion. I worry for this poor young man. Similar stories exhist in the history of Christianity as well.
Another strong reason to do away with the nonsense of religion.
I would comment but I want to live.
The invalidaty of Islam lies not in any of it’s doctrines, rather simply in the fact that is is a religion, and therefore is wrong and must be removed from society.
“And remember – this is a government Americans are dying to protect.”
And remember, it’s better than the one they had before (which is an astounding realization I think).
Earlier this week Saudia Arabia had a 72-year old widow caned for the crime of talking to her male cousin and another guy. But they’re a religion of peace, that’s what they say after a beheading.
If so-called ‘Muslims’ want so badly to live in the Stone Age, bomb them back to it and walk away.
I’m just waiting for an apologist to come along and refer to the title of your post as “intolerant.”
“Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe.”
Thomas Jefferson
In the face of stories like these I feel proud for wanting to keep the world safe.
Carl Sagan likened science to a candle in the dark.
The question is how can science properly re-establish a position of admiration in a world so pitted against it?
So much for securing a working democracy in Afghanistan and pouring millions into it’s legal system. We went into Afghanistan in 2001 to capture Osama Bin Laden. Now that goal is more or less forgotten. Stupid idiots like Bush and Blair with their “nation building” ambitions.
I bet you don’t have the guts to say nasty stuff about how stupid the christians are, ‘cuz you’re afraid they’ll make you run through the streets of pamplona chased by a papal bull, or something.
oh. wait.
nevermind.
Fucking animals.
In answer to #6, simple . Remove emotion from humanity, it is a logical course of action.
You intolerant bastards! How dare you criticize the religion of Allah. You are all doomed to die horrible deaths.
Anna Hedonia is soooo right. The invalidity of all religions is that they are religions, necessarily believing in supernatural beings, and hence, equally and totally ridiculous.
I was trying to figure out a smart comment, but am kinda numb. Saddened, discouraged and depressed by religion in action. Cripes, what a primitive species mankind is…
This is the a country you guys supposedly liberated?
You can’t say these things about Islam. The fatwah envyists know that if Islam is disrespected, suicide bombers will home on Morris, Minnesota. You can only say nasty stuff about Christianity, particularly evangelical fundamentalist Christianity.
Change the names and this could be the Republican Party loyalty police. Now, we understand why Bush and Cheney were so set on installing a “democratic” government in Afghanistan and Iraq. What resulted sounds just like today’s Republicans. I can hear the tremors in Springfield as Lincoln rolls over in his grave.
Stop picking on Catholics PZ, you wouldn’t ever say anything bad about muslims…
The thing about bombs is that they tend to hit these guys–
–as well as the people you’re actually pissed at.
And the country is unlikely to become less crazy-fundie-dominated after more bombings.
“Don’t question. Don’t support women. We’ll kill you if you do either. Is that the message?”
Yes – Yes it is.
Stupid asshole. And Sayed Pervez Kambaksh and the oppressed women of Islam would die as well.
Islam needs Western intervention, but war doesn’t help. War just cuts people off from those human rights NGOs that work, as well as correspondence with the outside world. Wherever women are oppressed, they are oppressed worse when wars start; then the tribal patriarchies become even more insular.
The clerics apparently didn’t like the thought of being out-crazied by that Bishop in Brazil.
Most religions rest on the idea of a top-down moral hierarchy of higher over lower: design, authority, purity, and spirituality. Things have their place, their rank, their status, their order. It can feel very secure: you know where things belong.
The downside is this sort of crap, the infringements on personal freedom and autonomy.
Plus, of course, the fact that there is no top-down moral hierarchy built into the nature of reality, so it’s just plain false, as well as unethical.
Islam is one of the nastiest of the religions, because it has incorporated the idea of “honor” or thar into its moral system. One kills to avenge sleights on one’s powerful status, and show dominion over one’s property — which includes women.
The God in the Bible and Quran is white hot dead set on protecting its honor: by rebelling, man thus merits a blood revenge. The atonement in the NT which tries to counteract this still accepts the system as right and just to begin with. It’s not surprising when this sort of toxic world view ends up oppressing women — or men.
It’s only surprising when people look at the Bible or Quran and blithely explain that this is where the modern concepts of human rights and equality came from. No. Not really.
The line that apologists like best is that there are millions of women who are devout muslims, who will send their children to die for Islam. That they wouldn’t do it if the religion itself were misogynistic.
Of course that is pure nonsense. A horrible woman by the name Magda Goebells murdered her six children on the eve of the fall of Berlin in April 1945, because she believed their lives without National Socialism would be worthless. This is defense of a system that said women have only three functions, all of them beginning with a “k” in German: to kiss, to cook, and to deliver children.
That muslims women insist on wearing the Hijab even in Europe or North America; that they send their children to die for Islam; or that so few of them ever become an Ayan Hirsi Ali means absolutely nothing, in the way the apologists say.
blow up a few mosques
@ #9:
If science is a candle in the dark, as Mr. Sagan said, then Islam, along with its fellow religions, is a strong, noxious fart threatening to blow it out.
I can’t say for sure, but using so-called and scare quotes around Muslim are both indications of a fundie nut-case.
Yes, so-called “Muslims” should be Christians(TM), right? Kind of like “atheists.” We’re just rebelling…we don’t really mean it.
Islam is so horrible. This is why I do not like fatwa envy.
sigh
Facilis, whatever religion you have is almost as bad. You need to find reason and logic, which you will only do if your acknowledge god doesn’t exist and the bible is horrid work of fiction. Until then, you are almost as bad.
This is why I do not like fatwa envy.
wait for it…
I’m sure there is something incredibly stupid to follow. He just can’t help it.
Religion of peace indeed..
Facilis #30 wrote:
Ah, but at least they have an objective morality, with no appeal to flimsy human things like rights. Only God has rights — to give or withhold as He sees fit.
Says who, and by which metric? Certainly not measured by number of human rights violations, or opium production.
It can’t. It’s not supposed to. As long as we’re helping them survive in their archaic, tribal civilization, there is no incentive for them to improve.
What kind of intervention are you thinking? You can’t intervene in a country like Afghanistan, without war. They use violence (usually murder) to settle almost any dispute, no matter how trivial.
What we need to do is allow the rational people who are living under these fucked up regimes free passage to any western country they chose to live in. Offer a permenant citizenship to anyone who wants it, and extract them by force if nessecary. Then stand back and watch the rest of these fundamental morons butcher each other.
Don’t forget this is Afghanistan you’re talking about! That guy is lucky to be alive.
Ugh. Sweet nonexistent Jesus. What a mess of humanity Islam makes. Can we please just get rid of it already so we can make some more progress?
Fa(c)il(is),
1″Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3″Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
– Matthew 7:1-5
This is your society.
This is your society on religion.
Any questions?
Yes, see this very movingly depicted in the wonderful German film Downfall about the last days of Hitler in the bunker.
I know there are many many brave women throughout Islam trying to bring education and liberation – and since they seem infinitely smarter than the men who oppress them they will surely succeed – eventually.
However…. I had a strange encounter with a Muslim girl this morning which really made me scratch my head. She was learing some computery, technical stuff in a mixed class of students, and I was there to help with basic English. She and her friend were both British born, and both were wearing a full hijab(?) with just their round faces showing. There was no problem of any kind, and when she asked me to look her through her job application letter, I was happy to do so. Both girls were chatty and relaxed, and so was I. However, her letter was like no other I’d ever read. In the paragraph where you detail your passion for team-working, and possibly let slip thet your worst fault is your perfectionism, she had written something along the following lines:
“I am a person who will do as she is told. I am obedient and submissive, and will work any hours you need, and not complain”.
I was astonished to read something like this from an 18-year-old British girl. I covered my confusion by pointing out what a good judge of character I was as I could see that she was reliable, hard-working, and a great team-worker…but I did find myself explaining to her that firms did not ask for, and would never receive the extreme feminine modesty she was offering. As I felt myself floundering a little, I removed the sentiments that offended me (me?), corrected her letter – you should hire her, she’s great on paper – and withdrew in some confusion. As I say, all our interactions were pleasant and humorous, but there was something there I just could not understand.
“Religion isn’t the opium of the masses, it’s the placebo of the masses” — Dr. Gregory House, tv character.
In this case, it’s the poison-contaminated placebo of the masses.
I’m sure the Christian fundies are very envious. They wish they could imprison/torture/put to death all of us atheists along with anyone else who disagrees with their tripe.
Excuse me, but what the fuck is “fatwa envy”?
Sometime Christards say the darndest things!
Facilis, fuck off. You lack the intelligence to survive on this blog, and it’s time to take your stupidity elsewhere. You are a disgrace to your genome. Mitochondrial Eve has disowned you, and you just can’t get harsher than that, you paraphyletic fuck. Cordially…
Savages.
Fatwa envy (or here) — coined by our very own PZ Myers.
Definition at RationalWiki of Fatwa envy.
@pdferguson
“what the fuck is “fatwa envy”?”
This I believe:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fatwa%20envy
No, “fatwa envy” is not a Christard thing to say, its a feeling certain Christards have.
It goes like this: PZ says something mean about Christards, Christards say, “PZ how dare you! You would never say such a mean thing about Muslims, because Muslims, unlike us kind, meek, civilized Christards, would slit your throat if they had a chance.”
See, Christards envy the fact that Muslims REALLY believe strongly in their religion enough to kill for it. I suspect it makes Christards a little uncomfortable. How can they be so certain that their religion is right that they would kill for it. After all, doesn’t strong certainty in a belief confirm the truthfulness of that belief?
I was on the fence on Canada’s role in Afghanistan until I heard of this guy last spring. What a waste of money and lives. When Nato leaves, will Karzai (or whoever is around) just shut down all the girls schools and take the country back to where it was under the Taliban?
choke That’s funny.
Rest assured that such will never happen — the narco-warlords wouldn’t let another hardline Islamic government interfere with the opium trade.
… and yet you could argue that our American government has slaughtered thousands more civilians than any mullah.
Anyone remember that Twilight Zone episode on ‘How to Serve Man’? Where the aliens came and like walled off all the countries to stop war. I wish we could use that technology to wall these tards away from the rest of the world.
I know the country is a disaster, but I find it hard to believe the coalition isn’t putting a little more force behind stopping shit like this.
@Vestrati
There’s a joke that goes like that:
God asks the president of the US and Bin Laden what they want. Bin Laden asks for 500-foot high, impenetrable wall to surround Afghanistan to protect it from infidels. US president asks God to fill it with water.
Here’s the challenge with trying to ‘create democracy’. You generally need to start from the inside out.
I don’t believe there have ever been any ‘externally created’ democracies. Every single democracy has been created by the will of the people it serves. They have evolved out of more feudal structures through devolution or revolution. Not one has been imposed from without. (if you know of one, I’d be happy to be proven wrong)
Religious theocracies can never become democracies until people recognize their personal political ascendancy over religious clerics or jealous warlords. Afghanistan is still a combination theocracy/feudal state – despite the parliamentary window dressing.
I don’t think it is fundamentally impossible to build a democratic nation state from whole cloth. I do think it is physically impossible while priests, mullahs or warlords hold any power at all.
just my $0.02
Germany? Japan?
AnthonyK @ 41
“I was astonished to read something like this from an 18-year-old British girl.”
Indeed, especially given how chatty and relaxed in your company she was.
I would speculate that a male relative may have “helped” in the completion of the application.
This is an atrocius incident for sure, but the fact that people are able to protest against it shows some improvement from the Taliban regime, if you ask me.
I remain optimistic that with time, these extremist nutjobs in the judicial system will die away to be replaced by more rational folk.
Thanks everyone for clearing up fatwa envy for me, I must have missed the introduction of this term by PZ.
I guess being “horrible” cures fatwa envy? Who knew?!
Posted by: perturbed | March 12, 2009 9:31 PM
Obviously, this came from the mouth of someone who has never seen a bomb drop in person.
Posted by: Facilis | March 12, 2009 10:41 PM
Pure, unadulterated, stultifying stupidity is so horrible. This is why I do not like you, facilis.
We really should just carpet bomb the whole place with really really blasphemous writings (I’m sure PZ has a few articles that could be added to the onslaught). Then once they are saturated and desensitized maybe and perhaps they can behave like civilized folks.
I live amongst muslims. Yes the religion and its people do have hatred for women and the birth canal!
Here’s an example: When someone dies, his/her daughters will acquire only one third of the property/belongings his/her sons will get. And if he/she doesn’t have any sons, his/her property will be given to his/her brother!
I’m from Bangladesh btw. Extremists are very gradually gaining strength here, since they seem to have long term goals. While most political parties are fighting each other, the religious parties are slowly growing larger. That really scares me.
@ 13,
After reading a few of your comments now in various threads,I have to say,unless you are on some sort of Vulcan trip,this fascist bullshit pisses me off.
Posted by: clinteas | March 13, 2009 1:03 AM
Not to mention that concept was ripped right from the movie Equilibrium. (bad concept, but great movie, I thought)
I had never heard of that movie ! Thanks for the reference,BS,having a look now !
I had never heard of that movie ! Thanks for the reference,BS,having a look now !
Duude, you’re in for a treat…
The movie is pretty much an amalgamation of Fahrenheit 451, Brave New World and nineteeneightyfour. The storyline is lame, there are many a cheesy moment, but fuck me the action element of the film is awesome.
I want to read facilis’ response to Sastra’s excellent defense of his objective morality.
Oh, was that not his morality? So much for objectivity.
Well, facilis? If you can’t address this issue, then realise you have nothing to offer the readers of this blog.
Nothing.
Was there ever any doubt about that?
I’d like him to think for once, clinteas.
@brokenSoldier, OM
Bad dialogue, cliche setting, the only bright points in the flick were Christian Bale and – of course – the Gun Katas
Maybe not intellectually, but he is good for at least a few laughs!
Kel & Twin-Skies:
I couldn’t agree more about the plot, but damn those gun-katas were sweet…
Afghanistan pays a high price for its medieval mentality.
The average lifespan is 47 years. Where ours was a century ago.
Life is short, people are poor, running water and electricity are scarce. This is what the fundie xians want for the USA. Either they have yet to figure out what the Dark Ages really meant or they simply don’t care.
*admits to geek speak deficiency and googles “gun-katas” *
Bombing the country back to the Stone Age is impossible – we would actually be bombing them forward to the Stone Age.
Gunkatas = gun fu ? :)
Posted by: Katkinkate | March 13, 2009 2:35 AM
:P Actually, yeah. It’s a martial arts form with handguns that keeps the shooter out of the most probable trajectories of fire when surrounded, and it’s badass to watch.
the only bright points in the flick were Christian Bale
Having trouble accepting Christian Bale as a bright point in any recorded event.
He sucks as an actor. No matter how much money his movies take in.
He has 2 emotions onscreen: mad and angry. (Yes, I know.)
He mumbles and spits and snarls his lines, his only delivery methods.
Waste of good celluloid, that one.
@David Jay
Who’d wanna bomb Afganisu-tan? She’s adorable!
http://www.pbase.com/darkbeat/afganisu-tan
At #55, Vestrati wrote:
Yeah, but, if you recall, the aliens’ actions ultimately turned out not to be in the humans’ best interests.
In that episode,“To Serve Man”, the aliens convinced some initially skeptical humans of their benevolent intentions by improving conditions on earth, allowing more humans to live longer and healthier lives.
Humans were even more convinced of the good intentions of the aliens when a linguist (cryptologist?) managed to translate the title of the aliens’ book: To Serve Man
[spoiler alert]
The book turned out to be a cookbook.
And all the good things the aliens had done for humans was to grow more meat dinner.
I saw this episode as a kid, and it was probably my favorite Twilight Zone episode ever. The book’s title tickled the part of me that loves word play. And I liked the message to remain wary about things that seem too good to be true. Heh, even as a kid I was training to be a skeptic.
Incredible that there are still people ignorant, or stupid enough to write crap like this.
All religions are equally false, but they’re not equally barbaric.
False only in the sense that they are human constructs to explain the unexplainable back in the stone age/bronze age,and dont actually have any real life basis.
Not equally barbaric? Well,most of them feature stoning,rape and genocide,its just that the christians started a bit earlier than the muslims……
Why don’t you try reading the complete post?
Hey Catholics, does this post help satisfy your masturbatory lust for PZ sinking his teeth (hopefully not in the same way as the horse in the next post) into other religions besides Catholicism? As you may guess by now, he’s an equal opportunity rationalist. Whether it’s your idiotic catholic beliefs, or the idiotic jewish beliefs, or the idiotic muslim beliefs, he’s going to eviscerate your useless superstitious fairy tales and help inject some much needed reason into the argument.
Ello Helio !
How have you been ?? Long time no see…:-)
Yeah,but thats not going to relieve the rabid catlicks of their fatwa envy im afraid..:-)
#58:
I guess you’re talking about WWII. Both Germany and Japan had established democracies under their own steam before then: see the Weimar republic and the Taishou democracy (in fact, the Japanese Diet was founded in the 19th century, under Meiji). True, in both cases democracy proved rather fragile, but the fact that internally-created democracy flourished for a while suggests that the relatively healthy postwar democracies were not simply bombed into place.
Hey clinteas – just got back from a couple of days in Melb. I didn’t mention it before ’cause I knew I wouldn’t have more than a couple of hours or so away from the demands of work; otherwise I’d have let you know and tried to catch up for a beer.
Next time I’ll try and stick around over a weekend. I couldn’t this time – I’ve got a ticket to a play tonight and (more importantly) one to Tim Minchin tomorrow night; I’m not giving that up!
@ 90,
One of the best books ever written about Hitler and Germany in the 30s and 40s is Sebastian Haffner’s “Anmerkungen zu Hitler”,available in English in a quite inappropriate title translation as “The meaning of Hitler”.
Its only 200 pages,small and concise.
Youre kidding right??
Well,serves you right the weather wasnt great LOL
We do it sometime,with that Canberra dude….;)
Depending on your definition of Democracy, Germany was a democracy since the fall of the Holy Roman empire in the early 19th century. It was brought about by internal revolution.
Fair enough, although I doubt nuking central cities in Afghanistan would have the same effect now as it did back then.
I likely am as angered as anyone here by this story, which even if it turns out to be partially or wholly exaggerated certainly serves as a lesson of easily documented facts about Islam (and religion of this “traditional” sort, generally), but may some of the more unreasoning people who have commented here stick to expressing outrage tempered by their reasoning.
I’ll explain, and pardon the needed profanity.
There are several comments here that are as full of holier-than-thou bullshit; people who, if they said this shit to me in person would get it right back in their faces.
This SHIT is, as when “Republicans” who defend real science start offering their “ideas” about literally every other issue, where I draw the line with a single warning.
Next time someone chooses to call other people “animals” or suggesting “bombing” such people, look in the mirror to see a Gysonian “bad animal.” And, to about five people here: fuck you and the donkey you rode in on, with your head somehow up its ass. F-u-c-k-Y-o-u!
“And remember – this is a government Americans are dying to protect.” And remember, it’s better than the one they had before (which is an astounding realization I think).
Indeed. Under the ancien régime, he would have been beheaded publicly in a stadium, without any trial. At least they now have something approximating a judicial system, even if the laws it enforces are barbaric and illiberal. But it is still crap, and I totally agree with Professor Myers that this is a disgrace.
Unlike most of you, however, I don’t see this particular story merely as illustrating the evils of hardline religious belief (although it does), but rather as also illustrating the evils of a strong state. Yes, militant Islam, when coupled with the power of the state, leads to great and unnecessary human suffering (just as theocratic Christian nations caused great suffering in the past). But those totalitarian states which subscribed to atheistic ideologies – such as the Soviet Union under Stalin – caused just as much unnecessary suffering, and committed just as many murders.
The only answer is to completely destroy the power of centralised governments. No man should have the power of life and death over another. Government’s role should be to protect citizens from force and fraud by others, maintain basic infrastructure, and defend the borders. It should have no power to interfere with people’s religious, political or economic choices.
Sioux Laris @ 95,
Now you are free to swear and use profanity on here,but dont keep it vague and address the posts you think are saying shit.
Its no fun otherwise !
Walton,
You know, for a little while there,I had hopes that you would actually come good mate…..and then something like this again….this has been explained and refuted ad nauseam so many times here,its really unexcusable to bring it up,unless you are still compartmentalizing and intellectually dishonest.
Clinteas, you have not understood me. I am not arguing that “atheism causes murders” or “Stalin was an atheist, therefore atheism is bad”. Those arguments are nonsense and have indeed been refuted.
Rather, I was pointing out that if the state – whatever its ideological inclination – is given excessive power, deaths will result.
That is not what you said.
Anyway,define “excessive power”.
And do not derail this into some libertarian BS(then again,you probably already have LOL)
You’re an idiot. Really, what kind of fool labels a whole religion like that except that they are either really stupid or islamaphobic or both. Shame on you. You aught to know that a mullah’s opinion represents only himself and not all Muslims.
You coward, you only feel you can attack Islam because you know it’s a religion of peace whose followers won’t harm you. You wouldn’t have the courage to say the same about Catholics.
(Would this be considered Inquisition envy?)
He-he! “You’re an idiot. Really, what kind of fool labels a whole religion like that except that they are either really stupid or islamaphobic or both. Shame on you.” *snort* Jack ass.
The outrage in these comments is amusing. It is directed at critics of a psychotic religion. “Hurry! We must defend the faith!” Seems that a lot of you are the politically correct types who rush to express anger if anyone defames Islam. You want defamation?: Islam is a violent, totalitarian political ideology with a veneer of religion. If the Nazis had bee smarter, they would have made Nazism a religion. Fuck Islam! Oh, yeah, fuck Christianity too while we’re at it.
All religions are not alike. The xtian superstition, even though basically nonsense, at least (in it’s modern versions) encourages most of its followers to behave in a manner that is nominally acceptable to modern society. Could we be better off with xtianity? Sure, but that’s not very likely to happen anytime soon. I hope that we can eventually be successful at marginalizing them, but the ideal of extinguishing superstition is not achievable.
One of the mitigating aspects of xtianity is that it is splintered into so many competing subsgroups that no one faction has been able to gain complete political domination. And for the most part, they are not determined to enslave nonbelievers by violent means.
The superstition of the medieval militant pedophile is far more dangerous than xtianity ever was, even at its worst. Islam isn’t even a religion. It would be more accurately classified as a political and military plan of world domination, with a bit of ritual thrown in to keep the followers in line. Their “holy book” is nothing more than an instruction manual for defeating and enslaving nonbelievers, with specific methods for handling women, dhimmi, and other slaves.
While islam does have competing factions, each of them is far more dangerous than any of the individual factions of xtianity (they basically differ over things like the proper succession of the mullahs). Even the most egregious of the xtian fundie nutcases just want to isolate the zombies that they can get to follow them, while the islamic fundies are bent on world domination, whatever it takes. And the practitioners of the world’s least-tolerant superstition are past masters of taking advantage of the tolerance of others, as we are seeing right now in Holland, Spain, and the UK, which will all be under sharia law in the next 30 years or so unless the non-muslim populations of those countries grow some testicles.
—
http://www.chl-tx.com
Good on you,torrance.
Walton – I know you mean well but the beauty of Ayn Rand is never having to reconcile
“Government’s role should be to protect citizens from force and fraud by others, maintain basic infrastructure, and defend the borders.”
and
“It should have no power to interfere with people’s religious, political or economic choices.”
Think about it. Hope you immediately see several (I see many) scenarios that test the consistency between your statements.
Tangentially (while by the flag pole):
Dictatorships, monarchies, and democracies can be all equally good as well as all equally bad. None of them are pure anyway. Viable ones that sustain themselves exist only as a mixture of all three to varying proportions.
The instrument that makes for good societies is the institution of a liberal, secular, and noble people oriented enduring Constitution, that is almost impossible to change downward (to degrade given rights of people), and that is in a real way enforced and the law of the land for all leaders and subjects alike. Good contracts enforced make for good business.
Gee,I like this thread,we are getting somewhere here.Nicely put !
Well, at least the Taliban are not in power, at least not everywhere. That’s always something, right? :) You did a stellar job with that liberation.
Pot, kettle, black? Not that I don’t agree with you, up to a point, but you’re not exactly making the stringest argument you could.
Rubbish. You can’t seriously mean that modern Chrisitanity, like the Mormon Church and Jehovas Witnesses are “good” by any metric. What encourages christians to behave in a manner nominally acceptable to modern society, is fear of the rule of law. True Chrisitans, like Fred Phelps and Paul Jennings Hill, who do not fear the law, do not behave in a manner much different from Islamists.
Chrisitans are every much as dangerous as Muslims. in fact Christians are more dangerous, because most people (like yourself) do not consider them a threat. Which is more dangerous? The Utahraptor you can see, or the one you can’t?
Yeah, but if you’d get beyond your cultural biases towards Muslims as a population, you’d realize this type of thing is also carried out by primitive-mind-set Christians as well. Only it’s not so published here in America because it doesn’t “make good copy.”
I also don’t understand why a person as smart and, presumably, well-read as you keeps acting as if this is a problem of Islam, per se. It wasn’t so long ago that a Brazilian preacher was sentenced for Blasphemy for kicking a statue of the Virgin Mary.
In India, the Christians are still engaged in the process of forcible conversion of Hindus. The same crap they’ve done everywhere they’ve gone since the middle ages and similar to what the Muslims do… So, here, you want to bash — bash the fucking Baptists:
http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=277&page=8
Just a month ago. Murder and arson. And this wasn’t even the Catholics, but the Baptists. Or some of them! Now, you going to blame ALL the Baptists through implication? Because that’s what you do when you blame all Muslims and all Islam for what the zealots do under the color of its flag…
The bottom line is that it is not, nor ever has been, the faith-vehicle of the religion per se. It is the problem of a problem of medieval-mind-set, generally-poor peoples, irrespective of relgious back-ground, being controlled by an authoritarian group who seek to further (or retain) their power, prestige and privilege.
And, bottom line, there are plenty of enlightened Muslims who are very much like your average Lutheran or Methodist from Minnesota. But you refuse to show them and the very much like everyone else people that they are.
Maybe they should get a pope. Then you can pick on one guy instead of slandering the whole population through guilt-by-association.
He already did. And the funny thing is, you’d think with the absolute result of the crash and burn of the deregulated economy and the gutting of the middle-class since Reagan, he just might have enough information to have gotten a clue just how stupidly bankrupt Libertarianism is…
But no…
Here we go with the same crap, different day… Lesson not learned!
Islam is a religion of peace only when everybody follows it.
Yup, definitely the religion of peace, no doubts about that.
If there is evil anywhere, it is embodied by Islam.
@Slugsie
Death is referred to as “Eternal Rest” after all.
No people = No War
That would rank with the stupidest things I have seen posted here in a long time.
I think it’s very crafty how all those “moderate muslims” have managed to stay so well hidden. Xians at least have some visible voices of moderation. Not so Muslims since to speak out could be worth your life.
None of this changes the fact that both religions are a Crock of Crap (TM)
I see much talk of democracy. Democrafy is flawed, a technocracy is a far more logical social construct.
I do not believe that there can truly be anything fundamentally wrong with Islam – other than that it is a religion, of course, but surely it cannot be that much worse than Christianity. No, what really is wrong is not the religion, but its practitioners – they are savages, just that.
I had a three hour drive on Wednesday alone, so I “treated” myself to some AM talk radio, tuning in to Glenn Beck. His guest, whose name I didn’t catch, claims that the “leftist atheists” are conspiring with Islamic fundamentalists to take over the US. Why aren’t people like this hospitalized and sedated rather than given access to the airwaves?
It kills me that this one dude (a very nice dude for whom I was collecting petition signatures months ago, but nevertheless just one dude) can generate so much discussion when the scores of women who are threatened, killed, or imprisoned every week for trying to actually do what he was only writing about don’t seem to break through the walls of contented western apathy.
Female doctors, teachers and politicians in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq have one of the highest rates of attrition through violence of any group or profession in the world. It’s more dangerous to be a female junior government minister in Iraq than it is to be a soldier. No to mention how dangerous it is in places like Pakistan (the “honour killing” capital of the world) simply to be a woman, even one without obvious transgressive occupations.
Islam hates women, and men hate women, at least enough to lash out at them when uncertainty, powerlesness and danger threaten their assumptions about the world and their position of power in it. It’s despicable that Muslim men would imprison one of their own number simply for being a dissident to this reality, but it’s nowhere near as much of a humanitarian crisis as the reality itself.
Regarding created democracies.
Germany & Japan were mentioned.
Germany was already a democratic country. The fact that her democratic institutions had been demolished or repurposed by the Nazis did not remove the democratic infrastructure. Post war reconstruction was in two parts – infrastructural support, and political restructuring of Germany by Germans with the support of the western allies.
Japan already had an elected parliament, that had previously been directly led by the emperor. The only imposed change was the demotion of emperor to a titular head of state, instead of actual. The actual democracy came from two places. Existing elections, and a declaration from the emperor. Japan ‘acceded’ to outside demands, but it changed to a democracy all by itself. Had the emperor refused to accede – it would likely be very different. The ‘japanese’ culture was (and is) intensely loyal, and I’m not enough of a sociologist to presume what the outcome would have been, other than ‘different’.
I’ll say it again.
Democracies are created from within. Yhey may be influenced from without, but without a willing populace, and leadership willing to accede, and requiring initial acceptance of the change (as the Emperor did in Japan) there won’t be democracy. The power won’t have changed.
I’ve been trying the whole online dating thing, and I got a message the other day from an American woman who claims heritage as Native American and Irish. For reasons I can’t quite comprehend, she willing converted to Islam 2 years ago. Her pictures don’t display a hijab or other hair covering. I’m a little perplexed by her to say the least, but she tells me that only one person that she’s had read the entire Koran has failed to convert.
Anthony’s story reminded me of her, for some reason.
Is this what our young men and women are dying for? Does islam have some kind of rapture like christianity? Because if old man time would just take those two groups up to never never land we could make some progress. That’s all I have to say besides:
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wow, this thread got to post #2 before someone said “yeah, but Christians are bad too!” That’s got to be some kind of record.
The Lady@122
Well said. The fundamental challenge (IMHO) with Islam is it’s embedded misogyny.
Women are not ‘second-class-citizens’. In many cases they are chattel – legally as well as culturally.
Until that changes, the wider situation won’t change. You might have the instruments and architecture of Democracy – but when a significant percentage of your population are effectively disenfranchised – you do not have democracy. At least, not in the modern sense.
Religion isn’t the problem… it’s when religion gets political power. Our founding fathers realized that. They made sure that religion was free so people could practice it. But they also made sure that people were free from religion if they wished to be.
Sarah Vowell writes a little anecdote in her book, “The Partly Cloudy Patriot.” She was in New Hampshire in 2000 when Gary Bauer gave a speech saying that anyone who didn’t believe in god couldn’t believe in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence because of the phrase, “endowed by their creator.” Vowell corrected him. “I told him that, on the contrary, those documents for me have superseded god, that they are my bible.”
@64
I’ve wondered what the effect would be if, instead of bombs, we carpet-saturated the fundamentalist muslim world with ipods and Barbie dolls. I know, not the best representation of what we hope to achieve but a mind-fuck for their government nonetheless.
#118
We have our first borg!
Islam also hates America, and Jews and whites and all non-muslims. Just watch and listen to a Kwaiti professor.
@ Moses> So your issue is that he’s condemning all Muslims because of the actions of “extremists”? Or that he doesn’t pick on Christians too? If it’s the second, you need to do some serious archive reading.
The only cultural bias against Muslims here stems from the fact that many of Islam’s followers are misogynist, morally bereft, anti-science, anti-West, murdering asshats… Are there more moderate Muslims that don’t follow the literal instructions of the Koran? Sure there are. Unfortunately, they aren’t anything near to a majority. If Muslims want to be treated as decent human beings, they might want to consider, as a whole, acting like them rather than rioting because someone drew a cartoon or wrote a book. There is a difference between automatically assuming that someone who prescribes to a particular faith is (insert word here) just because they follow that faith, and stating that the collective actions of millions of people are exactly what they are, especially when those actions are explicitly condoned by the leadership and holy text of those people.
Of perhaps you’re just the PC police, concern trolling over “Islamophobia”, in which case you can go fuck yourself.
Well, if I were to wake up to plastic dolls and broken MP3 players scattered all over my neighbourhood, I know I, for one, would probably…
Okay. I’d probably just stop drinking.
… Or wait. Re the broken players: is it part of the plan to put little tiny parachutes on everything?
No. Actually, no that I think about it, discovering I was being invaded by Barbie paratroopers would probably have more or less the same effect as the first plan.
Key question is: what do we put on the iPods? I seem to recall there actually was an effort in Afghanistan to put propaganda stuff on iPods and distribute them: speeches in local languages on why you do want a democractic government, and don’t want the Taliban back. But I think this was missing an opportunity…
Ladies and gentleman, my suggestion is: earworms on iPods. Drive the Islamists mad by dropping players loaded full with those annoying songs you Just. Can’t. Get. Out. Of. Your. Head…
Suggestions for the playlist:
It’s a Small World*
Time Warp
YMCA
Radar Love
It’s a Hard Knock Life
Follow the Yellow Brick Road
I Am the Very Model of Modern Major Gineral
(*This may be a violation of several treaties… Can we get that guy who signed off on waterboarding to argue this one for us?)
The statement “Islam hates women” is, sorry, inexcusable in its own incitement of prejudice and hatred. The largest “islamic” country in the world had, from 2001-2004 a female head of state, and Megawati Sukarnoputri is still head of an important political party. Likewise, Pakistan had a female prime minister.
The statement in the text “while moderate groups have led marches countrywide demanding his release.” is conveniently ignored and the fact that these people are Muslim, too, conveniently swept under the carpet because what must not be cannot be.
On this basis, sorry, this blog article isn’t any better in its moral foundation that the islamist courts. Just because its consequences are less direct, fostering such prejudice and hatred isn’t less dangerous or more moral – it is a ready excuse to hurt and kill just the same.
AJ Milne>
I for one think that Afghanistan is a nation deserving of the Macarena… on repeat…for a month or so. Psy-ops anyone?
I dream about a world where everyone respects each other and everyone is science savy and fact searching happy. Yes, the best description of science is that it is a “candle in the dark”. It dissipates ignorance, brings everyone to the same level, improves society, makes us hopeful and stresses the importance of using our intelligence for the better…” amongs many things. As long as we continue workshipping the nonsense promises of religion, (including the 71 or so virgins in heaven),humanity will remain stuck in the same place or move backwards.
AJ earworms are just the kind of thing I was thinking of. How can someone contemplate jihad with “Copacabana” in their head ? The effort to clean out of their mind could drive all the other crap out with it, resulting in a clean slate where reason and logic could be implanted.
At tony in 57 “I don’t believe there have ever been any ‘externally created’ democracies. Every single democracy has been created by the will of the people it serves. They have evolved out of more feudal structures through devolution or revolution. Not one has been imposed from without. (if you know of one, I’d be happy to be proven wrong)”
Postwar japan serves as a possible case, but it isn’t very clear cut unfortunately. The Constitution that the allies threw out was based on the Prussian model, but it did have representational elements, even if they were more or less powerless. Anyway the new constitution was pretty much entirely written by a couple of MacArthur’s aids, but it was adopted without too much of a fuss (and with some revisions by the Japanese) and has been the law of the land ever since. Of course Japan is a pretty exceptional case all-around so it’s difficult to say that it is transferable. Also given that it was adopted semi-voluntarily it’s a bit unclear whether it actually counts, but at a minimum it is pretty close to the outside imposition of democracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_constitution#Meiji_Constitution
Oliver.
Thanks for your concern.
Noted.
More earworm suggestions:
I’m Henry VIII, I Am (Herman’s Hermits) — This always works for me if I have some other earworm infection
Walking on Sunshine (Katrina and the Waves) — Because who can think of jihad when they’re this happy?
… Umm, okay, we probably need to rethink this.
… Seein’ as, when I get Copacabana stuck in my head, I do start to contemplate violence.
… Wait. No. We’re good. Now that I’ve rethought this a bit, I think it’s still okay. This can still work….
Thing is: I’m just contemplating violence against Barry Manilow. And, honestly, I’m contemplating that most of the time anyway.
So, revised plan: Go with Copacabana, hide Barry. They spend a decade goning after him, it all works out.
AJ Milne said “… by dropping players loaded full with those annoying songs you Just. Can’t. Get. Out. Of. Your. Head…”
Radar Love! Radar love!!! Annoying!!!!!!!!
Them’s fighting worms mister!
Bom, bom, bom, bom …
bom, bom, bom, bom
Grr. May angry horses bite off their testicles!
Hiding Barry Manilow could be one of the great services we render to humans everywhere.
Earworm? Narwhals!
#127:
All over the world, there are women suffering due to religion, and that includes some pretty secular countries. For example, Ayaan Hirsi Ali has documented the plight of Muslim women in the highly secular Netherlands. Of course, religious apologists often say that this is “cultural” rather than “religious”, but “because God/Allah says so” is a pretty strong force in maintaining cultural practices.
Catholicism and Orthodox Judaism hates women too by the way.
Shall I go on?
in the case of japan I think that it is at best disingenuous to call a system where less than 1% of the population could vote a democracy. it was at best an oligarchy, and the democracy was largely imposed by the war, although of course there were democratic elements before the war, and democracy was maintained internally. Still it is a borderline case, and hints that outside imposition may be possible under certain circumstances
“When finally granted by the emperor as a sign of his sharing his authority and giving rights and liberties to his subjects, the 1889 Constitution of the Empire of Japan (the Meiji Constitution) provided for the Imperial Diet (Teikoku Gikai), composed of a popularly elected House of Representatives with a very limited franchise of male citizens who were over 25 years of age and paid 15 yen in national taxes, about 1 % of the population”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiji_period#Politics
Funny you should mention that. The phrase you’re looking for is “Kinder, Küche, Kirche”… which translates to children, kitchen, church.
Keanus: Change the names and this could be the Republican Party loyalty police.
Wow. So how is life with complete monochromatic vision? Do you walk into walls a lot? How do you deal with traffic lights? And this is from someone who hates the GOP.
perturbed: If so-called ‘Muslims’ want so badly to live in the Stone Age, bomb them back to it and walk away.
Well, I think part of the point is that we don’t have to do that. They do it to themselves. In addition to girls not being educated at all, many boys only learn one book- the Koran. That’s not a fertile environment for, say, a couple guys inventing the personal computer in their garage.
This is defense of a system that said women have only three functions, all of them beginning with a “k” in German: to kiss, to cook, and to deliver children.
That’s brutal.
How exactly do they cook the children?
GB@136
I understand where you’re coming from, and I agree that much of the procedural aspects of the post-war democracy in Japan were written by Americans. However, Japan already had a democratic tradition (of sorts), and the ‘reconstruction’ did not require wholesale change of populist (grass roots level) structures or behaviors.
That key difference is why I stand behind the statement that democracies come from within. External agencies can force initial conditions at cusps (such as the end of WWII) but without the grass roots wholesale acceptance and adoption, it is not democracy.
Afghanistan is not a democracy while people look to their mullahs and warlords for direction on how to vote (if they vote at all). As far as women’s rights goes: while women are still culturally and religiously required to submit to their alpha male for direction in all things, there will not be democracy.
Hmmm. Curious.
Our fundamentalist christian chums whine that, when they are criticised, we atheists wouldn’t dare criticise islam/muslims the same way for fear of fatwah etc (i.e. classic god botherer fatwah envy). I am amazed, nay staggered, nay even gobsmacked that none of them see fit to mention that we DO criticise islam/muslims just as vehemently, and thus acknowledge their error.
I also think we need a new bogeyman. If only to help people out. Can we not form a super elite, uber violent cadre of UltraMilitantPastafarians who ritually torture, bugger, rape, pillage and erupt whenever Pastafarianism is criticised? That way out muslim chums could infect the threads of the internet with “Oh yeah? Well you would say that. You’re just afraid to go after the UberMilitantPastafarians because they’d declare Penne Arrabiata on your arse! Weak little atheists!”. Can’t we help them out? Won’t someone please think of the children?
Louis
P.S. Islam hates women? Dog bites man. Movie at 11. The abhrahamic religions are quite staggeringly misogynist. Even religions that propose some degree of equality (Sikhism for example) are in practise less than fulsomely female friendly.
Oliver @ 132
Way to miss the the point mate. The countries you’ve mentioned have had female leaders in spite of Islam, not because of it.
The title of PZ’s post, which you obviously read but didn’t comprehend, is “Islam hates women”.
Islam, as in the religion and it’s lictors, not necessarily all of the people enslaved by it.
Demonstrate to me that Islam (the religion, stay with me for a minute) does not hate women and I’ll eat my own liver on YouTube.
Do the same with Christianity and Judaism and I’ll throw in a kidney.
Oh and I see we have some “waaaaah broad brushists” in play.
Obviously ALL conceptions of islam are not anti woman. Equally obviously not ALL people who self identify as muslim are anti woman. But a frightening amount are (just like a frightening amount of christians/christian conceptions, jews/jewish conceptions, sikhs/sikh conceptions are). That frightening amount need not be (and probably isn’t depending on location) a majority. It merely needs to be non-zero.
It’s a simple formula: It’s not necessary for ALL conceptions of X/self identified adherents of X to be anti-Y for them to be criticised on that basis. That some self identified adherents of X do use their conceptions of X to be anti Y is sufficient, if they are claiming the moral elements of X grant them moral justification for their actions. If X doesn’t have moral elements then they are making a related but different error
You can’t simply play ad hoc No True Muslim games here, not only are they fallacious, they are erroneous. If a muslim claims that their religion permits, or even demands what you or I would agree is misogyny, then their claim is open to fair criticism on that basis. The things they claim support their misogyny are also open to scrutiny.
The justification for an action is open to scrutiny, just as is that action itself. Deal with it.
Louis
Nothing better then a little Stones Blues fest to go to bed…
Nitenite….
Louis: +21 WIN
#55: Yes, I remember that “Twilight Zone” episode very well. One of the best of the original series. “To Serve Man;” the title of a book the aliens had accidentally let the humans get hold of.
The aliens turned our planet into a fertile, peaceful place. Abundant food, no more wars; a real Eden. But at what cost?
They were setting up a “farm” for themselves because they wanted to eat us. That’s why they didn’t allow us to kill each other.
Rod Serling was a genius way ahead of his time. Some of those episodes are still relevant fifty years later.
Louis @ 153
Well said that man.
I would add though, that the “No True Christian/Muslim/Jew” argument does apply but only to those adherents that do try to treat women with any modicum of decency.
These well intentioned heretics will find that misogyny is clearly enshrined in their various “holy” books.
Hmmm whats this – tried and sentanced without hearing the case against him, sounds like American justice to me (Guantanamo and so on and so forth)
Islam hates women.
Christianity hates women.
Judaism hates women.
Hinduism hates women.
The patriarchy hates women.
If you call adult women “girls” you hate women.
If you use insults such as “twat,” “cunt,” “pussy,” etc., you hate women, your protestations aside.
@ Asherot #157
Thanks!
However the No True X fallacy is still a fallacy even when the person using it agrees with me (or more importantly the data)! The form is fallacious, not the detail per se.
The terrible tragedy when dealing with religious adherents is that varying interpretations of their scriptures can be used to justify almost any act. Even if reference to scripture is not working for them, they can refer to their deep faith that they are correct, or to some divinely donated revelation. Such nebulous (and it must be said: easily used) pseudo-arguments are all too common (and all too erroneous).
Even the religious people who do move with the zeitgeist and do adapt their faith to fit the moral mores of modern society cannot make any more valid claim to be TRUE adherents of faith X, any more than a fundamentalist fatwah lover can.
Anyway, who wants to treat women with decency? I’d rather treat them with equality! Much more fun! ;-)
Louis
I call females “girls”, I call males “boys”, because I find most “grown-ups” to be stuck in a mental holding pattern. “Grown-up” to me is someone who has stopped growing, while “boys and girls” of any age are open to new ideas. Of course, that’s just my personal observation.
Right on # 156.
“Even religions that propose some degree of equality (Sikhism for example) are in practise less than fulsomely female friendly.”
This is even true of Buddhism, which pretends to be totally equality-minded. Religion is misogynist, full stop. It’s of men, by men, for men. A woman who tells herself otherwise is lying to herself.
The one except, I guess, is those silly neo-pseudo-pagan religions, if they can even be called that, but I’m not sure.
While we are noting correctly uncivilized behavior by Afghani Muslims here in this thread, I am surprised no one has brought up last month’s crime in Buffalo, NY committed by a “moderate” Muslim-American against his wife:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024895.php
(In the interest of full disclosure, one of my cousins is former US Army chaplain James Yee, whom some of you may recall was falsely accused of treason while serving as the Muslim chaplain at Camp Gitmo more than five years ago. I have yet to read of any condemnation from Jim or his friends at CAIR regarding the Buffalo, NY beheading.)
I mean, right on #159
@ Lowey #158:
I’d agree, this hypocrisy on the part of Western governments (my own UK govt included) is abhorrent. Hence why I campaign against it. It doesn’t excuse the behaviour of (for example) the Taliban however. Tu quoque is ALSO a common logical fallacy encountered when discussing these issues.
@BMS #159:
I’d disagree that the use of cunt, twat, and pussy are definite indicators of misogyny, any more than the use of dick, knob, and cock are definite indicators of misandry. However I would agree that they CAN be, and thus should be used carefully and in the relevant context.
I’d also say that words can, and often do, have more than one meaning and more than one intentional derivation. If I call some a cunt (or a cock) when they cut me up in traffic, I am in no way referring, or comparing them, to my favourite part of a woman’s body (or my favourite part of my own). I am merely expressing my frustration in an insulting way. The fact that the word cunt (or cock) is also a word used to indicate the genitals of a woman (or man) is almost supremely irrelevant. To condemn someone using it as a misogynist (misandrist) you’d also need to know a lot more about them as a person. Simple use isn’t enough, nor is simple use as an insult.
I’m a massive fan of cunts. I’m a big supporter too of women’s rights. The appropriate use of the word cunt does not negate that (your assertions aside). If I were to refer to women as “noting more than a cunt” or something like that, then you might just have a point. As it is, evolving and multiple definitions of words being what they are, you don’t. You might as well be complaining that anyone who uses the word gay is immediately importing a state of happiness to anything/anyone they describe with it. Mind you, since I prefer insults that actually have bearing on the actions the person that needs insulting is undertaking, just calling someone a cunt (or what have you) is never good enough.
Of course there ARE instances when simple use is enough, or very nearly enough. For example, the word “nigger”, used as an insult is almost exclusively the province of racists (and gangster rappers, and Chris Rock’s amazingly funny sketch). The word “nigger” as an insult has a specific history, and a specific (as yet unchanged) definition that hasn’t evolved (and speciated into several different definitions) the same way the definition of cunt or cock have. It’s a continuum, shades of grey not black and white.
A bastard can just be someone who cuts you up in traffic, a cunt can just be the politician you have seen on television. They don’t necessarily have to represent the offspring of unwed parents or the genitals of a female. They’re not always, but they can be. That’s an important difference to note.
Louis
Such as the mindset of some Buddhists who feel that a woman must first reincarnate into a man before she can achieve Nirvana?
@ Endor #164:
Since you quoted me in #151, I hope you mean right on #151!
;-)
Louis
Louis> you just made an excellent point that is going to result in you being irrationally attacked for being a “privileged male”… enjoy.
I was following your arguments with some interest, if disagreeing, until I came to this sentence.
It takes a monumental amount of willful ignorance and self-congratulatory moral superiority not to see that the word “nigger” has only acquired its modern pariah status because people shouted, cried, fought, commented, pointed out, fulminated and declared for decades that nigger ISN’T “JUST A WORD” describing a person of African origin. The argument, I assure you, still rages today, albeit in more remote corners of the fundy web.
A cock is a male chicken. A knob is the handle on your kitchen cabinet door. Both sexual meanings of those words derive from the association of maleness with their positive aspects – the aggressive and dominating nature of a cock, the erect and firm aspects of a knob.
The word cunt on the other hand derives from the Latin “cunnus”, meaning “slit”, and was a sleazy euphemism for female genitalia for the entirety of its existence. It has, and never did have, any other semantic importance other than to serve as a derogatory reference to the intimate body parts of women.
As such it is hateful, and applying it *backwards* – rather than from the cockerel to the man, from the vagina to the whole woman, as it were – can bear no other possible interpretation than a mysioginistic intent.
Islam is an extreme example, but let’s face it- pretty much every dogmatic social structure starts out as being misogynistic and homophobic. Most of them still are. Broadly speaking we males like our women easily controllable. We dislike sexually promiscuous or aggressive women. We demonise and undermine them with every ounce of our control over society. Because we’re so fucking afraid of sexual situations outside of our direct control, we do the same to male homosexuals. They’re as sexually aggressive as us hetero males, but we’re afraid they’ll direct that at us! Fear it! The religious stuff is just putting the moral responsibility for all our irrational bigotry on to the big Scapegoat in the Sky.
I don’t blame Islam. I personally blame every last bastard who uses it as an excuse to express his impotency-driven rage.
If you use insults such as “twat,” “cunt,” “pussy,” etc., you hate women, your protestations aside.
Except that most people who use those terms also use insults such as “dickhead”, “asshole”, “cock” and “wanker”. Evidently they also hate men.
The reality is that, for whatever reason, human language has evolved so that our profane terms revolve around two things: (a) sex, sexuality and sexual organs, and (b) excrement. Thus both male and female sexual organs are referenced extensively in curse words, not just in English but in most languages worldwide.
I would concede that many people here (myself included) perhaps use profanity too liberally. Nevertheless, you may note that I have never called anyone (male or female) a “cunt” (or, indeed, a “dickhead” or terms to that effect) on this site, nor would I consider that acceptable discourse. That said, I don’t think using such terms has anything to do with misogyny, conscious or instinctive.
IST,
Oh, erm, goody?
And I AM a spectacularly privileged male. That’s why it’s beholden on me to fight for equal spectacular privileges for others. People who are also not privileged males, spectacularly or otherwise, can also do it too. It’s not something they need done for them. But if no spectacularly privileged males want to change the unjust status quo, then it potentially lengthens that inequality. As someone who wants the inequality to end, I must, perforce, act.
Why do I mention this?
Because if BSM is going to go in the direction you (and perhaps I) think he/she/it is then at some point I guarantee you I’ll be accused of patronising those suffering under that inequality. I’m getting my defence in first! ;-)
I’m certainly not going to apologise for being a spectacularly, almost supremely, privileged male, I had very little to do with this happy outcome. My parents fucked in the UK, and I was born male (and remain so before the fucking jokes start!). I’m even white-ish, upper middle class-ish, and British-ish, just how much more privileged can I get?
What I CAN, and DO, do is attempt to minimise the inequality of my own privilege by working in the interests of equality. By working for the equality of others so they too can enjoy the privilege that I have. Equality in this sense doesn’t require knocking me down (or not an awfully long way, we could get environmental about this if we want!), but bringing others up. Strangely, although I am a fan of consciousness raising and careful use of language, I don’t think this involves knee jerk gripes about use of the word “cunt” and thereby falling prey to asinine essentialism by typifying anyone who utters the word a misogynist. That way fuckwittery lies.
Louis
Obviously Jefferson was very wrong about this.
Does Islam dislike women? To me, the answer is: it depends. In Turkey, when it comes to the freedom of Turban in schools, all the islamists are on the streets and protesting by calling this “against the female rights”. However when many other women is thrown to the streets, beaten to death, raped, assaulted for being a widow, that crowd do not exist. What is the difference between the two women? Your call.
I was raised Muslim and I am a woman, when I read the Quran I always thought that it is speaking to a man. I always read the Turkish translations of it, and I always wondered why there is “no woman translators?” of Quran in my country? The answer is simple, because men is the voice of God in Islam and the role of women are either wifes of the prophets or the holy mothers. Islam things women are precious — to their men– and should be protected. Or that’s how it always made me think. Currently I don’t see any Islam model that suggests the opposite.
(Excuse my typos and grammar mistakes in the above post, please)
Louis> nice… goody indeed…
I was just passing on the warning, which may or may not be necessary. Not a bad defence IMO. Walton’s point above your post is also quite apt: insults in human language tend toward references to excrement and genitalia, regardless of the original meaning of the word. There happens to be a reference in Carl Sagan’s Dragons of Eden in which one of the chimps who had been taught American Sign Language repeatedly makes the signs for feces and monkey at another primate that stole a piece of its fruit. I imagine this is because both of those topics are perceived as “dirty” by primitive societies, and it’s something that we haven’t come past (because we’re not as evolved as we’d like to think?). Sometimes an insult is just an insult…
“Since you quoted me in #151, I hope you mean right on #151!”
right on #151, though I only partially agree with #165. Words mean things. Evolved or not, ignoring the original meaning seems disingenuous to me. Saying, “oh, that’s not what it means now” ignores that such words are still used to insult in their original context.
TheLady – agreed.
++
“Such as the mindset of some Buddhists who feel that a woman must first reincarnate into a man before she can achieve Nirvana?”
Prezactly.
“‘m certainly not going to apologise for being a spectacularly, almost supremely, privileged male, I had very little to do with this happy outcome.”
This is something people tend to either not know or outright ignore. People, such as IST apparently, think that being called “privileged” is an insult. It’s just the truth. It’s not an accusation; it’s not to mean that the privileged are “bad” people. As you say, it’s not something one can control at all.
I, myself, am also very privileged. however, i see absolutely no value in denying that, or presuming I know what it is to belong to a group that isn’t, in whatever respect.
Betul – enjoy that gilded cage. I’m sure it’s totally better than being free, being so “precious” to your captors.
Endor> The insulting portion was automatically being labelled, without your having the slightest idea who I am, and then continuing to apply the label because you’d decided to categorize me that way. You are entitled to think that it isn’t possible to know what it’s like to belong to group x because you aren’t part of that group.. I don’t agree, and I can leave it at that.
sorry for the mega spamming.
“I don’t think this involves knee jerk gripes about use of the word “cunt” and thereby falling prey to asinine essentialism by typifying anyone who utters the word a misogynist.”
Something else frequently misunderstood – the use of the word doesn’t mean one is automatically misogynistic, it means one has internalized sexism. We all have – we are a patriarchal society.
I agree with the bulk of #172. I have only one question: who decides what offends them? You’re saying such words aren’t meant as misogynstic insults, yet at least one woman explained why they are. Why does that not make a difference to your opinion?
“Look at this travesty of justice, this product of primitive morality.”
This is ad hominem. The reality is that morality is not objective. Nothing is observably right or wrong. No matter how offensive someone’s behavior appears to you or me, it is because we are using OUR sense of morality, OUR definitions of right and wrong to judge the behavior of others, not an absolute, correct morality that must be used by all. Morals are definitions and they establish by declaration what right and wrong are. It is not logical to say a definition is wrong. Rather, it is logical to say you want to use one definition over another. Of course you prefer your definitions of right and wrong. So does everyone.
“The insulting portion was automatically being labelled, without your having the slightest idea who I am, and then continuing to apply the label because you’d decided to categorize me that way.”
. .. I’m confused. Where did I label you anything?
“You are entitled to think that it isn’t possible to know what it’s like to belong to group x because you aren’t part of that group.. I don’t agree, and I can leave it at that.”
That’s privilege. And i can leave it at that.
Endor (on 181)> obviously the recipient of the insult decides what is and isn’t offensive… the words are indeed insulting… the misogyny has to be construed. In Louis’s defence (which won’t matter a lick, I know), if he’s a Brit, then those words are typically directed at other males… underlying sexism, perhaps, but that isn’t the same as hatred of women.
“, if he’s a Brit, then those words are typically directed at other males… underlying sexism, perhaps, but that isn’t the same as hatred of women”
Wait, what? Calling another man a woman, as an insult, isn’t hatred of women? Seriously? How could it be anything but?
“The word cunt on the other hand derives from the Latin “cunnus”, meaning “slit”, and was a sleazy euphemism for female genitalia for the entirety of its existence. It has, and never did have, any other semantic importance other than to serve as a derogatory reference to the intimate body parts of women.”
Um…
From Middle English cunte from Old English *cunte from West Proto-Germanic *kunte < Proto-Germanic *kunton. Cognate with Frisian kunte, dialectal Swedish kunta, dialectal Danish kunte, Dutch kont (“arse”) and Icelandic kunta. A relationship to Latin cunnus has not been conclusively shown.
Contrast with the etymology of “vagina”:
Late 17th cent.: from Latin, literally ‘sheath, scabbard,’ which is also the source of the word vanilla.
In older forms of English, “cunt” was simply the word for that body part. It fell out of favor in upper-class circles, which then looked down on its use by the “vulgar” lower classes.
In other words: congratulations on striking a blow for upper-class snobbery.
You dick.
ok.. you have your non sequitur, I have mine… let’s go ahead and explain them. You show the chain of logic that demonstrates the idea that being exposed to a non-privileged group enough allows one to empathise with them is privilege.
As to your incredulous statement.. have you any idea why men call other men female organs? Do you honestly not grasp the connotation? I admit that it is sexist, overt or not, but the insult is usually implying someone is timid, fragile, etc… things stereotypically associated with women. I fail how to see that it’s hateful in the least. Is it not possible for someone to have qualities you don’t wish to emulate, especially because you’ve been culturally conditioned to think that you shouldn’t, without it being hatred? It falls more to traditional gender roles than anything else.
OK, one more time:
Louis, #172: Equality in this sense doesn’t require knocking me down (or not an awfully long way, we could get environmental about this if we want!), but bringing others up.
That’s right, son, and some of us are trying with great patience to bring you up.
Strangely,
Not really. Predictably.
although I am a fan of consciousness raising and careful use of language, I don’t think this involves knee jerk gripes about use of the word “cunt” and thereby falling prey to asinine essentialism by typifying anyone who utters the word a misogynist.
One more man telling us what not to argue about. That rut’s turning into a ditch.
Here’s the deal: It’s not important whether or not you’re a soul-deep dyed-in-the-DNA misogynist. When you use “cunt” as an insult, you’re doing a pretty good imitation of one, and that’s what matters to anyone outside your own mind. What you ~are~ doesn’t matter much. What you do matters. It matters at the moment you’re doing it.
If you do Good Deeds(tm) at the SPCA all day and then come home and kick the dog, why on earth would you be surprised when the dog yelps?
If your SPCA colleagues catch you at it they just might start looking askance at you. So might a smart dog.
@ The Lady #169:
Thanks for the insults (incidentally I am very far from morally superior or wilfully ignorant)! However, I think you have missed the points I was trying to make quite widely:
1) Language evolves. The meanings and uses of words change, even to the point where one single word has different meanings very dependant on context.
2) Obviously following from 1), unless one knows the context it is hard to impute motives to the user of a word.
Other than that you actually make a very good point about the derivations of “cock” and “knob”, “penis” is a better example. My apologies for not being clear enough.
Unfortunately you’ve badly missed my point re: the word “nigger”. I think you need to re-read what I wrote because I was in no way denying, nor would deny, the battle to have the use of such a word recognised as almost exclusively the province of racists.
What I was (obviously badly) trying to allude to was this: has the word “nigger” ever been used for any other purpose? Answer: nope. I’ve never called a white person (or a black person for that matter!) who cut me up in traffic a “nigger”!
The definition of the word has not evolved vastly beyond the original (now understood to be racist) meaning. It’s status as a modern pariah is not at issue, nor is the development of that pariah status.
The claim of BSM’s that I am addressing is that “One can judge, in the absence of context, that use of word X always indicates intent Y”. My point about using the word “nigger” is that its definition and use have shifted so little that it is an example of a word that can almost be used in this manner. I wouldn’t argue that even the use of so comparatively simple a word like “nigger” could be so judged, but it’s closer than “cunt”.
Next, I have frequently used the word “penis” as an insult, does that therefore make me misandrous? As I said, I don’t think that simple use alone indicates misandry.
I’ll cheerfully grant that (for example) the etymology of the word “cunt” is less that fulsomely pleasant (as indeed is the etymology of many such words) but again that use HAS evolved like it or not. Cunt can indicate an incompetent, foolish or disagreeable person (usually with appropriate modifier), that it is still in use today as both insult and crude reference to female genitalia doesn’t defeat that fact, nor does its use automatically imply misogyny (any more than penis implies misandry).
I would strongly agree that if a specific use of the word cunt, in context, implies that one is referring (as you mention) from the cunt itself to the whole woman, that this is misogynistic (but note no one here is doing or advocating this type of usage).
Also note what you’ve done: you’ve brought in context and you’ve asserted again that because of its etymology the word remains fixed in an interpretation favourable to your claim. The fact that the meaning of the word has NOT remained entirely fixed defeats that last assertion. And the first part, referral to context, repeats my original point: Simple use of the word cunt, absent of context, cannot be used to imply misogyny. If it can, then you are a misogynist. You’ve used the word cunt. I can strip your posts of context (discussion of the use of the word cunt) and claim you are misogynist. I think you and I would both agree that this would be utterly ridiculous.
Returning to cock and knob et al just for a moment, these words may well have originally derived from their perceived positive male aspects, but even if they did or didn’t it is again almost totally irrelevant. Their current usage does not always reflect that positivity, these can simply be slang, interchangeable uses for the word “penis”, less formalised versions.
It’s this shifting meaning and evolution of language that defeats the argument that “use of the word cunt = misogyny”. Again I refer you to my example with the word gay. If I use the word “gay” am I always implying happiness? Obviously not. This depends on the context. It also depends on the shifting meaning of the word “gay”.
Also, take the case of etymological innocence. If a six year old kid at school describes someone or something as “gay”, are the a homophobe? I’d argue that you cannot tell by that utterance alone. The kid has learned language from its environment it is POSSIBLE (by no means definite) that the kid thinks the word “gay” means “not very good”. Obviously in the absence of such innocence this doesn’t apply, but then this reinforces 50% of my point: context matters.
Last thing: I know several women who use words like “cunt”, “twat” and “pussy” to describe their vaginas in positive senses. In the heat of passion for example. This can be complex (the negative/dirty connotations of these words can act as a turn on. I.e. turning a negative into a positive) or simple (the word pussy, has cute, fluffy implications for example). I’ll cheerfully grant btw that cunt and twat are harder to fit into that last example!
To sum up, my disagreement was with BSM’s claim that the use of these words is ALWAYS indicative of misogyny on the part of the user. The simple fact that you, presumably a non-misogynist use these words in this discussion, proves my contention that it is NOT always the case. My point is not that therefore it is NEVER the case, that would be wrong, but that the ever shifting definitions of words and context in which they are used need to be carefully examined before we can make such a complex judgement.
Even in the comparatively clear cut case of the word “nigger” its use is not always indicative of racism (see some rap, Chris rock etc). It might not always bee pleasant (in fact very rarely is) but one cannot simply impute motive from use in the absence of context as BSM claims.
Please try to understand the ACTUAL points I’ve made rather than ones you’d like me to be making.
Cheers
Louis
Endor @ #177:
I’d agree that modern usage does not negate original usage, nor did I say it did. What I AM saying is that because there are many usages (modern and original) one cannot immediately leap from usage to imputation of motives.
I’m not defending using these words, I’m defending against the claim that the use of these words can be judged, in the absence of context, to be indicative of a specific motive or mindset. That’s a VERY different defence.
Louis
No, it seems reasonably close to the truth. None of them would kill infidels if no infidels existed. It still seems wrong, of course, because the guy in jail for blasphemy thought he was following Islam. He used quotes from the Koran to defend his position. Hence the blasphemy charge. He challenged the authority of the misogynistic assholes who interpret the Koran “for” the people of Afghanistan. Basically, you’ll never create a situation where religious fanatics agree that everyone follows their rules. They’ll just interpret the rules more strictly.
“@ #9:
If science is a candle in the dark, as Mr. Sagan said, then Islam, along with its fellow religions, is a strong, noxious fart threatening to blow it out.”
Unless the mullahs are members of the Order of the Blue Flame.
“You show the chain of logic that demonstrates the idea that being exposed to a non-privileged group enough allows one to empathise with them is privilege.”
This makes no sense. No where did I say that being “exposed” to such a group there by allowing empathy is privilege. Denying their opinions and experiences in favor of your assumptions is privilege.
“have you any idea why men call other men female organs?”
Because of the belief that female organs are disgusting, etc.
“Do you honestly not grasp the connotation?”
The connotation is that being female, female organs, femaleness is a bad thing.
“I admit that it is sexist, overt or not, but the insult is usually implying someone is timid, fragile, etc… things stereotypically associated with women. I fail how to see that it’s hateful in the least.”
I’m at a loss how you could not see it. Being timid, fragile, etc are not – ever – male qualities? Assuming that they belong ONLY to women *isn’t* hateful?
It’s simply astonishing to me how you’re not making the connection.
“Is it not possible for someone to have qualities you don’t wish to emulate, especially because you’ve been culturally conditioned to think that you shouldn’t, without it being hatred? It falls more to traditional gender roles than anything else.”
Ah, I think I’m starting to get it. Are you of the belief that hatred is only an active emotion? Is it not possible, in your opinion, to be apathetic in such a way as to be hateful?
As I said above, these things don’t necessarily mean one is actively, consciously hating women (or POCs, or gays, etc). It means, at bare minimum, that one hasn’t critically examined the issue. Which, for the record, tends to be true in my experience.
For example, my brother and his friends use “gay” to describe anything they don’t like. But do that actually hate gay people? No. That doesn’t mean they aren’t using hateful language, promoting hateful ideas or continuing bigotry.
“What I AM saying is that because there are many usages (modern and original) one cannot immediately leap from usage to imputation of motives.”
To be clear: Does using such language automatically make one absolutely without a doubt a misogynist? No. However, it definitely communicates that it’s entirely possible that person is, or, at the very least, is unsympathetic and/or apathetic to misogyny.
Women learn early and often that such language from a man more often than not comes from a man with a low view of women. it’s a dog whistle, if you will, to the women around him.
If he doesn’t have that low view, but uses the words anyway, he’s likely not thought very hard about it. Or, has dismissed the views of women explaining what is it offensive and has, instead, chosen his privilege.
This doesn’t make him a “bad” person – it makes him privileged.
Ms. Sullivan :
“One more man telling us what not to argue about. That rut’s turning into a ditch.”
It never ceases to amaze me how routinely the connection is not made. If you think something isn’t offensive, while among people who are telling you it is and why, how does one fail to take that into account or consider it, even for a moment? I don’t get it.
Endor> The last bits of your response actually put it in perspective, and those I agree with. Yes, I see hatred as an active emotion… apathy can be harmful, or offensive, insulting, etc… but I don’t view it as hateful because I view hatred as having intent. Thus our difference of opinion on that matter.
SO you weren’t implying that it’s privilege to think you can identify/empathise with a group to which you don’t belong? Even taking into account their opinions and experiences? It certainly reads that way. Perhaps adding your qualifier in the first place might have prevented your thought from being misconstrued, or made it make sense in the first place.
You’re arguing that a knob is positive? Really? How the hell do you even come to this conclusion? Oh right, it supports your argument. Well, here’s how easy it is: A cock is an annoying, loud bird, hated by all, a knob a disgusting protrusion that causes pain when you accidentally bump into it.
A cunt, on the other hand, is from the Latin cunnus, meaning valley. The open nature suggests a protective, spiritual quality that shelters those within it.
All of it BS, leading away from the simple fact that all of the words mentioned are insults in English today. No one cares about the etymology, and it simply isn’t taken into account when these words are used as insults.
Trying to make arguments about the goodness or evilness of what the words were based on is patently ridiculous, since we have but to see how they are used now to discount this argument. If cock has such a positive meaning, why is it used as an insult? When a person exclaims that someone else is a total dick, they are demeaning them, regardless of your weird linguistic contortions. Same with all of those words. To try to twist around and have it both ways is simply dishonest.
It isn’t a good thing that we use body parts as insults, but neither is it one-sided, or inherently evil.
>>>No, it seems reasonably close to the truth. None of them would kill infidels if no infidels existed.
hf, have sunni and shia ever killed one another?
There surely aren’t many boards where one finds the taboo words “cunt” and “nigger” as part of an intelligent, educated debate and not a racist hate-fest.
But btw PZ doesn’t like either.
Even in quotes? Hmmmm…just be careful.
Sorry.
Carry on.
“No one cares about the etymology, and it simply isn’t taken into account when these words are used as insults.”
So, are you saying that men who insult other men with references to female genitalia aren’t doing it because of the sexist background of the insult?
It is specifically because of the negative connotations of such words that they are effective insults. I’d be willing to bet that a man would prefer being called a dick over being called a pussy.
And for the record, (collectively speaking) feminists don’t tolerate the use of “dick”, “prick”, etc. for the same reason.
+++
Endor> “Yes, I see hatred as an active emotion… apathy can be harmful, or offensive, insulting, etc… but I don’t view it as hateful because I view hatred as having intent. Thus our difference of opinion on that matter.”
I am grasping this difference now. I’m glad we could unearth it.
I can see how intent would change the degree of hatefulnees, but apathy (imo) is a form of hatefulness. Considering some one or thing unworthy of attention, or not taking notice of it for whatever reason, contributes to a given problem. I.e. ignoring it doesn’t make it go away. Silence can be complicity.
“You are entitled to think that it isn’t possible to know what it’s like to belong to group x because you aren’t part of that group.. I don’t agree, and I can leave it at that.”
“SO you weren’t implying that it’s privilege to think you can identify/empathise with a group to which you don’t belong?”
No, that’s not privilege. Experience, familiarity, etc are the cure for privilege.
If you assumed that your opinion/ideas, etc. were more correct or valid than theirs based on that, then yes, that could be an example of privilege.
“Perhaps adding your qualifier in the first place might have prevented your thought from being misconstrued, or made it make sense in the first place.”
Duly noted. I forget far to easily that not all people I converse with are feminists or familiar with its concepts. I do tend to leave out caveats that would explain myself better.
Endor @ #194
I couldn’t disagree more.
Using the word “cunt” to describe an undesirable person does not indicate a choice of privilege. The word is simply too versatile in meaning, it has evolved too far from its original meaning, for this to be simply the case. Context MIGHT allow this judgement to correctly be made, but it doesn’t automatically follow.
Cultural values also apply. For example, I heard disgusting people of my acquaintance refer to women as “cunts” when I lived in the USA, i.e. sex objects, nothing more than their genitals. I’ve very very rarely heard that specific use in the UK where the word is more usually used to indicate an extremely undesirable person (of either sex) when being used as a pejorative. The point being that a person in the UK might use the word one way, never thinking about another possible (international) use because they hadn’t been exposed to it. I’m not making excuses for uses, just demonstrating AGAIN that context is relevant BEFORE such judgements can be made. You, The Lady, BSM etc are trying to have use in the absence of context be damning. That I cannot agree with.
AnthonyK @ #198:
Your concern is noted. Are you new around here or what? ;-)
ARGH ONLY JOKING!!!! DON’T KILL ME!!! Just tweaking your nose after you accused me of the same thing a few threads back. If we cannot take the piss out of each other what have we got?
Louis
I’ve always regarded the misogyny that lurks in a lot of religions as something of a utilitarian thing. You can catch something quite similiar in action in the Hindu caste system, too, if you’re looking for a nice, parallel illustration of the principle at work.
Both are variants on the same simple technique of divide and conquer which any successful ruler, petty or grand, must grasp. If you’re trying to maintain power, it’s awfully helpful if those you’re ruling see some benefit in the current order, and weigh this against the cost of revolt. So: tell men the deal is: some deity put me in power over the barons, the barons get power over your local lord, your local lord gets power over you, and you get power over your household, and this gives you allies in each and every household who see some benefit in upholding that system. It’s entirely necessary if you’re going to run a largeish empire in the absence of modern communications and transportation systems, and awfully helpful with or without those…
Post-enlightenment, it’s broken down a bit, but only so much. Democracy has slowly spread downward from landowning men to all those over eighteen or what have you, after the barons were the first to get sick of the deal and try to negotiate a new one.
Successful religions were always good at working themselves into this. They provided justification, obviously, top to bottom. But they can and must evolve, and they are doing so now as they always did: trying now to insinuate themselves into the bases of contemporary democratic systems. Now the line is those inalienable rights we all agreed upon came from the deity…
But it’s all a power game. Where there is utility for a religion to assert that women have equal rights, they do so. Where there is utility in propping up inequality, they do that just as happily.
This is one of many essential problems with religion: contrary to the claims of its apologists, it is and always has been shamelessly amoral. It does what it must to survive, and will throw any principle under the bus to do so. And as a structure which can only survive by eroding any intrinisic human talent for reason, it also has tremendous latitude to do just that.
And the truth is: it’s always been BS. Those ‘inalienable rights’ don’t come from any such place as they claim, and the truth is, they’re only so ‘inalienable’ as we manage to make them by the sweat of our brows. Universal human rights go so far as humans are universally willing to assert them, and are products of sweat, blood, and tears, gunshot wounds, and protestors with placards, eloquent lawyers and determined people of principle who have suffered and died to uphold them.
And therein you find the true dramas of our age. Dramas that never had anything to do with gods.
It is beyond profane that religions seek now to claim them.
Endor (#179) did you even read what I write?? I am an atheist, and really people like you make me wanna fight for religion. Read, more and more carefully and in multiple times if you don’t understand at first time.
Louis…louis….come to me. I understand, and I forgive. I won’t hurt you – I wouldn’t hurt a fly.
I might call it a shit-sucking, wall-eyed piece of spider vomit though.
Endor @ #199:
I suspect that they’re mostly doing it because when they were prepubescent boys trying to be cool, they heard the big boys use it as an insult. They probably rarely make the connection consciously, or at all. (I wonder what the common term for actual female genitalia is in areas where “cunt” is an insult? Is it “cunt”, or something else?)
Which is to say, I think they’re probably mostly using the vast stockpile of sexism that society has built up for them, not mining their own.
Walton:
Ever the libertarian idealist. The problem with your reasoning is that in order to afford the government the ability to protect citizens physically, you’ll eventually have to vest in them the power over those attempting to harm the public, and in some cases that means they will inevitable be forced to make a life-or-death decision. In order for the government to protect both the public and the nation’s economy as a whole from fraud, you are forced to vest within the government the power of regulation over the financial markets. If this financial meltdown has not at least taught you that much, you haven’t been paying much attention.
In short, centralized government must have some modicum of regulatory power and influence over the financial, law enforcement, and most other internal systems of a nation, or they won’t even be able to perform the narrow tasks you outlined, much less the rest of the functions that they are charged with carrying out.
“Using the word “cunt” to describe an undesirable person does not indicate a choice of privilege. ”
Assuming one still does so even after being told how and why it’s offensive and bigotted to women, yes it does. It means that person chooses to ignore the people such things directly affect in favor of their own opinion.
“The word is simply too versatile in meaning, it has evolved too far from its original meaning, for this to be simply the case.”
Louis, this is a fantasy. The word is used simply because of the belief that female genitalia is “bad”, therefore comparing a man to such is a REALLY effective insult. That it “evolves” to take on additional meanings – if that’s even true – that doesn’t mitigate the bigotry.
The word “fuck” is used in every possible manner and yet no one claims that, based on that, it ceases to be a slang term for sexual intercourse.
“Context MIGHT allow this judgement to correctly be made, but it doesn’t automatically follow.”
Which is what I said. However, as I also said, women hear that word like a dog whistle – it indicates the likelihood of the speaker to be a sexist or, at the very least, to be unperceptive. Fans of the word may not want this to be true, but that doesn’t change the reality.
“The point being that a person in the UK might use the word one way, never thinking about another possible (international) use because they hadn’t been exposed to it.”
I can accept that the misogynistic connotation might not be what a UK speaker might think of firstly or solely, but, once again, that does nothing to mitigate the bigotry inherent in the word.
that said, i wonder what a woman from the UK would say about it.
For example, in my part of the world I’ve met many white people who use the word “A-rab” to describe those of Middle Eastern extraction or heritage. They don’t intend it to be insulting, and will say such when told that it is, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is offensive.
“I’m not making excuses for uses, just demonstrating AGAIN that context is relevant BEFORE such judgements can be made. You, The Lady, BSM etc are trying to have use in the absence of context be damning. That I cannot agree with.”
I understand you’re not making excuses. However, what you are repeatedly ignoring is that as women we’ve got the experience to make such a judgment. I’ve stated several times now that the use of the word doesn’t automatically mean the user is a bigot. But it’s pretty likely that if not just a flat out bigot, he’s clueless of the offense or apathetic to it – neither which is much of an improvement.
The word is used against us as an insult, used to belittle other men by equating them with something strictly female thereby serving to buoy the sexism inherent in it. Neither you nor any man in the UK who uses it for whatever reason has to admit that – such is your privilege – but if one’s true desire is to lessen the damage privilege can do, I fail to see what’s to be gained by ignoring the reality of it.
“Which is to say, I think they’re probably mostly using the vast stockpile of sexism that society has built up for them, not mining their own.”
I absolutely agree. It is frequently the result of what one’s learned and raised with. So, if one is aware of that and is of the mind to fight for equality, what’s the point in continuing its usage?
(which is not to say Louis, et al, DO use it. However a good to many progressive minded people do, which makes no sense).
Hey I just found out what Libertarianism is!
Yeah, apparently there was this etiolated, rich, intellectual bint, called Ayn Rand, who wrote an unreadable 1000 page novel called “Atlas Shrugged” which invented a world in which all the thinkers weren’t nearly rich enough, so they all fucked off, then society, like, disintegrated because of the twat shortage, and it serves us all right for just trying to do the best for everyone in society rather than giving Onan’s favourite sons exactly what they want all the time – and their moans are what we call “Libertarianism”!
Awesome!
Or did I get that wrong?
Now, Endor, I think you do know. People have a vested interest in not acknowledging themselves as having internalized sexism. It’s an uncomfortable thought, hence Matt’s reactions, etc.
Remember religion never hurt anyone.
This is an empirical claim which can be measured. A study could be done to gauge whether terms like “bitch” and “cunt” are more often applied to women than men, and more often applied to men acting in ways perceived as female than to men in general.
Anyone speaking honestly here, though, already knows from personal life experience what the results would be.
AnthonyK:
Shit sucking, wall eyed piece of spider vomit? Good work.
You can has cheezburger!
Louis
Really PZ? REALLY?
Here we have another example of the swirling black hole nature of PZ’s reasoning. He asserts, without argument, that Islam hates women. And in his desperation to convince his gullible readers that this assertion is true, he then quotes at length an article about Islamic fundamentalists (against whom moderates are protesting!) acting immorally.
Notice his fallacious leap from (i) a particular subset of Muslims hating womyn to (b) Islam in general hating womyn. Readers, can you please drop your allegiance to this man for just two seconds and actually scrutinize the things you are being asked to believe? Are you too far gone to notice the irrationality here? Since when do atheists — free thinkers — accept oversimplistic soundbites and intellectually careless generalizations of the sort PZ has proffered?
On March 21st, from San Francisco to Washington, D.C., there will be thousands of feminist and progressive Muslims (or in PZ’s language: thousands of dirty women-hating non-atheists!) hitting the streets to protest against the wars and against economic injustice. Yet, PZ in his air-conditioned office has the nerve to heap scorn on Islam as a general religion and accuse it of “hating women”? So, for example, Malcolm X and the millions of Muslims who are protesting for the rights of those in Gaza — they’re all dirty womyn-haters, PZ?
Anyway, props to TheLady, Ron Sullivan and especially Endor for making heaps of sense. It’s always refreshing to find sanity in a thread that could have otherwise gone so horribly off the rails.
Shit fucking moron alert!
Shit fucking moron alert!
It would help if you actually read more than the title of the post. Really.
Aplogies that should have read “shit-fucking”. Twice.
It’s OK. Sigh. I’ll get the mop and bucket and be right back.
Now….
Don’t be dense; they aren’t True Muslims™.
JFK, hypercharismatic telepathical knight,
And what if some of us have no problem considering, acknowledging, even exposing and destroying our internalised sexism but just don’t agree with the illogical and counterfactual twist BSM, The Lady, Endor etc have put on language. The fact that something COULD be sexist does not mean that it IS.
No one has yet dealt with my points re: evolving/multiple definitions, context dependency and pejorative comments involving male genitals not being misandrous (to name but a few).
I’m happy with equality, I’m happy with much of feminist thought that I’ve read, I’m severely unhappy with nonsense being promoted as fact. I can find you examples of people using the word “nigger” that are demonstrably not racist, no matter how one contorts or distances the word racist. I can find you people using the word “cunt” that are demonstrably not sexist or misogynist, again, no matter what distortions attempted.
The etymology, history of usage are all important factors in the development of a word (find one time when I’ve denied this) but when words have so vast, multifaceted and complex a series of potential uses as does “cunt” or “twat” etc then demanding that the simple fact of the word being used is enough to determine a person’s misogyny is utterly nonsensical. Pick the most feminist feminist you like, pick the extreme Andrea Dworkin is a total wet nappy feminist you can find, if that person has ever used the word “cunt” then by this ridiculous standard THEY are a misogynist! Doesn’t insertion of just a fractional shade of grey cast some doubt on the absolutist claim?
Louis
That’s pretty great! Let me know when they get Surah 2:282 amended, and then I’ll take seriously the idea that Islam does not hate women.
Broken Soldier,
Perhaps you’d like to quote where PZ offered a logical argument (specifying which rule of inference he used) for that assertion?
I read the whole post and found nothing but an article about Islamic fundamentalists, not Islam.
Also, perhaps you’d like to come down to LA on the 21st and announce that all the feminist and progressive Islamic protesters are actually “women haters” because a guy on a blog in MN said so? I’m sure they’d be interested…
Louis:
(Sorry for the edit, but there are some things I just don’t care to look at.)
You show me an example of the above, and I’ll show you an example of someone ignoring the racist import in a statement.
Louis, Endor already said:
So when you apologize for misrepresenting her, I’ll take you seriously.
In this case, the story provides all the evidence that is needed. Namely, the simple fact that advocating for womens’ rights equates to either a death penalty or a 20-year jail sentence under Islamic law. (And don’t go for the No True Muslim fallacy either – these judges are adhereing to strict Quranic edict.) If you require any further evidence, you are indeed a lost cause.
JFK, hypercharismatic telepathical knight,
Oh and before I forget: no one but you mentioned “bitch”. As for “cunt”, in the UK at least the word is most often used pejoratively by men at men. It is an expression of displeasure or contempt for an idiotic person, in this CONTEXT it has nothing to do with women’s genitals it is a shock word, used to offend and nothing more. It is very rarely used as a descriptor for a woman, perhaps for a woman’s genitals, and that isn’t always nice (imagine scenarios where it is positive by yourself!).
Just what the fuck do you think people are arguing FOR here? That women can be referred to as bitches and cunts without that being sexist? Because if you think that’s what I (or anyone else on this thread) are advocating then you are seriously out of line.
BMS made a claim back in post #159
This is essentially the claim that “if you use word X you can be judged, in the absence of context, to be Y”. It is THAT claim which I am disagreeing with. Not that if you refer to women as bitches you are some how a paragon tolerance an equality.
Fuck me, it would be nice if people read for some basic comprehension.
Louis
Louis, Endor already said:
So when you apologize for misrepresenting her, I’ll take you seriously.
JFK,
Let me know when you’ve bothered to at least superficially inform yourself.
And then I’ll take seriously the idea that your comments have any intellectual merit.
Yeah, this one’s a shouty one. I think it’s the same as pz’sfuckingwithmyhead or some such who went on and on about sheep. Doesn’t matter. Same pot’o’shite, different chromosomes – some of them probably just waiting to be matched to an ancient case.
I did a reasonably detailed analysis of this sad collection of misfiring neurons a while ago, or another of his slimy siblings, but really the individuals with this sort of violent derangement are all much the same.
There is, at base, yes, self-loathing (justified, which is the worst kind of self-loathing) but also extreme sexual dysfunction – almost certainly with an innate mother-son incest fantasy, or reality, producing some of the symptoms we see here.
However, things are yet unsure, and there is much more to say about his sexuality, among other things.
So – hello Mr PZII, if I may call you that.
We understand you have come here for help, and it is possible you can get it.
So first, two simple questions, found to be most appropriate in cases such as yours:
Were you a late bed-wetter, say 15 or 16, and if so, were you beaten for it?
Simple questions, simple answers.
But unless you can answer them honestly, I fear your visit here will be useless.
No.
They probably do, just like comparing someone to male genitalia is trying to associate them with perceived ills of being male. I disagree with the dishonest twist to try to make insults pertaining to maleness somehow a hidden compliment.
For example:
I have never in the entirety of my life heard someone called a word referring to a phallus as a compliment. And trying to go through the word’s past, and dig up meanings that have no relevance today in order to justify one’s argument wont change this.
My reactions were exclusively to a strange argument that tried to have it both ways, so please don’t tar me with that brush.
If it explains where I am coming from, I understand that there are cases where double standards exist, and that they generally work out in the favor of men, like saying someone having ‘balls’ is taken as a synonym for courage. I don’t argue this. But making a rooster or a knob a positive thing, or a valley a negative one, is bizarre. You have to look at what the current usage is, and the context it is said in.
pz=ii,
your link is broken. html is buggy here. Try just pasting the url without an “a” tag.
JFK,
I haven’t misrepresented Endor, I was accurately representing BMS.
I suggest you read around the quote you snip from context and see what I am actually arguing FOR and why the diversions that people like Endor have brought up are irrelevant to what I’ve actually said.
brokenSoldier OM,
Chris Rock in his sketch about the difference between black people and niggers. Bear in mind I am a) not advocating that sketch as a racial viewpoint I share or don’t share, or b) advocating it as any other kind of viewpoint I share or don’t share (it’s horribly classist IMO for example). Chris Rock isn’t ignoring the racist import in that word, he’s playing to it.
I think people are confused about what I have been arguing. I’ll say it again, shorter and simpler: Simple use of a specific word is not, in the absence of context, sufficient ground to judge intent or motivation on anyone’s part. The evolving and multiple definitions and possible uses of words make it impossible to accurately do this, as does ignorance of context. A word only means something in terms, and in context, with other words. It is a creature of its verbal environment.
Louis
Or possibly your first sexual experience with living flesh, if you’ve had one.
But seriously, we need to talk.
If you need to talk, make the sign, and someone will unzip you.
Matt, I was referring specifically to this statement of yours:
referring to both anti-woman and anti-man insults. Of course the etymology does matter. And I’m with Endor, who already said
I’d also like to echo Matt’s comments re: inherent inequalities, both linguistic and social.
Yes there is vastly too much pejorative language which has demonstrably female overtones. Yes there is vastly too much positive language that has demonstrably male overtones. Yes a genuine, pervasive and pernicious (and hopefully eminently correctable) inequality exists. I even agree that consciousness raising language is a good way to do this, and I equally agree that all of us, myself very much included, can be, often are, unwitting collaborators in these inequalities. It costs me nothing to admit to the truth.
However, I think there are good, logically valid ways to erase these inequalities and double standards that don’t rely on special pleading and cherry picking usages and definitions to suit claims of persecution. Where these claims of persecution are correct, and the logic behind the claimed usage is correct, then these referrals to linguistics reinforce the point nicely, however where they aren’t they are rendered ridiculous and damage the case being made (tragically).
Louis
Nah. Tag-typos. GIGO. Preview.
Broken Soldier
A. You were asked to provide a logical argument. You failed.
B. The article refers to “Islamic fundamentalists”, not (as you mistakenly put it) “Islamic law”. Far from it, the report indicates that moderates were protesting.
Whether those guilty are “true” Muslims is not a response to the fact that there are thousands of progressive, feminist Muslims. The latter constitutes empirical refutation of PZ’s pathetic generalizations and soundbites.
http://www.google.com/search?q=“be+a+dick+than+a+pussy” Results 1 – 10 of about 177 for “be a dick than a pussy”. (0.09 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?q=“be+a+pussy+than+a+dick” Results 1 – 8 of 8 for “be a pussy than a dick”. (0.07 seconds)
Apparently it is 22 times worse to be a pussy than a dick.
Note: not a double blind study. :)
JFK,
AH! Good, thanks for reminding me. My bad I forgot to comment on that bit by Endor.
If feminists do that (and in my experience some do, some don’t) then that’s great. That at least erases the charge of hypocrisy.
As for the rest….?
Louis
I have often wondered: Is it, or can it ever, be possible to strip the so-called taboo words of their power to hurt, and insult?
Some of these words have historical impact (the ‘N’ word), some are puerile attempts at insults by comparison to lower body parts (that are usually kept covered and are almost universally cultural taboos), and some are attempted insults by comparison to other species (that some consider ‘lower’; example, the ‘B’ word).
What if people suddenly refused to accept these words as anything other than what they are, mere words? What if we stopped accepting them as insults, thereby removing the power of those words?
A lot depends on context. Even the despicable ‘N’ word becomes acceptable from another Black American who is a buddy, or a Black American rapper, or an established comedian of any color, isn’t that correct?
Therefore, if it were (ever) possible to reduce these offensive words to mere arrangements of letters accompanying a sound, if they could be robbed of their power to hurt, would there not ensue – at least theoretically – peace of mind?
An example exists. In British Colonial India, the word “Native” used to be the “N” word, generally used by the uppity white Englishman as a crushing insult. Now it may – just may – induce a crushing ennui, having been robbed of its power by history.
I am an Indian, but on several occasions, I have been called ‘Paki’ by several young Americans (Gasp! Who knew!) seated in big SUVs or pickup trucks. My response has always been, like, “Dude! Grow up… This is the twenty-first century.”
Name-calling, while hurtful and insulting, is a childish and impotent pre-occupation at best. Ignorance and apathy are the best antidotes, IMO.
C’mon PZII – I don’t bite.
Just tell us what’s on your “mind”.
And how it got there.
Louis, you said:
You were implicating Endor. That is why I believed you owed her an apology, still not forthcoming, for identifying her with an argument she did not make.
Maybe you could consider that not everyone here is obsessed with your complaints about BMS@159. Endor, I believe, has already indicated that she doesn’t exactly agree with the blanket statement ‘If you use insults such as “twat,” “cunt,” “pussy,” etc., you hate women, your protestations aside.’ Neither do I. Rather, we would like to bring up a modified form of that argument, which you have also continually dismissed or ignored, like so:
No one has yet dealt with my points re: evolving/multiple definitions,
context dependency
and pejorative comments involving male genitals not being misandrous (to name but a few).
Everything you’ve asked to have addressed has been addressed. Except for the last, you’re ignoring the answers. Perhaps you just don’t like them.
If you call adult women “girls” you hate women.
So a woman who uses the phrase “girls’ night out” hates women?
Oh, AnthonyK. You’re such a dick.
Perhaps you misunderstand the complaint.
When someone calls me a faggot, it does not hurt my feelings. That is not what I’m concerned with.
What concerns me is this person’s internal state, why they hate me for being queer, or why they think that “faggot” ought to be an insult, or what else they might do to infringe upon my liberty or safety.
It is not the word itself that concerns me. But the word is a symptom of something else, and whatever that is might be a danger to me. To the extent that the word has power, it has power because it means “I mean you harm.” And it would be a mistake to wrest the sentence “I mean you harm” of all its power; it is a threat, and it is a fool who does not take any threats seriously.
Why thank you kind sir. In my younger day I was famed for it. By the way “Willy” says, could you give him a hand? Again.
@Sastra
the problem is not that they do not have objective morality.The problem is that their morality is objectively wrong .
I say we send a couple bibles to Afganistan to end this debate about women.
Galatians 3:8
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
1 Corinthians 11:11-12
In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
Hello facilis – looking good today! Out on a date?
Oh. Well could you take your mirror to another blog?
Thanks ;)
Facilis the Fallacious Fool. They get their morality from the same place you do. From their concept of god, and their holy book. So, they have the same claim to morality you do (your god and holy book). And supposedly it is the same god. You are a real dunderhead not to acknowledge that fact.
That psychopath “JFK” seems to have diluted himself a bit in this thread. He told me that I deserve to die “cold and alone” simply because I wrote a throw-away post in which I said repeated unnecessary swearing “comes off” as “trailer-trash”.
My type deserve to “shiver to death in an alley”, according to him. I regret not asking him in the other thread: Do you think we also deserve to be rounded up in concentration camps and methodically executed by the hundreds in gas showers? If not, it’s hard to see why not.
Facilis, are your bible quotes are meaningless to both muslims and atheists. I thought you know that by now. Another fail for the fool. Also, possessors of the bible in many muslim countries are liable to be executed, so sending stuff willy-nilly is stupid.
Nerd wrote:
Spot on, dude.
Facilis, since you’ve got exactly the same basis for your beliefs as they do for theirs you embarrass yourself when you criticise them.
Fortunately, your belief system has – to an extent at least – been dragged, kicking and screaming, into modernity by the forces of secular liberalism. We can only hope that this will happen to Islam as well; the sooner, the better.
Facilis #247 wrote:
I think the real problem is that their ‘objective morality’ is based on the will of God.
Not on what’s fair or kind or reasonable to human beings, but on the will of God, which bends to nothing.
This means that, in order for us to tell them they’re wrong, we have to tell them that their belief in God is wrong. They have the wrong God. They have a false God.
It’s problematic. What do we do when people are so certain that they are right about God — when it’s such a basic belief to them, like the air they breath and the sun up in the sky — that telling them they are wrong about God is like telling them they are wrong about the air, or the sun? How can we argue that they ought to consider the issue of religion the same way they consider science or politics or something that they might be wrong about?
I think they need to be encouraged to doubt themselves, and their ability to “know” religious truths with such conviction. They ought instead to approach their belief in God as if it were a hypothesis, and not a fundamental certainty. Otherwise, there would be no getting through to these people — whether we were trying to convince them to be reasonable, or just trying to convince them to believe in a more reasonable God.
What do you think?
Oh for Odin’s sake, Erasmus, didn’t you say like four or five times now that you were leaving Pharyngula?
You savagely attacked an individual who I know peripherally and respect. I responded in kind.
Will it assuage your fee-fees to know that I don’t seriously wish you anything more than embarrassment? Will you then please, please fuck off like you promised you would?
Pheno- or geno-
And what is the difference?
(I’m not getting involved, just being silly)
All it takes is one whining, hyperventilating self-righteous idiot…
And they’re off to the races…
Almost a hundred comments later, and all I’ve learned is what I always learn when threads go down this road…the self-appointed guardians of tolerance and understanding on the Left can be almost as irrational, blinkered, overly senstive, and intolerant as the defenders of caveman morality on the right.(Almost.) I have to wonder if BMS was serious, or just stirring some shit…
I guess it must be my internalized sexism. Damn patriarchy! It’s in my brain!!!!Get out of my BRAAAAIN!!!!
Excuse me.
At any rate, I think that the comment I quoted was way over the top and outside of reality, and I think that both Louis and Matt have made a point or two that have been ignored or misconstrued.
Getting angry and making huge judgements about people based on the use of single slang words that you find objectionable may feel all nice and righteous, but it only makes one seem like a stupid cu…,uh, a stupid dic…
oh, fuck it… PC language police just get on my nerves. People are literally dying for equality, and this is all you can whine about.
One last thing…for you, BMS, if you’re there and not a troll-
Said before anyone could even protest…words of a brain-dead, dipshit dogmatist if ever there were.
Sorry, I don’t recall that I “promised” anything. Unless the owner of this blog intervenes, I’ll stay around as long as I like and post whenever I feel like.
And it is of course nonsense to say that I “savagely attacked” anyone.
On topic, though. It’s a teeny bit heartening that “moderate groups” are mentioned who aren’t satisfied with this conviction. But as is usually the case, the word “moderate”, when associated with Islam, is used to refer to anyone who isn’t a murderous, bloodthirsty, medieval-minded fanatic.
Yes, let’s.
“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.” 1 Timothy 2:11-15
“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. ” 1 Corinthians 11:3
“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.” Colossians 3:18
QED?
Shorter Neil:
“I don’t care about other people, and anyone who asks me to care about other people is hurting my feelings. Grrr! Leftists!”
Shorter Erasmus:
“Pay attention to me! Pay attention to me! I’m leaving if you don’t pay attention to me! I’m leaving! I’m really going to leave, guys, seriously! Hey! That’s it, I’m gone! … Hah, you didn’t really think I would leave, did you? How would I get attention then? Hey! Hey guys!”
The Abrahamic religions hate women’s guts, that’s always been clear. Does anyone know whether it’s like that with most other religions?
Also interesting is the question of why this feature evolved. Patriarchy is the norm for agricultural societies. Maybe it was only natural for religion to try to “legitimate” this norm?
Endor @#207
I do not disagree with you in the slightest. I just didn’t want anyone to think these particular rat bastards had given this (or much of anything else, most likely) that much thought.
To change metaphorical horses in midstream, these are the bozos who buy or sometimes sell nickel bags of sexism on the street corner and need rehab and community service, not the sexism kingpins[1] who need to be taken out back and shot[2]. Or something like that.
[1] Priests, preachers, rabbis, mullahs, etc.
[2] Metaphorically, quote-mining theistards, metaphorically.
Erasmus wrote:
That’s an interesting question. Most of the central tenets of religion seem to be based around finding ways to justify things people already think; I suppose the men who cooked up the specifics of Judaism’s precursors wanted to make sure they had a ‘reason’ for telling women they were lesser beings. Just like the Divine Right of Kings I guess.
But there were matriarchal religious societies in antiquity; one wonders what made the difference as to which direction a tribe went in?
I agree.Did you ever listen to lecture or sermon where there is a talkative woman in front of you? I wish they would wait until they got home to talk to their husbands instead of being disruptive. Paul is quite right
I agree too. Wives should obey their husbands.
Louis:
You obviously missed the point of your own exercise. Again, show me an instance where that word is used without racist import, whether it be for or against such use, and you will have satisfied the criteria for your own challenge. The above statement is a non-sequitur, because it very obviously is the racist nature of that word to which Chris Rock is playing in his comedy.
another vote to toss facilis into the dungeon.
nothing but troll bait in his posts.
There are times when I think I’m a little harsh on you facilis. But at times like this, I know I could never be harsh enough, you utter waste of guanine.
And to think, they abort children of more worth than you.
Obviously you are a dunderhead. Women have minds of their own, and any male who thinks otherwise is a fool. Now the women of Pharyngula will hand you your gonads.
@AnthonyK
Do you think wives should not obey their husbands?
Facilis,
Wow. Your “objective morality” defends the murder of 42 children for merely mocking a prophet and makes women subjects to their husband. You fucking misogynistic idiot.
Anthony K,
Same here.
Facilis, marriage is a partnership.
One does not give orders to one’s partner.
Also, you’re despicable.
I thought when people married they made a vow to love, honor and obey.
Me and my traditional view of marriage…
facilis,
Me and my
traditionalarchaic, condescending, degrading, woman-hating view of marriage…There. Fixed it for you.
Why would you ask someone you respect as your equal to obey?
I surmise you are not married. I also surmise you are unlikely to get married.
There are many obligations on men and women, especially if they are parents. “Obeying” one another is not one of them.
Spunkforbrains.
I thought when people married they made a vow to love, honor and obey.
funny, but I thought those vows were said by both parties.
have you actually been married?
naww, couldn’t be. Who would be fucking stupid enough to marry YOU?
just in case:
http://www.crackergate.com/Home/stupid.wav?attredirects=0
now go along to the dungeon like a good little toad, eh?
PZ,
I call for Facilis, his gonads and his archaic, condescending, degrading, woman-hating view of marriage to be cast into the dungeon.
Facilis spewed:
“HEY! You get your bitch ass back in the kitchen and make me some pie!” – Eric Cartman
“Yes dear”, said the Nerd taking his Redhead to the local restaurant at her request (30+ years married).
My completely uncharitable interpretation of JFK: “If you dare to use words I don’t personally approve of, or upset any delicate little flowers whether intentionally or not, you are a bully and a slavedriver and a horrible oppressive part of the problem and should be treated like a leper. Everyone must bow to the superiority of other people’s completely arbitrary yet oh-so-precious feelings. And I know this because I’m perfect and psychic.”
The real shorter Neil: “My freedom of expression is more important than your feelings. Grow the fuck up and deal with it, you sniveling little bitch-ass crybaby.”
For the record, I am probably just as liberal and progressive as most of the commenters here on MOST issues. I just can’t stand seeing a post about real, life and death equality issues derailed into an overprivileged whinefest. If any minority, homosexual, man, woman, or whatever can’t maintain their self-esteem in modern western society in the face of only a few shitty words spouted by random assholes, I refuse to prop up their ridiculous, presumptuous over-sensitivity by catering to it. Sorry, it’s just really not that important, never will be, and I don’t give so much as one millionth of a rat turd what tantrums you or anyone else wants to throw about it.
It’s not about trying to hurt people on purpose or oppress them through subtle reinforcement. It’s about my complete lack of respect for people who try to dictate what others can say, and who try to whip up a frenzy of hate and smugness over trifles. It’s just so immature and self-centered to presume that the rest of society should automatically be looking out for our feelings. When it comes to that, I will abandon culture and politics altogether, as there will clearly be nothing important left to worry about.
Wives “obey” their husbands — and husbands “obey” their wives — in much the same way that friends will obey each other when one of them asks the other one to please do something. “Get me a coke.” “Sure. You want a glass with ice?”
This is not the kind of obedience in effect between slave and master, or parent and child, or owner and pet — one higher than the other; one with the rights, the other with the duties.
It’s not the kind of obedience instated between husband and wife in the system of Islam that’s referred to above in the post we’re all responding to.
Which is why I wouldn’t use the word “obey” to talk about mutual helpfulness at all. Facilis. Assuming that’s what you mean.
thank the cosmic muffin i wasn’t drinking right there.
Wowbagger:
I don’t have a reference on me, but I read somewhere that agriculture generally leads to patriarchy, because men have to do the bulk of hard labour (while women look after the children), thus giving men more power.
This contrasts to hunter-gatherer societies, where men commonly spend a lot of time hunting for meat, leaving women to do a large part of the foraging for berries, mushrooms, etc.
Facilis, holds to the moral outlook of ancient tribes whose men could buy wives (or take them from slaves), so it’s no surprise he thinks marriage is about a man’s ownership of a woman.
Despicable, as I said.
Dawkins is right. There is a god delusion rampant in the world. But unlike Jesus, Allah, or Buddha, you can see and touch this god. In fact, you see this god every time you brush your teeth.
Blaming Islam for the situation in the lead story is a handy rationalization for avoiding some painful realities. Islam didn’t make Islamic societies that way – they were just as intolerant and misogynistic before Mohammed. Islam’s crime is that it failed to reform the societies it conquered.
So if religion is responsible for all this evil, where did it come from? How did presumably benevolent humans come up with cruel religions? The god of the great god delusion is human nature, and specifically the notion that humans are inherently kind and peaceful. Dawkins doesn’t worship Jesus, Buddha or Allah, or even the FSM. He worships the Noble Savage.
It’s not Islam that makes Afghanistan a hellhole, it’s the tribal mentality that the clan is everything and that personal honor must be upheld at all cost. Somalia is a cesspool because it’s a patchwork of clans with nothing but common hatred to unite them. Hamas isn’t about Islam, or Israel, or the poor dispossessed Palestinians. It’s about the sexual insecurity of weakling Y-chromosome bearers (I can’t apply the label “men”) who can’t deal with the fact that they lost the war 60 years ago. And it’s not just Islam. The Congo and Rwanda aren’t Islamic, but they’re crippled by tribalism. And at the center of it all is that warped obsession with personal honor. Religion has nothing to do with it. How is religion fueling the drug wars in Colombia and Mexico, or gang warfare in our inner cities?
Good people practice good religion. Screwed up people can sometimes be reformed by religion. John Newton, the slave trader who wrote “Amazing Grace,” didn’t quit the slave trade immediately after converting, but he did start treating his captives more humanely. It took six years before he finally “got it.” Evil people, like Fred Phelps, the wacko cardinal from Brazil, or the Taliban, practice evil religion. They don’t convert, they pervert. Blaming religion for evil is like blaming violent Road Runner cartoons, a convenient externality to avoid facing uncomfortable questions.
Wrong. Good people practice those parts of their religions that have survived the watering-down process of the past few centuries. On their merits alone, the Abrahamic religions are all morally contradictory within themselves, and all religion emphasizes irrational belief over rational and critical thought. Dawkins does not worship the so-called “Noble Savage.” In fact, Dawkins does not worship anything or anyone. The god in his The God Delusion is any supernatural deity. Yes, humans are – by nature – prone to tribalism and many other abhorrent behavioral tendencies.
If only there were some method by which mankind could overcome its inherent solipsism! And there is – it is a self-correcting system that when applied specifically, it is called science, and in general, reason and logic.
What brokenSoldier said, but shorter:
Good people practice good despite religion.
To throw the argument the other way around – what would the absence of God do for most people? Is the only thing holding them back from harming others the threat of eternal damnation, and their only reason to do good is because of receiving reward in the afterlife? If not, then what good does religion actually add?
It seems nothing more than an archaic aberration that religion is considered as a cornerstone for good. Yes there are good people in there, but really how many of those are good because of their religion?
Steve Dutch #286 wrote:
I don’t think Dawkins claims this — nor would he deny that the toxic system of thar is not at the base of the problem here. He would probably point out that one of the easiest ways to institute blood honor would be through religious mandate — and that religion makes it virtually intractable, because it is not just the way things are, but the way God made it to be.
I think that you’re mistaken in the belief that good people practice good religion, and bad people make bad religion. I think that a bad religion can persuade otherwise ordinary people that what looks like harm to rational, secular eyes, is truly a Great and Wonderful Good — when you see it in the framework of a Big Picture.
“Good religions” are labeled as such because the virtues and values they hold make just as much sense to an atheist or someone outside the religion, as they do to a believer inside the religion. But there is nothing in the systems that value “faith” that demand that their adherents believe and do only those things that make sense to someone without the same ‘faith.’ Instead, they can (and do) go anywhere.
It’s a bit like talking about competing systems of astrology which either tell its followers to do reasonable things (“today is a good day to get to those projects you’ve been putting off”), or which take themselves very seriously, and make sweeping demands for life changes — and even wars — because this planet is in one position relative to another planet in another position.
One can argue that a system of astrology need not be irrational and dangerous. But if it is reasonable, it is reasonable more or less by accident. There is no check or balance against it taking itself seriously, and going wherever it goes.
There is no way to check to see that God does NOT demand blood for blasphemy. One is left to argue over who understands God, and who does not.
It is easier to argue over what is reasonable, and what is not, I think. Not easy. But easier.
John Morales @ 288:
Nice.
brokenSoldier, OM #287 wrote:
Right. Nor does he — or other scientific humanists — worship humanity, or believe that without religion the world would suddenly turn into a Utopia of peace and light. Improvement? Yes. Utopia? No way.
Humanists are a pretty cynical lot.
There is a form of liberal spirituality which endorses the ideal of the “Noble Savage.” This is usually coupled with an anti-scientific bent, a belief that natural = good, and the conviction that evolution is the Great Chain of Being, and man is evolving to higher levels of spiritual awareness.
Stephen Pinker in The Blank Slate rips into all that. Dawkins, as far as I know, agrees with him. As much as I love Steve Dutch (yes, I am a fan), I think he’s attacking the wrong group on this one.
Thanks, brokenSoldier.
And I feel I should say I stand in awe of Sastra. (Just read #290).
S. Dutch:
The student was not convicted under tribal codes, but in the supreme court of the land. Which clan’s honor do you claim they were defending?
Certainly religious systems did not create these obsessions and base motives, but they seem to frequently hijack them for their own benefit.
So you would replace a simplistic explanation with an even more simplistic and naive explanation? Don’t you think that religion or any other ideology can sometimes persuade good people to do bad things?
I was so angered by this article especially today when yet another Canadian soldier arrived home dead fighting for this Afghan government I wrote to my MP demanding that he gets Harper to demand Mr. Kambaksh’s release immediately. People don’t forget that our MPs work for us and we are the ones who vote for them. Maybe if enough people write to the government we can make our sentiments be heard.
Neil @ 281,
thanks for saving me time !
What he said.
I’m going to tell you what Nietzschhe told an English atheist about goodness without religion.
“They are rid of the Christian God and now believe all the more firmly that they must cling to Christian morality. That is an English consistency; we do not wish to hold it against little moralistic females à la Eliot. In England one must rehabilitate oneself after every little emancipation from theology by showing in a veritably awe-inspiring manner what a moral fanatic one is. That is the penance they pay there.
We others hold otherwise. When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet. This morality is by no means self-evident: this point has to be exhibited again and again, despite the English flatheads. Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one’s hands. Christianity presupposes that man does not know, cannot know, what is good for him, what evil: he believes in God, who alone knows it. Christian morality is a command; its origin is transcendent; it is beyond all criticism, all right to criticism; it has truth only if God is the truth–it stands and falls with faith in God.
When the English actually believe that they know “intuitively” what is good and evil, when they therefore suppose that they no longer require Christianity as the guarantee of morality, we merely witness the effects of the dominion of the Christian value judgment and an expression of the strength and depth of this dominion: such that the origin of English morality has been forgotten, such that the very conditional character of its right to existence is no longer felt. For the English, morality is not yet a problem.”
-Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols.
And?
Yawn, another non-argument by Facilis the Fallacious Fool. Facilis, your god doesn’t exist and your bible is a work of fiction. Until you acknowledge that truth, there is no hope for you having reason and logic. That only comes with throwing off the cognitive dissonance of god and religion.
imbecillis:
I’m going to tell you what Nietzschhe told an English atheist about goodness without religion.
please
please
please
please
ban this fucker.
kthxbye
I never was part of the Christian faith, so where do my morals come from?
Facillis – You fuckwit. When I got married – in a church – in 1975, my vow was to love, honor and cherish. And I’m from the old school.
Grow up toad.
Facilis #298 wrote:
I am not very familiar with Nietzsche, I’m afraid, but I read this passage a few times and I think it may be intended as a caution of building up a moral system on nothing more than the view that it is “commanded by God.”
If there is no other reason to do what it says — if morality means nothing more than this — then it’s true, that if you no longer believe in God, then there is no longer any good reason to do anything you thought God said.
But it seems to me that even those who think morality is based on commandments of a God beyond criticism, ought to be thoughtful enough to believe that such a God would only command things which make sense, and lead to good lives here on earth. If God’s moral laws are reasonable and valuable, then they would seem to be discernible through human reason and tested by consequences — and thus God is not necessary at all. The ‘English’ morals Nietzsche refers to might be good morals, or bad ones. If he were referring to slavery as the divinely-mandated White Man’s Burden, then would you read this passage differently?
As I read the passage (and yes, I could be reading into it), Nietzsche is arguing for a good and evil based in this world, an understanding of ethics built up from the bottom, involving relationships between people. Those who confuse morality with obedience don’t really understand what morality is. It is a system built on sand.
I can’t wait for facilis to tell me what my morality base is, given I grew up atheist with no religious faith whatsoever. My parents didn’t force anything on me, they let me decide. So how does that figure into your worldview?
For the record, the Redhead didn’t swear to obey either.
Happy belated anniversary Patricia. I forgot to mention it earlier.
facilis,
What Nietzsche should have said:
They are rid of the Christian God and now believe all the more firmly that they must cling to
Christianthe morality humanity has developed as part of its sociocultural evolution, and which Christians falsely believe stems from their imaginary man-god.Much better.
“The greatest tragedy in mankind’s entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion.” Arthur C Clarke.
Oh, are we quoting Nietzsche? Okay….
“The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad.
– The Gay Science
“God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him.” – The Gay Science
“Two great European narcotics, alcohol and Christianity.” – Twilight of the Idols
“In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point.” – The Antichrist
“Nihilist and Christian. They rhyme, and do not merely rhyme… ” – The Antichrist [ The rhyme is lost in translation]
“Christianity destroyed for us the whole harvest of ancient civilization, and later it also destroyed for us the whole harvest of Mohammedan civilization. ” – The Antichrist
“I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct for revenge for which no expedient is sufficiently poisonous, secret, subterranean, petty — I call it the one immortal blemish of mankind.” – The Antichrist
“Morality is: the mediocre are worth more than the exceptions … I abhore Christianity with a deadly hatred. ” – The Will to Power
_ _ _ _
I think I’ve made my point: Theist quoting Niezsche = Fail.
My wife & I, together now for 21 years, chose to ‘love and cherish’ when we got married in a registrar’s office in Scotland (completely secular). Obey never entered into it.
As it happens, I do obey my wife, but that is purely selfish on my part – I prefer to live. ;)
The right to christian morality… oh, now there is a rich topic. Since we have islamic misogyny already mentioned, how about some christian slavery ?
If a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he IS his money.
Exodus 21:20-21.
There you go Facillis, beat your slave to death in one day and you get a fine. If he or she dies in two or three days – no fine.
Nice christian morality. Obey that.
Feynmaniac #309 wrote:
I think Facilis already knows that Nietzsche hated Christianity. He thinks that Nietszche therefore also hated the whole idea of morality, and is drawing a lesson from that.
I’m guessing, though, that N. only hated the idea of Christian morality, partly because he thought it had a poor foundation, and was thus rotten. We are used to hearing people today refer to Christian morality as meaning the same thing as simple “kindness” or “fairness” — being good to your neighbor. I don’t think that’s what Nietszche was criticizing.
But I haven’t studied him much. As I recall, some of his view were reasonable, and some of his views were pretty awful.
But really, who gives a shit about Nietzsche? His opinions have about as much sway on mine as do facilis’.
Unlike Facilis I do not need someone to tell me how to think.
Thanks Nerd!
Thanks for the applause Chimpy, it must be for all of us. ;)
(The Comic cootie is snuggled up, and roosting with the Pullet Patrol by the way.)
I think I’ve made my point: Theist quoting Niezsche = Fail.
larger point:
Imbecillis = Epic Fail
period.
With facilis it doesn’t even look as if there’s thinking going on.
Nietzsche would approve.
I vote ban the fucker. And a Troll Cull – it encourages new shoots.
Or, indeed, if,
No. I don’t think Facilis has done anything that calls for banning.
But it’s PZ’s call.
Facilis actually reminds me of the madman from “The Gay Science”. Gott ts todt
massive blockquote fail
Good luck on that one, Susan. Harper won’t even ask for our own citizen, child soldier captured while unconscious and accused of thowing a grenade because he was the only survivor among a group of adults, back from the Guantanamo Bay torture facility.
Kel, if put <br> tags between paragraphs, then delete the empty line within blockquotes you’ll avoid that.
And preview…
I agree. While incredible hard headed and frankly, i think, um…. challenged I see no reason to ban him.
Unless we get into the circle of presup again.
what is this… pre-view you speak of
facilis is an endless source of amusement, how oblivious he is to the world is astounding. But yeah, if he talks about the laws of logic one more fucking time…
As long as we’re quoting things…
“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
-Steven Weinberg
“Nietzsche was stupid and abnormal.”
-Leo Tolstoy
“I Am the Walrus”
-John Lennon
Sastra,
Facilis seems to ignorant on many things so I did not feel I had to assume he knew that.
From what I gathered he seemed to thinks that that Nietzsche was saying that giving up on Christianity (or religion in general) leads to nihilism/moral relatvism. That is not how I read it. I read it as saying once you give up Christianity you must find new justification for your morality and just saying it’s self-evident is not enough.
I think to a certain extent Nietzsche was critizing “fairnes” ( see here ). Then again, I am no expert on the subject.
Indeed. I have only read a bit of his work and at times it is profound. At other times it’s the mad rantings of a syphilitic brain (literally).
Yay quotes
Mr. Frank Zappa
I’ll echo that facilis doesn’t deserve banning – unless, as mentioned, he starts up that refuted ad nauseam presup drivel.
Of course he’s still saying nonsensical things, but that isn’t, in and of itself, worthy of banning.
Sastra – I hate to disagree with you. But I will charge Facillis with:
Godbotting
Insipidity
Stupidity (!)
Trolling
Wanking
PZ doesn’t list making me yell, “ARRGH!” at my computer, or *headdesk*. Otherwise Facillis would have seven deadly sins.
Sigh.
RBCD:
Do as I say, not as I do :)
—
PS Facilis wasn’t plonked back in his pressup phase, and this is nothing like that.
Patricia, you forgot pantswetting.
Fooey – crucify the toad. ;)
Now I’m off to eat icecream and watch wrastlin’.
wrastlin’?
what kind of wrastlin?
I know Nietzsche hated Christianity. am I not allowed to quote him because he was an atheist philosopher? Is Richard Dawkins not allowed to quote Christian philosophers?
Nietzsche knew what the God is dead movement was. Nietzsche knew that when secular culture had killed God they would kill and idea of objective moral law or cosmic teleology. They would kill any transcendental source of meaning.Nietzsche know the acceptance of the Death of God will also involve the ending of accepted standards of morality and of purpose. Without the former standards society will descend into a nihilistic situation where peoples lives are not constrained by considerations of morality or guided by any related sense of purpose. All that would be left was what Nietzsche called “the will to power” and the desire for people to become stronger .
“Even the body within which individuals treat each other as equals . . . will have to be an incarnate will to power, it will strive to grow, spread, seize, become predominant—not from any morality or immorality but because it is living and because life simply is will to power.”
I quoted Nietzsche because he was right. He was a consistent atheist. He was calling out Eliot and the other English atheists who felt they could deny God and have secular society but still live with the accepted moral standards or believe in objective good and purpose. He is showing them to be hypocrites in borrowing from the Christian ethic.
@Kel
The parable of th madman is excellent. I hope you ponder its meaning
I have more than you could imagine. Question is, do you get it’s meaning? Because it would appear not.
Again, I ask. Where does my morality come from since I was raised in a secular household with no religious pressures from my parents and I have never been any part of a religion?
I do .It is about secular society that has killed God but is not prepared to accept the consequences.
It comes from the Christian ethic of the society you were raised in and your parents were raised in.
Oh, here we go.
Bzzt, wrong
bzzt, wrong again.
You are so full of fail, and have no idea whatsoever about how behaviour works. I ask you, if you don’t think that morality is a social and evolutionary construct, would you go attack a bear cub in front of it’s mother? If not, why not? After all, bears are Godless*.
*according to Stephen Colbert
Why is it you seem to think that, because one atheist (in this case, Nietzsche) was correct about some things we must, as atheists, accept that everything he said was correct? That’s not the way it works for us, facilis. Atheists don’t have deities; if someone says something irrelevant to us, it’s not a crisis of faith to say so.
It most certainly isn’t, but even if Christianity was responsible for the ethics being part of society, why can we not keep the ethics and toss the Christianity aside like the useless husk it is?
Kel’s demonstrated you can have ethics without stooping to Christianity; ergo, the belief can be done away with entirely with no detriment.
Given what’s in the bible and what a lot of Christians espouse, I’d say I have morality despite Christianity. Then again, what would facilis know? If any explanation doesn’t include the words “God did it” then he just can’t understand how it works. “The magic man does it all, I swear!”
Facilis,
Yes, but if you provided commentary rather than just quoting we could have understood what your point was.
This is a problem I have with some (defintely not all) philosophers. They make claims but don’t bother to check out if it matches reality. Many atheist have a strong sense of both morality and purpose.
God is not necessary for morality. Humans seems to have an innate capactiy for morality, see here for a more thoroguh explanation. Many of the moral principles of Christianity existed long before it came around.
Facilis, please go scientifically demonstrate that morality has to come from God by attacking the cub of a godless creature in front of it’s mother. Show us the necessity of God for morality…
Oh, here we go.
@Kel
If you contend that morality is just an evolutionary construct you will have to concede that it is an illusion and we have no duty to follow any kind of moral imperative.This is not just me that is saying this. Many atheist philosophers admit this too. For example Michael Ruse, a philosopher of science from the University of Guelph, writes,
“The position of the modern evolutionist . . . is that humans have an awareness of morality . . . because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth . . . . Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is ILLUSORY. I appreciate that when somebody says ‘Love they neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves . . . . Nevertheless, . . . such reference is truly WITHOUT FOUNDATION. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory . . . .”
And
“I think that once you see that ethics is simply an adaptation, you see that IT HAS NO JUSTIFICATION. It just is. So in metaethics I am a nonrealist.I THINK ETHICS IS AN ILLUSION put into place by our genes to keep us social.”
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/ruse.htm
Many atheists admit there is no foundation for ethics apart from God.
@Wowbagger
What Nietzsche is saying is that you cannot kill the rooots and expect the tree to remain healthy. You cannot reap the fruits of the Christian ethic while attacking the foundation of Christianity, which is God. This is wat he was telling Elliot in another quote.
Do you even understand what you are quoting there facilis? No-one here is advocating universal morality but you. especially when you put in caps the wrong part of the sentence: “I think that once you see that ethics is simply an adaptation, you see that IT HAS NO JUSTIFICATION. It just is. So in metaethics I am a nonrealist.I THINK ETHICS IS AN ILLUSION put into place by our genes to keep us social.”
We are moral creatures no matter what, it’s in our genes to be moral. You are focusing on the wrong message, but that’s because you have no understanding whatsoever about what the other side is arguing about. Morality exists, it’s an evolved trait. If you don’t believe me, go harass a bear cub in front of it’s mother and see what happens.
facilis wrote:
Firstly, your false dichotomy – why does something that is an evolutionary construct an illusion? Everything we have is an evolutionary construct. It doesn’t mean we aren’t affected by it any less than we would be if your god existed and had imbued us with it.
If religion was responsible for such things, only atheists would commit crimes or behave immorally, while religious believers would remain paragons of virtue. Since reality shows this is patently untrue, you have no basis for your claim.
Not to mention the hundreds of pre-Christian and contemporary non-Christian societies which had their own morality and ethics without ever hearing the name ‘Jesus’. How did they come about?
I think a better crop-based analogy would be to say that you use manure to fertilise your plants; you then eat the fruit from the tree and not the manure…
facilis just doesn’t want to test his morality hypothesis out. Don’t have enough faith to attack a bear cub in front of it’s mother, or are you going to concede that behaviour is evolved and that we can act in the interests of others (and especially children) through genetic disposition?
@Kel
Did you even read the quote? he admits there is no foundation for ethics and any feelings to the contrary are an illusion put in place in your genes. Which means when you accuse the bible of being wrong or say it is immoral to kill children or say it is immoral for Islam to mistreat women, it is just an illusion with no foundation is reality.
Right, that explains how Nietzsche used to rape, pillage and murder his way across Europe, since he had no morals to stop him. Imagine if he had been some mild mannered professor type instead of the bloodthirsty barbarian that he was.
I have read the quote, you are misinterpreting it. Having absolute justification and having none at all is a false dichotomy. And even if there isn’t justification, so what? It doesn’t make it any less true. Morality evolved, deal with it. If you think that means that anything is permissible, go ahead. Attack the bear cub in front of it’s mother. even better, go attack a human child in front of it’s father. Scream “It’s okay, without God there is no justification for morality” and see how far that gets you.
Let me put it straight. God is the metaphysical oundation for morality. In order to have morals you need a metaphysical foundation. Micheal Ruse denies God so he believes there is no foundation for morality. Any moral feelings we have are an illusion created by our genes because there are no real morals.(according to Ruse’s reasoning and mine).
No-one claims this. I was just showing how atheist philosophers realise that without God there is no foundation for ethics. To refer to my “breathing air” example,an atheist can deny air and still breathe just as M. Ruse can deny the foundations of morality and still behave morally.
And Fail.
We’ve been through this. You have not established a god let alone your god as the foundation for morality.
You merely have asserted it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over without anything supporting it.
Presup circular failure on an epic level.
“Having absolute justification and having none at all is a false dichotomy.”
But Ruse says
“”I think that once you see that ethics is simply an adaptation, you see that IT HAS NO JUSTIFICATION. ”
How is there any justification when you think morals are the result of a toss of the cosmic dice and as arbitrary as the fact that you evolved 5 fingers? Nietzsche and Ruse admit there is none.
“We’ve been through this. You have not established a god let alone your god as the foundation for morality.”
I did not seek to do that. I was just talking about how Nietzsche and Ruse realized there was no foundation for morality in atheism.
facilis, still not grasping it, wrote:
No, its foundation is our evolved sense of ethics, which is far, far more real than your sky-fairy or bad-performance-art loving man-god.
‘Immoral’ is the word we’ve come up with to describe things which, were they to occur on a large scale, would have negative consequences on our species’ ability to survive. Almost everyone experiences negative affect when they contemplate such things.
Our predecessors understood we felt bad for doing bad things, but they had no idea why. Part of the reason they invented gods was to explain this.
You, on the other hand, have no such excuse. It’s as stupid to claim morality comes from your god as it would be for me to claim that thunder and lightning are caused by Thor throwing his hammer around, trying to smack that smartass Loki around for trying to nail Sif while he wasn’t around.
Wrong, unsurprisingly.
He does not say that there is not a foundation for ethics in general, only ethics based in Christianity for an atheist. He has his own ethics system and, contrary to popular opinion, was not a nihilist, though he did think that Christianity was essentially nihilism. I assume, though, that there was some sort of reading comprehension failure if you actually read anything he ever wrote. Still, I can probably assume that this was only massive failure on the general scale that you are associated with rather than anything out of the ordinary.
Mind you, even if he did think that ethics in general had no basis, that would still not make it so. After all, he was skeptical of evolution as well (but then again, he supposedly only read of evolution through some sort of third-hand German commentary on a translation of Darwin).
And since Mendel (who very few people knew about at the time) had yet to be integrated with Darwin and since Nietzsche was skeptical of evolution, I will also assume that these “genes” you refer to in the quote are not referring to the “genes” in genetics and biology, but some other magical concept that you pulled out of your ass, not unlike biblical narrative, right?
For fucks sake facilis. having moral justification != morality comes from God. We can show that senses like fairness, pack mentality, cooperation, sharing, altruism, etc. all can evolve as part of a survival strategy. They exist in our bodies whether we like it or not. It may be an illusion, but so is free will. What does that change? Abso-fucking-lutely nothing at all. We behave according to the ways our mind works – built by our genes, by our environment and by our experience. We learn how to behave morality because it is an innate sense.
Though the funny thing is that by giving examples of other theist tribes having morality as based on theism, then you are showing that one needs not a god in order to have morality – rather it’s the illusion of God. As Voltaire said “Si Dieu n’existait pas, il faudrait l’inventer.”
We have certain societal standards that dictate behaviour. That is a fact. What having no God means is that those standards are fluid, they are provisional. It means that one can question whether they should exist, whether the moral zeitgeist of the time is suited for the population therein.
But as far as things like child abuse go, I implore you to test your concept out that there’s no justification for moral behaviour by attacking a bear cub in front of it’s mother, or even a child in front of it’s father. We have an innate urge coded in our genes to protect children and while we can’t be absolute in saying “child molestation is wrong,” it would go against all sense as made by our genes to even begin to justify such behaviour.
You are misrepresenting both by saying that. Both of them provide a justification, Nietzsche by saying that people search for a different truth, Ruse by talking about our selfish genes. You are confusing the foundation of morality with absolute justification.
Can you not see that the reasoning is completely circular here? It’s right out of the fallacy section of a logic textbook.
Also:
To the first, how?
To the second, why?
Despite creationist lies to the contrary, no-one thinks anything is the result of ‘a toss of the cosmic dice’. Having five fingers is completely unrelated to our evolved morality/ethics; an un-cooperative species would not have evolved into the socially dependent creatures that humans are today. Hence, we know we evolved what we call morality.
And your ‘breathing air’ analogy – mocked not just here but by thousands across the internet on FSTDT for it’s breathtaking (no pun intended) inanity – is an epic FAIL because we can prove air exists. You prove your god to the extent that we can prove air and there wouldn’t be any atheists.
Of course there’s no foundation for morality in atheism – it’s the lack of belief in gods. No-one claims it has a foundation for morality. Evolution is a foundation for morality, but evolution ≠ atheism.
One more thing (before I get too drunk)
Our genes, our society, our experience – these are all factors in dictating our behaviour. There’s not any one way people should absolutely act, to say that misrepresents the nature of man and the nature of morality. But the point your missing [sic]fail is that one doesn’t need to have absolute justification in order to act. We behave in particular ways, and through mathematical modelling we can demonstrate that these outcomes should be there. Altruism should be an emergent behavioural pattern, sharing and working together are vital to the success of humanity – we aren’t solitary creatures after all.
And that by and large is what morality is – it’s a social construct born out of repeated interactions. So since we are social creatures, it’s in our best interests to play fair because not doing so will mean our exile from that communal structure. We have been social creatures for tens of millions of years, social bonding is not only important to us but to other primates and other social animals. So while some of our behaviour may be acquired through social interaction, having people more dispositional to act in those favourable manners without social coercion would present an advantageous trait for natural selection to work on. And this almost certainly happened before our ancestors developed these ‘higher’ cognitive faculties. Playing fair is the most dominant strategy for repeat interactions in game theory – who’d have thought?
I’d go one step further and say that not only is evolution a foundation for morality but an inescapable truth of morality’s existence. Once you have complex behaviours, the traits that are going to be most advantageous for keeping the gene lineage going are going to be expressed through our behaviour. Beyond that there is no need to explain morality as anything and everything we do can be accounted for through this natural process.
What facilis has subtlety done is in his argument taken the arguments against moral justification (which may have some merit but not in the way he thinks – he’s a very black & white thinker) and used that to argue against morality in general. They are two different things, it’s like bringing up the problem of induction while sitting at a computer. Like talking about cultural relativism while 30,000 feet in the air. Like talking about how evolution cannot explain the origin of gravity.
facilis makes a grand mistake in arguing against one concept (no moral justification) and then using that to conclude something different entirely (no moral foundation) and that makes him all the more deceptive. I’m sure he’s aware of the logical fallacy he’s committed, and I’m sure he’s aware that we could catch it out. For all the idiocy he spews, he does have some jellymeat up there firing in patterns. So he’ll keep this up because we fall for it every time. He uses a straw-man argument against a concept in order to knock down what is otherwise a solid argument.
And of course he can prove me wrong by attacking those poor helpless bear cubs, that is if he has faith in his own position.
Well I slope off to the pub and the thread explodes yet further. Oh well! The joys of time zones!
JFK right back at #242.
1) Misrepresenting Endor:
I’m sorry if you got the impression I think Endor’s position is as absolute as BMS’s, obviously it isn’t, but I maintain that Endor is twisting language in a similar (not identical) manner. I’ll cheerfully apologise for not making that clear. Rereading the thread I think I made it clear in context, but you don’t, so I’m happy to bow to that and state it clearly for you. Ok? If you and Endor think I’ve misrepresented her I’m genuinely sorry, I wouldn’t want to misrepresent anyone. I didn’t think I had, if my comments are read in context (rather than snipped for convenience out of sequence and out of context, as I note you’ve done).
2) Context dependancy:
First and foremost if you think that quote from Endor addresses my point you are gravely mistaken. In fact I’d go so far as to say that it is a straw man version of what I’m arguing for. I have never said, and will never say, that a new evolved meaning eradicates the older meaning. What I HAVE said is that because new meanings for some words have evolved one can use the word independently of it’s original meaning. I’ve cited “gay” (or “right” or “nice”) as examples. It’s curious how you ignore these examples to keep insulting me isn’t it? One doesn’t have to bear all the baggage associated with a word every time it is used. All I have been arguing for remember is that one cannot make a judgement about a person’s intent or motivations simply based on their use of a word in the absence of context. I would disagree with Endor that even intrinsic, unconscious, passive, cultural sexism is implied in a person simply by their use of the word “cunt” (for example). Context is key. Since this is such a trivially true point (as I’ve demonstrated several times, otherwise YOU’D be just as much a sexist as me) I can’t believe that stating it has caused such hand wringing on your part.
3) Offence:
I forget that you (or whoever) speak for all women. I don’t believe that you can validly claim that because you (and many people) find the use of a word offensive every woman does. As I’ve said at least three times, if these words are used ABOUT women in general or AT women in general or AT a woman in particular to pejoratively represent them i.e. “She’s just a cunt” or some such evil, then I fully agree that that is abhorrent, overt, active misogyny. I deplore it every bit as much as you and for the exact same reasons.
I even agree that, under certain circumstances, a person could say “he’s a cunt” and mean that, by reference to female genitals, and thereby the whole female, that this is also an expression of either overt or implicit misogyny. In fact if you read back I’ve never said I don’t think this.
However, and we’ve come back to context and evolving meanings again, at least here in the UK the meaning of the word “cunt” is often so far removed from female genitals (check the dictionary, it even has it defined as an undesirable person, no sex implied etc) that importing that meaning is not supportable. It’s usage in certain contexts doesn’t permit it. Again, just like “gay” or “right” or “nice” or “access” or any other words whose meaning has notably evolved (to the point of speciation) in recent years. My point is, and remains, that in the absence of context you cannot make the judgements about people you and others are seeking to make based on simple word usage.
4) Unpleasant conclusions:
You seem under the delusion that I somehow disagree with facts to protect myself from accusations of sexism etc. Not so. In fact quite the reverse as mentioned above. I’m more than happy to be so accused if the accusation is true. If it isn’t however, colour me unhappy. I suppose you were typing when you wrote the end of your post because you missed me @ post #239 apologise for missing EXACTLY what you quote from Endor about misandry.
If all you can do is continually miss the key points of the arguments and rely on insults and poor straw men to counter them then, I’m sorry but you lack a valid case. Despite you quite insulting insinuations, I’m not “obsessed” with anything, and since I’ve been around at Pharyngula perfectly happily since PZ started the blog (and even before) I’d rather you didn’t piss about dick waving ok?
Since I think we all (Endor included) agree on the basics, there are a few areas of disagreement to be sure, I’m happy to politely leave it there as an agree to differ if you are. Sound fair? I think in places, we may have misunderstood where the other is coming from and rather than correct it, let the tale of the thread stand. I’m happy to acknowledge that may go for or against me.
Cheers
Louis
BrokenSoldier OM @ #266:
Sorry I think you’ve moved the goalposts a bit, perhaps accidentally. I’ll explain, because perhaps we’re on the same page and maybe I’ve miscommunicated.
In post #222 you qouted me as saying:
What I meant by this was where their use was not with any racist intent or motivation. I.e. it was not the intent of the utterer to discriminate on the basis of race.
This is trivially the case, again I’ll explain how: I am using the word as part of a discussion about word usage, as indeed have many people the academic world over. I hope you are not accusing them, and me, of racism simply because we’ve used a word in a discussion about words.
If what is confusing people is that implied in all of these statements that the usage under discussion is pejorative, then I’d agree, I cannot think of one instance where the use of the word “nigger” can be used as an insult without it being racist. So I’d hope we can agree on those two extremes: academic/intellectual discussion, hence use, of a word is not racist, use of the word as an insult is. Again, this is an expansion of my point about context.
So clarification done, sorry for the divert, you replied in #222:
Chris Rock is using the word “nigger” and deliberately NOT ignoring the racist import of it. Hence why I used him as an example. I also think that one can hardly define his use of the word as being racist, i.e. one cannot accuse Chris rock of racism because he used the word in the context he did.
I think that you’ve moved the goalposts to claim that I was meaning one could use the word “nigger” utterly in the absence of racial context. I don’t, and didn’t claim that. I do claim that one can use the word IN CERTAIN CONTEXTS and not be a racist. (Not as a pejorative, as mentioned)
Does that clear it up?
I’m not defending the use of these words, very very VERY far from it. I am only taking issue with the claim that one can automatically move from use to some implication about morals/motives/intent etc because I don’t think it is ALWAYS valid to do so.
What is mildly amusing is that some people are trying very very hard to avoid that point. I’ve wasted a lot of electrons and finger skin cells typing quite politely that it’s the absolutist statements I disagree with, not the more nuanced ones, and some people still miss this. I realise these are emotive topics (for me also) but I’d appreciate not being demonised for something I’m not doing.
Cheers
Louis
JFK:
Before I forget: If you wish to bandy about accusations of misrepresentation and petulantly demand apologies, then I’d be grateful if you looked at post #190.
Should I perhaps demand an apology before I take you seriously?
Sorry to point out your error. Or should I assume it’s dishonesty and hypocrisy on your part with no further evidence, and damn you exactly as you seek to damn others in the absence of further information?
Louis
The cultural difference involved in using the word cunt on different sides of the Atlantic certainly would explain what I thought was a crazy over-reaction from people on this blog before. I couldn’t really fathom how cunt could be misogynistic to people, as over here it’s just a standard insult for when someone’s a jerk. I didn’t know cunt was slang for a sex organ until I was 16, and assumed it was slang for a male sex organ until I was 18. Clearly not mistakes I would have made if the insult carried any misogynistic element when I used it.
In Australia, we use the word “cunt” as a term of endearment. The way Americans react to the word just makes me want to use it more.
Endor,
Firstly, I’d like to apologise for missing this as I got caught up with JFK:
From post #206.
There are two things here, one is offence. Right away I’ll say that offence here is a red herring. I don’t for a second doubt that some people (many) find the use of these words offensive (even women from the UK ;-) ), and that their use can be intended to offend. I don’t agree that offence maps onto bigotry (implied or otherwise) or apathy/cluelessness etc.
The cry of “this is offensive” is not an argument. It is an intellectual equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and singing “la la la”. The religious people whose ideas we scrutinise claim that such scrutiny is offensive. Should we therefore stop? I don’t excoriate the use of the word “nigger” as a pejorative aimed at a black person or “bitch” as a pejorative aimed at a woman because they offend me (or anyone), but because, in these contexts (key phrase!) they are demonstrations of overt bigotry. It’s the context that defines the bigotry not the word.
And this brings me to, and indeed is, the second part of my disagreement with what you’ve written. What you, and others, are claiming is that words have unalterable baggage. I am arguing that they do not have UNALTERABLE baggage, I agree that can and often do have baggage, but that they extent that baggage is carried along depends on CONTEXT. I think this is actually the core of our disagreement, on everything else I see little material difference between us.
Again, I’ll use the utterly uncontroversial example of discussion of words. I cannot for a second believe that you think that simply discussing the use of the word “nigger” for example makes the people discussing it racists, implicitly or explicitly, arbiters or tacit supporters of privilege, apathetic or clueless architects of discrimination. Instantly we have a context dependant situation where use of a word does not imply any bigotry explicit or implicit, on the part of the user. This I hope you’ll agree is so trivially true as to be utterly uncontroversial. Can we build from here please?
Moving to pejorative usages, as you’ve said before, feminists excoriate the use of the word “dick” or “penis” in these ways. I’m glad they do because hopefully they do so in a way that removes the double standard. If calling someone a “penis” is misandrous, then calling someone a “cunt” is misogynistic. I’m not saying I agree this is the case, just that I’m glad that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander!
But it’s the baggage, as mentioned, where we really disagree. I was hoping someone would use my example of “gay”. The word “gay” based on history, etymology and original usage has the “baggage” of happiness. Does this therefore mean that if I describe someone as “gay” (note that I’m am not saying I do this in a negative or positive sense) I am carrying along that baggage of happiness in every case? Even though “I’ve stated several times now that the use of the word doesn’t automatically mean the user is claiming happiness. But it’s pretty likely that if not just a flat out happiness claimer, he’s clueless of the happiness claim or apathetic to it – neither which is much of an improvement.”?
Do you see what I did? I replaced the word bigot/bigotry with a phrase about happiness claims in a sentence you wrote back in post #206. I hope this illustrates the ridiculousness of your imputing baggage to every usage. This is my point! You are claiming that for certain words of shifting/shifted definition the baggage inseparable. I am claiming that the baggage’s separation status is defined by context (because that context defines which shifted meaning is being used).
I hope it’s clear what I’m trying to do: you, and others, have asserted that the baggage is always there. You’ve provided no grounds for this, and even though I strongly agree that in many, in not for some words all, cases this baggage exists it does not exist for all usages. I’ve tried (and possibly failed) to do this with examples ranging from the trivial and uncontroversial to the more controversial.
However, I am a little bemused by one thing. When you say, rightly in my experience, that some feminists also excoriate use of “dick” (for example) as a pejorative, are you then claiming that this is also an expression of bigotry, implicit or explicit, or apathy/cluelessness about inequalities? If so I think we both know that this would be more than a little disingenuous. Moreover, I’m happy to admit to the sexism inherent in my culture (and therefore myself) as something I should combat (and do where I can, I’m far from perfect!) but I don’t agree that this is an instance of it.
That disagreement is not because I wish to reserve these words for use, I don’t (as you note), but because I don’t agree with the linguistic claims you’re making. So sadly I don’t fall into your categories of explicit bigot, implicit bigot, apathetic perpetrator of the status quo or clueless rube simply parroting the fashions of those around me. I fall into a different category: principled, intellectual disagreement. I realise that’s terribly unfair of me, but there you go, my very existence disproves your contentions! The fact that I might be wrong in my arguments (a perfectly likely possibility I admit) doesn’t defeat that previous comment at all.
Cheers
Louis
PZM : “Islam hates women”
and you love abortion.
What is the difference ?
Seeing we are still left to our own devices,here is Maher with the most evil woman on the planet,from yesterday….
All,
I know I should have shut up ages ago. I know tl;dr. I know.
I am, surprisingly for a scientist perhaps, very interested in language. So (despite JFK’s insults to the contrary) very interested in how it’s used, controlled, how it evolves etc. I really don’t care about the use of ANY of these “naughty” words in and of themselves, I’m taking issue with what I see as a fundamentally linguistic claim. Actually one that is relevant, and dangerous, to atheism, science etc. If for example people try to restrict the use of language on the basis of offence alone, then we are screwed. Utterly fucked. What offends me might not offend you etc. De gustibus non est disputandum. That way madness lies, issues of taste are often complex, unconscious and difficult to determine. Etc. I’m sure we all know the arguments by now.
If however one wants to use language as a gauge of a person’s mindset then I support this, agree entirely and do this when capable of gathering the relevant context. As I said above, it is trivially obvious that words qua words, in and of themselves are meaningless in the absence of context. Words are tokens we use to exchange ideas and as such, the environment of that exchange is vital. So I agree that, for example, the etymology of a word is important, but in the course of a word’s evolution genuine examples of speciation happen. The word “gay” being a beautiful example. The use of the word “gay” to mean “happy” is comparatively rare, and is a genuinely different meaning, utterly separate from in fact, the more common usage of “gay” to mean “homosexual”. The two definitions have nothing to do with each other any more (they did originally). “Gay” has speciated.
Words like “cunt” have yet to fully speciate in the way the “gay” has. I agree that in many contexts (cultural one included) that lack of full separation means that exactly s Endor and others have claimed, use of the word as a pejorative is indicative of exactly what they claim (bigotry, apathey etc). I don’t agree that this is always the case because that speciation has occurred to a sufficient degree that use as pejorative alone (in the absence of context) is insufficient to establish their claim.
The word “nigger” is another example, and it’s a great point on this sliding scale to note. This is a word that has not speciated at all. There are no new definitions. It means what it always did. Therefore it is easier to use this word as an indicator of a specific mindset. Easier, but not perfectly so. Its use as a pejorative however is exactly what people claim it is, and as The Lady rightly notes, getting that pejorative usage recognised as an indicator of bigotry has been an uphill (and well documented) struggle.
My point remains that there are shades of grey here, varying in hue from word to word based partly on their speciation status. I hope that, despite length, repetition and turgidity, that is clear to someone other than me!
Thanks and apologies for derailing. Mind you, it’s slightly more interesting than dealing with Facilis. ;-)
Louis
Louis,
no you should not have shut up,since your posts were among the ones that made sense on this thread.
As to JFK,i shall refrain from commenting since ive had too many beers,but it wouldnt be pretty.
We used to have more commenters like you here.Nuff said.
That’s not saying a whole lot, is it?
lol, go Bill!
Simple Simon the Pointless Lieman. Still afraid to really posit an argument and then supply some evidence. Inane comments llke #371 lead us to believe you are a teenager. Act like an adult or go way. I suggest the latter.
Hey Kel,didnt I just post that ? LOL
PZM : “Islam hate women”
and you enjoy homosexual
What is the difference ?
#Tis Himself,
You’re right, it isn’t saying a lot. But I thought I’d set the bar appropriately low!
;-)
Louis
Yes, which is why I put it in a quote box.
Simon,
PZM enjoy homosexual?
Didn’t you know that despite all the debate and disagreement everyone at Pharyngula is actually in the same place just piled up having every possible kind of sex, gay, straight, animal, vegetable and mineral? As we do it we are all smoking a variety of drugs, drink driving, performing abortions, kicking puppies, spraying acid into the eyes of kittens, worshipping satan, denying the holy spirit, not worshipping satan, eating babies, making Ed Gein type furniture from the flayed skins of millions of murdered christians, and whittling massive dongs from marrows in order to satiate our terrible urges?
It’s just you that’s left out.
I hope this helps clear things up for you. Now did you have a point or are you just a driveby wanker posting pointless drivel as some kind of attempt at argument?
Louis
Simple Simon the IDIOT Lieman, You talk gibberish. Way to show idiocy. If you have a point, make it with complete sentences like we do, or go away.
I’m skeptical that words like “faggot” are unmistakable signs of bigotry. “Girly-man” and variant expressions are used as pejoratives, and yet I doubt the implication there is that women are inferior. The goal of insults like “girly-man” is to belittle someone’s manhood. Same goes with “gay” and “faggot”, in many instances.
And yes, people can take great pride in their “manhood”, without being in the least bigoted or intolerant. I doubt their doing so makes much logical sense. Not everyone takes the trouble to subject his own convictions to fine-comb scrutiny.
Really, Neil? So tell me, what impact do any of your posts here have upon the lives of women in Muslim countries? Zero.
So what harm comes about if the discussion gets derailed somewhat? Zero.
And you complaining about a discussion of sexist language, what difference does that make upon the lives of women in Muslim countries? Zero.
But you can have an impact on the world right in front of you. You can silence any discussion of sexist language on this thread. So that’s what you choose to do.
And you, Neil, coming from the stupendous height of privilege that it takes to tell other people what they can and can talk about, and where… well, it’s certainly the height of irony.
Nobody suggested taking away your freedom of expression. Nobody wants to infringe upon your First Amendment rights. But normal people do consider other people in their day to day lives. When you interpret a request for human empathy as an affront to your precious little ego, then you are in fact being a crybaby. Did you throw these same tantrums when your parents tried to teach you to say please and thank you? Grow up, kid.
As long as we are discussing language, the Online Etymology Dictionary says that cunt is of unknown origin, not necessarily from the Latin ‘cunnus’.
Kel:
Has anyone taught you the Finnish equivalent yet? :)
PZM : “PZM : “Islam hate women”
and you are a drug addict
What is the difference ?
so, 1 vs 3, which one is better ?
it is absurd to judge other if yours is worse !
Wisdom :
You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
Erasmus, do try to at least address the replies that have already been given. Like,
And the whole idea that being called a “faggot” should be damaging to one’s “manhood,” presumes that being a “faggot” is bad.
You really are not even trying to be honest, Erasmus. You know damned well that when men are taunted with “faggot” it’s because that’s presumed to be a bad thing. There is no honest way to deny this. I await your bullshitting.
Louis:
You can debate semantics all you want Loius, but the fact is that there are some words in the language that have absolutely no other meaning. You can discuss the word academically, but there is no other use for that word other than as a racist epithet. Similarly, there is no other use for the words wop, kike, or any number of other racially slanderous terms – the point being that aside from discussing the prejudice of racial slurs, there is no reason to dicuss them “academically.”
Your first and last statements are contradictory. Again, point out where it can be used outside its only definition, and why there is any benefit to discussing it academically, and then you will have shown that it cannot be indicative “perfectly so.”
Hah. Bring it. You’re an imbecile and always have been.
Not yet, I’m still learning the very basics. Figured learning the difference between kyla, kylla, and kyyla (excuse the missing dots) was enough to start with. Especially kyyla
Louis, you’re trying to imply that you’re the only person here who sees shades of gray. But, from way back when:
Louis:
Wow, the idiocy in that statement is absolutely blinding. After all, if you’ve only internalized racism within yourself, its crazy to call you a racist, right??
And as for “we all have,” speak for your damn self. Ever since I reached the age of reason, the type of society I live has never, and will never, dictate the content of my character. That’s just a cop out for someone holding a certain viewpoint and not letting go of it.
BrokenSoldier OM:
With great respect I think you have missed my point and moved the goalposts again. Please reread what I said above.
I thought I’d explained myself pretty clearly. I am not saying that word “nigger” can be used with meanings other than its original meaning, in fact I’ve been unbelievably clear on the matter. I think you are conflating ” a person’s racist intent” with ” a word’s racist meaning”.
I’ve explained the example I used, why I used it, and what relevance it has in post #366. I’ve done so clearly and politely, and I don’t think I deserve to have my argument misrepresented the way you are currently doing. Like I said, please reread. Sorry if this reply is not satisfactory.
JFK:
No I am absolutely NOT trying to imply that. Please stop misrepresenting me and imputing motives to me that I simply don’t have. Try acting as if you believe I’m trying to have an intellectual discussion in good faith, because you’ll find I am.
Louis
Let’s just be clear, here, Louis.
What you are requesting is that you should be able to call people “cunts” without anyone thinking of you as a misogynist for it.
This is, quite frankly, an absurd request, one that will never be granted. Women who are called “cunts” recognize the word for its misogyny. You aren’t going to convince them that their own experiences are lies. And yet you go on, and on, and on, about how no one has any right to use the experiences of their own lives in order to apply a heuristic to you.
Again, you may or may not be a misogynist. You insist upon sounding like one. After being told that you sound like one, you continue to insist upon it. It is reasonable then to assume that you are okay with being judged as a misogynist. That’s all. That’s all anyone said; you sound like one, so we’re going to reasonably assume that you are one.
Fine with you? Fine with me.
#393 should have been labeled Endor
Kel: Here you go
Erm BrokenSoldier OM, I didn’t say that!
It’s a quote from someone else. Gimme a minute to check back and see if I fucked up block quotes.
Louis
Thanks Windy, bookmarked it for later use. I’ll learn the language yet, one vittu at a time.
Posted by: Louis | March 14, 2009 9:06 AM
I have no need to – you still haven’t enumerated why that word should justifiably be used, outside its racial connotations. And you’ve even admitted as much, yet for some reason you derive some pleasure out of constantly seeing it placed in your posts.
If the only meaning a single word has is a racist one, then the only reason for repeatedly using that word is to convey its racial nature across to the recipient. No one here has deigned to discuss that word “academically” – whatever the fuck that means – so your incessant insistence on using it is getting really tired, and it is becoming clear that you simply enjoy using the word. And since the word cannot justifiably be used in any other than a racist manner, by trying to “discuss it academically,” you are merely trying to create some artifical reason to justify your continued use of it.
Posted by: Louis | March 14, 2009 9:09 AM
Look two posts above yours there.
My point is that male competition often revolves around an abstractum called manhood. It’s a vague and broad concept, but there are a few fairly concrete ideas about what it is and what it isn’t. One thing seems to be clear, and that is that most men interpret manhood as being in opposition with stereotypically gay (“camp”) behaviour.
My opinion is that many men are playing a game against one another, in which the objective is to accumulate the most “manhood points”. Being “gay” and/or “girly”, for whatever reason, gives you negative points. This game operates on a purely instinctive level, with very little being thought through consciously.
According to this view, gay men aren’t in general seen as “inferior”. They’re just losers in an imaginary pissing contest.
I am of course not condoning any of the above. The concept of manhood is riddled with pitfalls, if you look at it closely enough. So is the Cartesian theatre. Nonsensical ideas can nonetheless have deep behavioural significance.
JFK:
I don’t think you are being fair, when Louis said in the very first post on this subject that
Brokensoldier, I don’t know if Endor is coming back to the thread, but I’ll try to explain this.
The point is to try to get people to examine their prejudices without raising defenses. Okay, we all grow up in a racist culture. It’s to be expected that we will all learn some racism from growing up in this culture. That explains the results of implicit association test, for instance (go try the test if you never have before).
Acknowledging that we have all learned some racism is just necessary, it’s a fact. It doesn’t mean that we’re all “bad people” or whatever, though. And it’s really, really hard to talk to someone about unlearning racism if they’re putting up defenses, insisting “but I can’t be racist, I’m not a bad person,” etc.
So it’s helpful, sometimes, when people are at least willing to consider the possibility that this is a racist society, to get them to think about the things they’ve learned since they were small children. And one way to do that is to point out internalized racism without jumping down their throats and yelling, “aha, you’re a racist!” That just raises the defenses and then they can’t examine any subconscious prejudices.
By being relatively nonjudgemental instead, acknowledging that almost everyone learns some subconscious racism, and not by their own intention, but by accident, people can learn to approach their biases, without hating themselves for it (which is useless) and without plugging their ears and yelling “no no no I’m not a racist, I can’t be a racist” (also, useless).
This rhetorical device is a well tested tool, and to the extent that anything works, it works.
Now, how did you do on the implicit association test? If, for instance, it turned out that you have a slight unconscious preference for white faces, then do you think it’s really helpful to call that “just a cop out for someone holding a certain viewpoint and not letting go of it”?
People put way too much thought into the meaning behind certain expressions. Once a word hits the lexicon, surely the case can be made that use of it is imitation rather than something malicious.
Admittedly, that was harsh, and I see that it’s not really what Endor was saying. I have to humbly retract that one.
Erasmus, this is bullshit and you know it. You aren’t fooling anyone.
@ JFK #395:
NO!!!!
As I’ve said repeatedly I am explicitly NOT asking for this, this has been your consistent straw man of what I am saying.
To be blunt I am beginning to think you are deliberately, and therefore dishonestly, misrepresenting me, because I’ve been extremely clear about this.
What I am arguing is that “Simple use of word X is insufficient grounds for judgement Y in the absence of context” which is what BMS claimed (the start of this cascade) and what (in a slightly different way) Endor and others claimed re: implicit bigotry/apathy/cluelessness etc. It was an absolutist claim: use of word X as insult always equals motives Y. I’m taking issue with that absolutist linguistic claim. Period. Nothing more, nothing less. As, again, I’ve explained several times.
As I’ve said several times if one is directing the word “cunt” at a woman in order to derogate her as nothing more than her genitals, of course that horribly misogynist. Referring to women as “cunts” equally so. Deliberately referring to anyone as a “cunt” with the express intent of derogation by association with female genitals is also equally abhorrent. BUT, and this is the key point that you and Endor and everyone have failed to address (and look up thread I addressed the straw man you quote), that whatever original meaning exists, however bigoted SOME uses are, because the meaning of the word has evolved not ALL uses are.
I am in no way trying to excuse myself anything or reserve myself anything. I am arguing against a specific linguistic claim. As stated, clearly, several times. Please, please, please, PLEASE try to realise that.
Louis
And kids grow up imitating their parents saying “nigger.” Imitation doesn’t rob the word of its meaning.
Kel,
You have to pick a good time to do this however. If the mother bear is busy killing 42 children in the name of God it might not work.
Facilis,
You just contradicted yourself.
And that’s where you analogy fails. We have tons of empirical evidence for the existence of air. Nothing remotely similar can be said about God. When asked to give empirical evidence for God you gave a an abstract, theoretical, fallacious argument and not once pointed to data.
That one is different because of it’s explicit connotation to racism.
Broken SoldierOM,
I think we cross posted re: posts 401/398/396 your quote of Endor above. Don’t worry I won’t demand an apology! ;-)
Re: #400:
I am in no way getting any pleasure out of using the N word (if that’s how you prefer it to be written, frankly, I see no need to be so twee), it is an EXAMPLE of an unevolved word.
I could get quite annoyed by your insult, because it’s false and very rude, but I won’t. I genuinely think you have honestly misread my argument and I would hope you are capable of the basic intellectual honesty to go back and reread something that someone is sincerely asking you to because they feel you have misrepresented them.
I have explained, very clearly and patiently that I am not trying to achieve what you think I am trying to achieve. Please try to read what I have actually written and deal with what I am actually saying. I sincerely beg of you, if only because I don’t think we differ that greatly on this issue. I am really not saying, for example, that the word can be used outside of its racist connotations. As I mentioned you’re conflating a word’s meaning with the intentions of it’s user (which is what this discussion has been about).
I honestly cannot ask this sincerely enough. I don’t think you have grasped what argument I am making, rather than restate it AGAIN, please reread it. I think you have honestly made a mistake/misreading. I am not saying the things you claim I am saying. Is it beyond you to admit that the possibility exists that you have misunderstood?
Louis
Then drop it. Nobody cares about your weird little obsession. No, that was not what Endor claimed, and no one else has endorsed what BMS claimed, and BMS hasn’t come back. If that is your obsession, then you are talking to no one.
I don’t care, Louis. I don’t care if some asshole thinks that “that’s gay” is an appropriate way to communicate “that’s bad,” but the asshole doesn’t hold a big heap of homophobic beliefs.
I don’t care. What I know is that enough people who say “that’s gay” to mean “that’s bad” are homo-hating, and it’s a pretty useful rule of thumb.
And if I tell the asshole that “that’s gay” is not an appropriate way of saying “that’s bad”, and the asshole doesn’t care that he sounds like a homo-hater, and continues to do it anyway, then I know that the asshole is an asshole, not worth my time or respect.
So.
Even if there are non-misogynist ways to use the word “cunt,” I don’t care if some a few non-misogynist assholes have come up with such ways. They still sound like misogynists. And if, upon being told that they sound like misogynists, they continue to do it, then I conclude they don’t care about being judged as misogynists. And so I will judge them as misogynists. Fine with them, fine with me.
JFK,
Incidentally there is not a word of your post #404 I would disagree with.
Please understand that you have been misreading my argument, and misinterpreting the direction of it. My arguments are directed PURELY at a linguistic claim made by BSM and slightly differently by Endor. For the love of reason please understand the difference between that and your straw man.
Cheers
Louis
Different, how? Different than “cunt” and its explicit connotation to sexism? Different than “faggot” and its explicit connotation to homophobia? What else are we talking about?
Louis:
You are trying to claim that the racial slur against african-americans is just as harmless as the word ‘cunt,’ as long as you don’t mean it as an insult. But – unlike the word ‘cunt,’ which I tend to agree with you concerning misogyny – that racial slur is simply unnecessary, and an academic discussion of it is an exercise in futility. As you said, its etymology simply has not evolved. I do take back the suggestion that you simply enjoy using it, with apologies, but my position is unmoved concerning the needlessness of its use. As Kel pointed out above, this word is simply in a class of its own, due both to its lack of alternate meaning and its extreme history of hatred.
Simon, please shut the fuck up.
You’re embarrassing yourself.
JFK:
And you’re not fooling anyone either. You’re clearly trolling, trying to bait us with unnecessarily provocative language.
There’s no evidence I’m not being honest. I thought I made some valid points.
The continual reminder of the use of such a word. If you are going to understand how a word is used in a society then I suggest you actually drop the idea that meaning is static and see in what context the word is used in the everyday lexicon. In Australia, the word “cunt” has become a term of endearment, it’s not used in Australia like it’s used in America at all. And if you didn’t understand the way in with Australians use slang and profanity, it could easily be misconstrued as being a misogynistic insult when it’s use for the most part is nothing of the sort. Sure it can be used as a derogatory insult to women – but it’s seldom use in that respect and it’s continued use in a different way means that when an Aussie says “cunt” it has no misogynistic leanings at all.
All I’m saying is that it’s important to understand how a word is used and how that fits into the culture of a society. And from that words can and do change meaning over time. That needs to be kept in mind before jumping to conclusions about the character of such a person using the word.
JFK,
Is it really beyond you to act like a rational adult and treat someone who disagrees with you honestly and politely as acting in good faith? Please quit the insults, they are unnecessary and based on your misunderstandings of what I am saying.
I don’t have any weird little obsession, and I am absolutely NOT defending the sorts of usages you give examples of with the “that’s gay” etc. I’d agree that those are (at least potentially, context dependant) expressions of (latent) homophobia.
And btw, Endor DID explicitly claim that “use of word X is, in the absence of context, indicative of intent/attitude Y”. She did it in a different way than BMS and to a different extent, as mentioned by me several times above, and I have been explicitly addressing Endor’s points. See post #370 above for example. BTW Iam not being rude to Endor, trying to call her names, insult her, disparage her or upset her. I am merely disagreeing with a specific claim she made (I think on other grounds she and I, and indeed you and I have great points of agreement), perfectly politely and hopefully in an intellectual way.
I suppose your comments and insults re: weird little obsessions etc are attempts to silence me. I could comment on the irony of this, but I shan’t.
As I said to BrokenSoldier OM, please reread what I have written and try to do so on the assumption that I am acting in good faith. I might be wrong, I freely admit the possibility exists, but unfortunately thus far you haven’t addressed my actual arguments. I’m sorry if you don’t like me saying that, but I’m at a loss to say it more politely. I know it’s long, and I have repeated myself several times but I’d be grateful if we could treat each other with a modicum of respect as thus far I have tried to deal politely with your arguments and not impute motives/biases etc to you. Please assume I am acting in good faith, no matter how mistaken you believe me to be.
Cheers
Louis
Outright dishonesty:
Now, Erasmus, either you inhabit some parallel dimension where there is no violence against gay people, no laws privileging straight relationships over gay ones, and no religious movement to brainwash gay people into being “ex-gay,” or you’re bullshitting.
On the one hand, we have your assertion that gay people are not generally seen as inferior to straight people, and on the other hand, we have all the evidence in the world to the contrary.
Maybe they don’t care about being judged as misogynists by people who refuse to consider that the word has a different context in different English-speaking countries.
What about people who say “bugger”?
Could you please provide a few examples of the careful uses and relevant contexts you’re talking about?
IST, way above:
Leaving aside for the moment that you evidently don’t understand what gender roles are,… My friend’s mother died yesterday.* She worked for Planned Parenthood in the earliest days and was on the front lines fighting for women’s reproductive rights for decades. She was also the first person I ever heard speak out bluntly against the Catholic Church and its misogyny in social situations, well before the appearance of the “New Atheists.” My friend and her sister cared for her and their father for more than a decade of her degenerative disease. People who associate strength and bravery with one gender can go fuck themselves.
*Yes, it’s been a very sad week.
@BrokenSoldier #416:
NONONONONONO!
God fucking FSM NO!
I am absolutely in no way in any sense trying to claim that! Crikey! No no no!I could not be more emphatically NOT trying to claim that!
It is not a harmless word, and no way near as “harmless” as cunt (and really that word is not 100% harmless either). This is why I have been appealing for you to reread what I have written. I could tell from the outset that this was the misapprehension you were operating under, I didn’t mention it because I thought (probably correctly) that it would derail things further.
Please BrokenSoldier, reread my post above at (I think) #366, I have honestly tried to clear up the misapprehension in that post.
Thanks
Louis
The word bastard is another word used in Aussie english as a term of endearment, and an insult. Though the insult has nothing to do with it’s original meaning. It’s not an insult to do with being born out of wedlock anymore, no-one really gives a shit about that former-societal status symbol.
“The clerics apparently didn’t like the thought of being out-crazied by that Bishop in Brazil. ‘
Curiously, the events in Brazil didn’t result in calls to bomb Catholic countries back to the Stone Age.
First, facilis, take the hand out of your pants. It has made you go blind.
Atheist morality:
If I do X will it harm myself or others? No – proceed to next point.
Yes = X’
If I do X, will it help myself or others? Yes = X, no = X‘
Third, am I drunk or judgement-impaired, or just plain stupid? Yes? Postpone decision. In your case, permanently.
If we’ve passed these simple tests, then, go on to consult others, consider possible selfish prejudices, and repeat questions carefully if X is a serious act, with many possible consequences.
But I’m afraid that playing dead-philosopher-blindfold-idea-pointy/quotey just doesn’t work on any level.
Tell me, who does wipe your bottom? Nietzsche?
mrd‘mr
It’s an insult against women that has been more broadly appropriated. Yes, I understand that. Everyone fucking understands that. The point is that you’re using the connotations of an insult against women to give meaning to other insults. Like when “that’s gay” becomes a general purpose “that’s bad.” But the connotation only works because it presumes being gay as being a bad thing. Likewise “cunt” only works for other insults because it presumes associations of femaleness as being a bad thing.
So, it’s an insult against women, except when it’s not, and when it’s not, even though you sound like a misogynist, you insist that no one is allowed to judge you as a misogynist.
By all means, Kel, Windy, if you want to use language that so many women recognize as a hateful slur against them, go ahead. I can’t stop you.
But if you know that you sound like a misogynist, and you decide to continue to sound like a misogynist, just don’t be surprised when people judge you as a misogynist.
No, but I inhabit a parallel dimension that’s pretty close to that. It’s a little place called Western Europe. I don’t see a shred of evidence that gays are treated as “inferior” in Western Europe, and much of America. Quite the opposite a lot of the time, due to the sensitivity and the pressure groups.
Anyway, my phrasing was clumsy. Obviously in most of the world homosexuals are discriminated against and seen as inferior. What I meant is that homosexuals aren’t necessarily seen as inferior by those people who throw around words like “faggot”. I wanted to draw attention to the possibility of a class of insults that’s used in “manhood games” and doesn’t really have any wider significance.
I have. Louis. I have. Over and over again.
I am beginning to suspect that you just don’t care.
If that happens, it happens. You can’t change the preconceptions of people, all you can do is act within the limits as best you can. On here since a lot of you are Yankees I don’t use profanity much because I’ve found that it doesn’t fly in American dialogue unless one is angry. When I’m on Australian sites or hanging with friends, we all swear a lot more because we know the boundaries of what one can say.
So yes people will judge, people are great at judging others. Calling for a bit of tolerance and understanding of the cultural context surely isn’t too much to ask for.
By the way, in the north of England, at least, “cunt” as a pejorative usually doesn’t have misogynistic implications, any more than “dickhead” or “wanker”. In fact it is very often 100% interchangeable with “prick”.
If I recall, you are from the UK. Where straight people are first-class citizens who can get married, but gay people are second-class citizens who are … ahem, “separate but equal.”
As for America, Erasmus, you don’t have a fucking clue.
If in these “games,” “manhood” is a “good thing,” and being a “faggot,” (Jesus, Erasmus, you really love defending your hate speech don’t you), being a “faggot” diminishes that “good thing,” “manhood,” then being a “faggot” is a “bad thing.”
It’s simple, it’s obvious, you cannot honestly argue otherwise, so how about you “fuck off.”
Sorry. Meant to say “…any more than ‘dickhead’ or ‘wanker’ have misandrous implications”.
As regards the use of the word “cunt” – isn’t it entirely company dependent? I call my best male friends this, sometimes, no female friend this, ever, and one-or-two real life enemies this, not to their faces, but as the most brutal way I can think of to express their cosmic nastiness and negative influence.
However, the usage of the word as an insult, and it seems to have no other function, is problematic – I can imagine circumstances in which I get carried away and have to apologise to a whole room full of people for saying it. Which serves me right for getting it wrong.
And although this is slightly OT, don’t women who have just seen The Vagina Monologues leave the theatre chanting it, and with T-shirts bearing it in large letters?
And when women say “please don’t use the word cunt that way” and you reply “sorry but your opinion doesn’t count,” well, that’s either privilege or outright sexism.
No, it has a different connotation in those contexts. Like “bastard”, “bugger” or “dick”: they no longer immediately invoke the original meaning of the insult.
Thanks for the patronizing endorsement. I’m sure none of us plan to run around calling women cunts in North America or other contexts where it is considered hateful. But if the word has lost much of its misogynistic connotation in UK or Australia, isn’t that a good thing?
That is complete and utter bullshit. The Civil Partnership Act of 2004 gives gay couples identical rights to opposite-sex married couples. You accuse me of not “having a fucking clue”. I suggest that in future you ensure you know what you’re talking about before using such cocksure, confrontational language.
No, I’m not defending it. I made that clear. I think the word is highly distasteful and I am against using it. My point was merely that those who do use it are not necessarily homophobes.
If present company takes offence, then I apologise and move on. Of course their opinion counts, if you are going to argue please don’t build up straw-man arguments to attack.
Keep running with that idea then. Go on and explain how it’s a good thing that “that’s gay” has come to mean “that’s bad.”
“Identical rights” except that they’re not good enough to be called married.
Gay people are second class citizens in most every country on earth. Certainly the UK. If they were first class citizens then they could get married like everybody else.
Jesus, Erasmus, then get a fucking clue:
You really are slow.
A friend of mine worked for the BBC World Service. There, he told me, was a Finn, working as a sound technician, who was very tall, very bald, very well-built, and very gay.
Just to make this plain, he often wore a T-shirt with QUEER AS FUCK written on it.
What did they do, in a place where important politicians and dignitaries were constantly in the building? Well, they just shuffled him off to the most distant studio they had, and tried to make sure that he was steered well away from the VIPs who were around.
What they didn’t do, was to tell him not to wear it.
SC OM @ 423,
I presume that’s a quote from way back up in the thread. I’ll cheerfully give those examples, but, and forgive the presumption on my part here, I’m going to hope you’ve read what I am actually arguing for and not the misrepresentations others have made.
I understand gender roles perfectly well, and I also detest the association of strength and bravery with one sex (or gender if you prefer. Interestingly the word “gender” taken as it was from linguistics and applied to people is a point in proof of one of the things I’ve been arguing for). If you’ll forgive me asking SC, please do what some others have failed to do and, painful though it is, read all I have written with some care. People have mistaken the argument I have made a couple of times,I would hate to have any disagreement with you based on misunderstanding.
I understand and agree with IST’s points in one sense: associations of the kind IST refers to ARE examples of bigotry, my point is that there are words for which the definitions have evolved beyond their original meanings. For example, in the UK (as mentioned) the words cunt and twat (particularly twat) have the genuine, separate from female genitalia, meaning of “undesirable or stupid person” for example “acting the twat” literally means acting the fool. “Acting like a dick” means exactly the same thing. These are colloquial, regional uses of originally sex oriented words that have an evolved meaning separate from their origins. Again, for example, like the word “gay” or “nice”. Incidentally “acting like a turd” in the UK typically means acting not stupidly, but unpleasantly.
An example of the use of “cunt”:
“Arse! I’ve dropped the cunting sugar!”
Here “cunt”, like “fuck” (a possible replacement for it in this example) has been rendered almost meaningless. It is a modifier, a word used to express irritation by the potential shock value it has. I assure you these are common, if unpleasant usages in the UK. Interestingly if one uses these “emphasis words”/”modifiers” too much their meaninglessness is heightened at the expense of their effect. It becomes almost comical/foolish in an of itself.
“Barry stop acting the cunt and lift your end of the sofa!”
Another usage of the word “cunt” (twat/dick/cock/wanker/fuckwit/moron/arsehole etc would be interchangeable here, pussy/wimp/girl would not, it would change the meaning) this time intended to imply foolishness not derogation by association with women’s genitals. Note the interchangeability of other insults commonly (if crudely) used for “fool”
“Barry is a cunt, I’m going no where near where he is.”
Another usage of “cunt”, similarly interchangeable with the words above, this time used to indicate unpleasantness. The point to note is that these words are interchangeable with male sexed words, sexless words, they are the standard scatological/excretory “dirty” words and not used to imply a sexed connotation.
I freely agree and admit that in different parts of the world these usages are not common and as such the judgements people have been basing on their use might be (more) valid. However, that doesn’t defeat one of the central points I have been making, in fact it reinforces it: that the assumption of bigotry on the part of someone who uses the word is dependant on context.
I have freely agreed that, for example, if these words are directed at a woman, and if their context is such that it is obvious that derogation of that woman on the basis of referring to her as mere genitalia, then this is abhorrent misogyny. What I am taking issue with is that simple use is enough to establish misogyny, overt or latent, apathy to the plight of women, cluelessness etc. Please understand the difference.
Incidentally, the word “pussy” is a good example, like “bitch” of a highly sexually charged word. Describing someone as a “pussy” is, I heartily agree, a derogation of them based on comparison with female genitals and as such and example of (at least) latent bigotry or ignorance. Referring to women as bitches is likewise. You’ll not find me defend those usages anywhere. Nor in fact am I defending the use of these words, all I am doing is disagreeing with a SPECIFIC set of (slightly differing) linguistic claims made by BMS, Endor and others.
Cheers
Louis
Nullity of Marriage Act 1971:
Hint: if your nation has explicitly anti-gay laws on the books, like this one, then gay people are second class citizens at best.
It doesn’t mean that – “that’s gay” refers to something which is rubbish, unfashionable, undesirable, and naff. That’s even more annoying to gays than it just being pejorative – so in a way we’ve moved on.
I think it can be funny myself – as in “I hate Shakespeare – he’s so/i> gay”. And, to an extent, it punctures a certain pomposity gay people sometimes have.
Which is nothing, I think, to detract from their right to be, to do, and to marry.
@ JFK #430,
Sadly no you haven’t, you beaten up a lot of straw and chucked more than a few unwarranted insults about. I’d like to think that you could recognise the myriad points on which we agree, and recognise your misrepresentations of my arguments, but I won’t hold my breath.
I’m sorry you apparently think that acting like a rational adult and arguing with people in good faith is something you don’t need to do.
Louis
Gay couples do call it marriage if that’s how they like to see it. The law doesn’t call it marriage, understandably, because it doesn’t want to open a new can of worms, given how the word has always been loaded with religious connotations. How does any of this make homosexuals “second-class citizens”? You were obviously exaggerating (bullshitting, if I want to use your ruthlessly uncharitable vernacular).
Also JFK, please don’t mistake my arguments for those of other people (no names mentioned) re: “that’s gay”. because I am not making those arguments.
Louis
Oh, wonderful. So “gay” is “rubbish” and “undesirable”.
Look, you’re making my point for me.
Louis:
Then I was mistaken. That particular term is one I loathe for very pointed and personal reasons, and thus I do not see any reason for having an academic discussion about it. That is why I reacted as I did, and why I took your statements and usage of it to mean what I did.
Errr…possibly. But it’s no longer hatespeak, in common parlance (which is not of course to deny that there is hatespeak and hatred towards gays here – a friend of mine’s brother was actually beaten to death in a “gay-bashing” attack – yes, they were caught and imprisoned – but to an extent, gay people have been absorbed and accepted, which is just as it should be.
However, I think that “naff” is better than “scary, threatening person”. I imagine that in the US the word “faggot” still has more of the second meaning.
Then, of course, there are the more militant gays who insist on appropriating words like “queer” as proud statements of political existence and intent.
SC> Sorry to hear about your friend’s mother. Note that I was giving the reason males use those words to insult other males, not asserting that reason is valid.
JFK> You have twice now done exactly what you demand an apology for: attributed statements to people who didn’t make them. Your first block quote in 421 is Matt, you give credit to Erasmus in your haste to attack him.(The other is WAY above) I won’t demand an apology for either, because they’re perfectly capable of handling that themselves if they see fit. By what right do you demand apologies for other people? In Endor’s place, I’d find it demeaning. Hopefully she doesnt.
Secondly, are you willing to admit that your “rule of thumb” for determining who is sexist, homophobic, or otherwise prejudiced is dogmatic and the application of a stereotype? Since you’re so into consciousness raising?
It may be that if I choose to use an insult that slanders a group to which the person I’m insulting doesn’t belong, I get labelled as having a bias against that group. This is something I have to deal with for using that word. The question is are you really looking to non-argumentatively point out someone’s unconscious biases, or are you looking to take offense because someone happened to say a word you don’t like? The second is appreciated (at least by me), and Endor did a reasonably good job of it. You on the other hand have been combative from the beginning, slinging insults and attacking strawmen. Care to reconcile that?
Short form: Neil’s right in stating that looking for offence in another’s words falls into the whiny PC nonsense… It doesn’t hurt my ego that you label me as a result unless I value your opinion. With most people I don’t at all, which makes me insensitive and not empathetic; I’m perfectly comfortable with that. Let’s not paint something for what it isn’t. My bias (at least the conscious one) is against dimwittery and the life version of concern trolls. I’m not going to go out of my way to cause offence unless I really intend to do so, unintentional offence to people about whom I actually care will be atoned for, and someone who happens to hear/see something they don’t like (when i don’t know/like/respect them) isn’t something I’m inclined to care about.
Louis> How’s the tar baby treating you? I had a free hand, so I thought I’d get that one stuck too. I have to say, I admire your perserverence.
Regarding the Nullity of Marriage Act 1971. I think the main reason for that law was to get around the possibility of being married to someone who would turn out to be a transsexual.
Louis, I recognize that. You are decent enough to admit when homophobia is homophobia.
I don’t know why AnthonyK is now intent upon denying homophobia.
As you might imagine, this sort of denialism is very frustrating to deal with on a daily basis.
I’m going to bed after I insult Erasmus one more time. Please accept my apologies for not addressing everything you’ve said.
All that I hope you understand from me is at #413. This addresses what I found relevant in your posts. The rest, in my opinion, has been skirting around the point of what Endor said at #194. Good night.
JFK:
Apparently my opinion doesn’t count, since some people have decided that they speak for all women. Admittedly I’m not a native speaker, but then again I am not telling Australians and Brits how they should use their own language.
Er, it’s not a good thing because gay is a term for an actual group of people, and I assume they’d like to hang on to the word for the time being, whereas “cunts” is not such a self-identifying group, and it’s not a loss to women if the word evolves in the direction of a non-sex-specific insult.
Could you in turn explain why it’s a bad thing that “bugger” is nowadays a very mild non-specific insult and even a term of endearment? Is it bad that people no longer immediately associate it with “sodomite”? Is anyone who says “oh, bugger” a homophobe?
@ BrokenSoldier OM #450:
No worries at all. I too have particularly personal reasons to detest that word, and all connotation associated with it. I just like to understand language, so the only reason I used that word was as an example of a word that hadn’t changed its meaning and thus could almost exclusively be used in the “bigotry/tacit bigotry/apathy/cluelessness diagnostic” manner others were claiming other words could.
Crikey, I know I’m an idiot, but I’m not THAT SORT of idiot! ;-)
Thanks.
Louis
P.S. BTW I have no problem causing offence where necessary, but this really isn’t one of those times. I hope you can forgive me the use of the unpleasant word(s) and were not offended. I extend that to everyone btw. I have had no intent or desire to offend or upset. I was merely disagreeing with a specific set of connected linguistic claims.
Oh no, I’m not. Sorry if it seemed that way. In some countries, people are still executed for this non-crime. And my friend’s brother was brutally murdered “because” of it. So no, no, no.
IST, you are an imbecile.
Liar, I said nothing of the sort. But there were women right here in this thread who spoke up about it, and while your opinion is your own and fine as it is, your opinion doesn’t override their opinions, already spoken here.
Ah, isn’t that cute, the gays are allowed to pretend that they’re married. They can even call it a unicorn party if they really want to. But…
Everybody knows real marriage is for straight people. It would be a real can of worms if gay people were treated equally! Yikes!
Separate but equal. Is never equal.
Bullshitter, liar, apologist for an explicitly anti-gay law. You suck, Erasmus.
JFK> yea, noticed that after I hit post.. more coffee, less typing. You have my apologies for that. /snark fail.
Good night, homophobes and homophobia apologists!
Good night, misogynists and misogyny apologists alike.
Good night patriarchy. Wish it wouldn’t still be there when I wake up.
I was referring to your “When women say…” which implied that women collectively say this, and also implied that none of us responders were women.
Maybe not, but some of what they claimed was stupid, like the claim that anyone who ever refers to women as “girls” hates women.
Good night, sanctimonious twat!
However…one can go too far, in a misguided attempt to right linguistic wrongs.
In a naughty boy’s school a friend teaches in, the head of care was a lesbian, and began to object to the casual way the boys used “gay” an insult. So she gathered together all the boys in the school to tell them this. She chose the tack of telling them how common homosexuality was, how wrong it was to call them names or discriminate against them, and how it made her feel when she heard these “insults”.
Among other things she said: “between 10 and 15% of men and women are gay. That means that, out of the 60 or so boys in this school, 7 or 8 of you are gay.”
The boys listened to this in sullen silence, taking her message on board. Then they thought about it and reasoned thus:
“7 or 8 of us, eh? Who’s that then? Well, it would be Simon X, Tom Y, John Z…”
And they went out as a gang and beat those boys up.
JFK,
I have dealt with what Endor said in #194 in post #200 and beyond, very specifically. In fact, just up thread (about ~80 or so posts now! Aren’t we naughty?) I dedicated a significant post to words and their baggage directly responding to Endor’s points. I have addressed Endor very specifically and in no way have skirted around the very good points she’s made (many of which I agree with you’ll note). You might think your post #413 deals with what you find relevant, but since it deals with a misrepresentation of my arguments, perhaps based on an incomplete reading of them (a fact I am not unsympathetic with! lol), it sadly doesn’t. Sorry about that.
There’s no need to apologise for not addressing everything I wrote, there’s a lot of it, just please don’t misrepresent it! That said, thanks for your apology. BTW I also cheerfully recognise misogyny, when I see it, for what it is. I am horribly intolerant of bigotry in all it’s forms. My point has always been that in certain circumstances “one of these things is not like the other”, if you see what I mean.
I understand your heuristics (#413) for detection of bigots etc, and under certain circumstances I use the same heuristics. My point is that, just like we have to recognise our own capacity for culturally inculcated bigotry, we have to recognise our own capacity for generating limited/flawed heuristics. Those heuristics you mention really only work in certain contexts, for example in the USA I imagine they work very very well indeed. They’d work less well here in the UK for exactly the reasons I’ve mentioned.
Have a nice night, sorry if this has kept you up!
Louis
@ IST #452:
The subject of language use is always a terribly tacky tar baby. Especially when it comes to the massive inequalities (and how they are expressed in language) unfortunately present in our society. By “our” I think I am safe in saying that can refer to anyone’s society on the planet.
Persistence? LOL bloody mindedness more like! I think the linguistic claims that some people have made are erroneous (I’m not that interested in the specific words, but they are good illustrators of certain linguistic trends).
Louis
I think if all the people who are called the horrible names on this thread could get together – we could have the most fantastic party!
No Christians or Muslims though. Tolerance had its limits, and fun has its threshold.
JFK,
In your parting shot of #462, I too wish the patriarchy would not be there when you wake up. I too share your aims of demolishing it.
However, I hope you are not referring to me when you mention “misogynists/misogyny apologists” because I think you’d face a MASSIVE uphill struggle to demonstrate that I am either.
One of the problems you appear to have is that you don’t seem to think that informed, principled, intellectual with disagreement with your assertions (undemonstrated thus far I note again) can exist. You appear to account any disagreement, whether you understand it or not, as being due to vested interests in either denial, maintenance of inequality/privilege or apologetics. That is……unfortunate. If only because it is at least erroneous.
Here’s hoping you can correct THAT at least.
Louis
I have no idea why you’re concerned about this at all, given that I simply asked you a question. I have, though, read your comments.
If you read my comment, you’d see that that remark was directed at IST, who was mistakenly using “gender roles” to mean “stereotypes.”
Thank you for answering my question. I wasn’t reading anything into your comments – I genuinely thought that some concrete examples would help me to understand better where you were coming from, and they did. I only recently learned that in the UK and Australia “cunt” is directed at men. I’ve heard somewhat mixed things about how it’s used, and I’m not sure I’m buying that it has entirely lost its sexist connotations in a way “pussy” hasn’t at all. Are you sure you’re not overstating your case a bit? If it is indeed true that it’s used fully interchangeably with those other words, then I don’t have a problem with it in that context, and think it’s possibly a good thing.
The problem here, though, is that “cunt” is never (to the best of my knowledge) used in the US as anything other than a disparaging term for women. It’s been used as such on this blog, and there was a long discussion in which people actually tried to defend that use:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/sarah_palin_ignorant_and_antis.php
So when we hear it, even directed at a man, it’s virtually impossible not to hear those connotations. At this point in time I don’t think there’s any context with people from the US present in which it could be used without being interpreted as offensively sexist.
SC OM
Sorry! I was shell shocked from dealing with JFK and others. I was heading off misunderstandings before they happened. My bad, please forgive me. I also apologise for misattributing your remarks re: gender roles to me. Again, I was in “combat mode” having dealt with the onslaught from JKF and others. My bad again!
I assure you that “cunt” is fully 100% interchangeable with those words in the contexts/examples I gave. I’d agree that it’s a good thing in the sense that its use has moved away from the horribly misogynist original usage.
I also fully understand (and agree) that to an American ear its use is unpalatably misogynist (context again). I wouldn’t even argue that “cunt” has fully lost its misogynist connotations in every instance, it hasn’t done so across the board (it’s in the process of speciation as I mention above). However in some cases it is just a vulgarity, a rude word absent any of the misogynist baggage it has in other contexts or it has a separate meaning, based on context/interchangeability again.
Using “cunt” at a woman in the manner used in the Palin thread (esp that comment by Shadow @ 68) is misogyny, plain and simple. It is nothing I would advocate or defend. I have been taking issue with a specific linguistic claim that has taken various forms across the thread but reduces to: “If a person uses the word X then we can, in the absence of context simply based on the usage of that word, make judgement Y about them”. It is THAT I disagree with.
I really do not disagree with the etymology, the historical fight to get certain linguistic usages/phraseology recognised as the exemplars of prejudice/privilege/inequality that they are. In other words, I don’t disagree with the obvious facts of the matter. You’d be amazed how hard I’ve had to try to get some people to recognise that! ;-)
If people from the US can only hear/see the use of the word “cunt” as misogyny then they need to gain a more global, and linguistically nuanced/valid, view of the English language. I don’t insist that my UKian understanding of the use of the word “cunt” (for example) is the “ONLY TRUE UNDERSTANDING!!!111one!”, but I do claim it is one of very many valid linguistic understandings of the word. Just like I don’t show the soles of my feet in Thailand, raise my hand to a Greek, pick my teeth at and Italian etc I don’t tell people in the USA that they are “acting the cunt”. It’s the context that determines the unpleasantness/offensiveness in these cases. However, people often forget (as Pinker pointed out) that words are not magic immutables, but mere tokens of ideas. The ideas vary from context to context, even if sometimes the words don’t.
Cheers
Louis
I have to agree with SC, OM.
I’ve followed the comments with interest and increasing incredulity.
I don’t know of a woman of my acquaintance here in the UK who would not be offended by the use of cunt or interpret it as anything but overtly sexist – no matter what any of the male apologists say.
Horses for courses boys. Wishful thinking does not make it any less misogynistic. It is what it is and no amount of academic discussion changes that.
Perhaps in 50 years it might change but while women are oppressed in many parts of the world – go back to the the origin of this thread – it isn’t exactly high on most women’s wish lists to feel comfortable calling anyone a cunt for any reason.
Now that is odd. My impression is that in the UK its use is more-or-less confined to men (and women who’ve just seen The Vagina Monologues!) and that it is mostly directed towards other men, often in a jokey way. The word “slut” is often used to abuse women, as well as “whore” and its variants.
Now, while that use may or may not be acceptable in company, racist terms never are – witness Prince Harry getting in to lots of trouble for calling an old friend by his “preferred” nick-name – “Paki”.
I think this a very interesting discussion and I’m a little puzzled as to how it’s partly disintegrated into a slanging match. Surely no one here is really advocating misogyny or homophobia?
That’s the trouble with taboo words – their real meaning, and their actual useage, are by definition problematic.
They have exactly the same legal rights as opposite-sex married couples, and are entitled to call their partnership “marriage” if they wish. The only difference is that the law doesn’t explicitly use the word marriage, simply for the sake of avoiding a pointless semantic battle with religious pressure groups. There is in fact no reason why the law SHOULD use the word marriage, which happens to be loaded with religious connotations. Clearly the best course of action is to avoid the religious connotations altogether by choosing a more accurate phrase, like “civil partnership”.
Seems probable to me that you’re hopelessly bored and are just trying to get kicks from huffing and puffing over anything you can, by some stretch of ingenuity, depict as “offensive”. For a while I thought you’d changed your spots, and I was even willing to forgive you for your disgraceful behaviour in another thread. But no: it appears you truly are the attention-seeking, offense-hunting, tantrum-throwing, trifle-amplifying, foul-mouthed, bored-out-of-his-skull little scumbag that you previously proved.
** misogyny is a the core of big-3 monotheisms
I get so damn nauseated by apologists for judaism, xianity, and islam who falsely claim that their religions are peaceful, supportive of women and children, progressive . . . blah, blah,
blah . . . .
It ain’t so. The most recent source to give the lie to the disgusting Yaweh/Christ/Allah crowd is Michel Onfray, Atheist Manifesto, 2006.
It’s not enough to be angry . . . these religions as religions are garbage through and through. They are to be crushed by de-funding them, blocking their claims to set up separate courts, banning them from secular education.
anti-supernaturalist
In the north of England it has completely lost its sexist implications, in the sense the word is usually used. I remember for a while on the school playground I went under the impression that the only meaning of cunt is “contemptible person”.
I have been on the organizing committees for Dyke Marches. I have referred to myself and to friends as “bitch”. Given that, I will not refer to a woman as a “cunt” and has always heard the use of the word to occupy a deeper layer of hatred.
Nice abuse. There’s a single word in the UK for people one thinks are like this and it’s –
No. I won’t go there.
Or try to insert myself (unwelcome or unwise) in this argument. I’ll save myself for others when I feel I can be more of a –
Ah, fuck it.
Kewl. Can someone please call me sumpin’ nasty, then? I wanna be invited.
(See also: ‘Call me anything, baby… Just call me.’)
/Makes telephone/call me thumb ‘n pinky gesture…
AJ Milne is a vile, cootie infested, unicorn humping, poopyhead!
Schweet!
hey, Fuck everyone.
You all suffer from fixated masturbatory identification .
You all suffer from latent phallic processes .
You all suffer from libidinous narcissistic discharge.
You all suffer from cathected narcissistic ambivalence
You all suffer from sublimated infantile fantasies .
Thy gorbellied full-gorged nut-hook hath a base-court foot-licker
Thy mammering dismal-dreaming canker-blossom hath a earth-vexing joithead.
You moldy sock devouring Jerks.
You desperate Ass-Monkeys.
Yo mama’s so fat, her skates went flat..
Yo mama’s so ugly, you could stick her face in dough and make monster cookies..
Yo mama’s so fat, all the restaurants in town have signs that says: “Maximum Occupancy: 240 Patrons OR Yo Mama”.
Yo mama’s so fat, when she went to a dating service, they matched her up with Detroit..
Now I feel better.
But an unicorn will only approach a virgin. Would not a unicorn bolt if a person with bad intentions came up to it’s rump.
Kitty,
You don’t know any women who wouldn’t interpret the use of the word “cunt” as anything but sexist? (Offence is a red herring as mentioned before) Really? I’m sat next to one, and know several (I’ve had this discussion with a few people, most of them women, most of whom agreed). So whose anecdote wins?
Either way it’s irrelevant.
If you say wishful thinking doesn’t make it any less misogynistic, then I can equally assert that wishful thinking doesn’t make it misogynistic.
Irrelevant again.
These are assertions, not arguments. Assertions/anecdote are what I have been trying to get this discussion away from. With varying degrees of success.
What I have been trying to argue for is not some apologetic for usage of the word “cunt”, but that its use (as with many other words) is not NECESSARILY (although it often is) an indication of misogyny (or tacit/cultural legacy misogyny, or apathy to the inequalities women genuinely suffer from, or cluelessness about them) on the part of the user, as several people (yourself included now) have tried to assert. Every one of these attempts has stalled at the “assertion” stage. They have yet to proceed to “argument”.
As I said to Endor in #370, the baggage a word validly brings with it is derived from the context in which it is used. The baggage a word historically/etymolgically has, whilst perfectly valid and undisputed, again does not apply in every context. I cite AGAIN (and this has been ignored now ooooooooh about ~5 times) the word “gay”. If I describe Barry as “gay” am I commenting on his happiness? His sexuality? Such a thing can only be determined from the context of use. Even if I am describing Barry’s sexuality then am I bringing with the word “gay” its “happiness baggage”? Obviously I’m not. The context is vital. Just because a word CAN be used in a misogynist manner does not mean that it IS being so used, especially if it has more than one meaning (which cunt definitely does).
I am not, and would not, ask for any one, woman or otherwise, to be comfortable with using the word “cunt” or hearing it. Far from it. The word is not designed to be used for comfort! You can say “I Kitty deem that the use of the word cunt is misogynistic, therefore I will not use it”. You cannot say “I Kitty deem that the use of the word cunt is misogynistic, therefore no one can use it without being a misogynist” validly by simply asserting this, as you have done. You have to demonstrate that the word is always in all contexts used with misogynistic intent and in a manner that refers to misogyny. You simply won’t be able to do that for that specific word (you will do better with other words).
Again, as in the examples I gave to SC (with whom you agree, and who agrees with me about those examples) if the word “cunt” is being used in a way that it is utterly 100% interchangeable with “prick” or” “dick” or “penis” or “twat” or “wanker” or “shithead” etc etc etc i.e. it is completely interchangeable with words that are male sexed, sexless etc, then its use cannot be specifically sexed, it is being used in a sexless sense. In the case of those examples, either as emphasis, indication of foolishness, or indication of undesirability, the specific word (in this case “cunt”) is almost totally irrelevant, all that needs to be inserted into those examples is a word that is considered vulgar. The pruriently offensive nature of the word is sufficient.
This isn’t particularly academic discussion, it is a rebuttal of a specific linguistic claim originally made ~300 posts ago now and taken up elsewhere in various other guises.
Please don’t misrepresent other people’s stances/arguments when they’ve taken considerable trouble to enumerate them politely and clearly. Especially when you don’t address anything they actually say.
Louis
Every time Pharyngula starts discussing morality, I want to point us to the Atheist Ethicist.
Today, Kel, Wowbagger, and others have claimed morality is genetically coded for, implying this is the basis of morality. Alonzo Fyfe argues against that at http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2009/02/dan-barker-on-goodness.html and many of the following posts – I’m leaving them mostly out to try to reduce posting problems.
Facilis argued against an objective morality, and many (Kel, Patricia, Rev BDC) seem to be agreeing with Facilis. Alonzo Fyfe argues for objective morality at http://alonzofyfe.com/article_ose.shtml. If ethics do not relate to the real world, then those ethics are not real.
Desire Utilitarianism seems to be an ethical system that resolves many arguments regarding atheism and morality. Every time a theist argues that atheists have no morality – they are making this assumption because atheism has no morality. Atheism makes no claims with regards to morality. Atheism is just a lack of belief in any god. To act mostly morally – many people pick this up soon in life. But for a system of ethics, and the ability to defend or not defend them, DU may be useful.
The bear cub argument seems to have little to do with ethics. A mother bear who would kill a human child who was throwing small pebbles at her cub, is not acting in an ethical manner. She is acting to defend her cub out of proportion to the threat.
Rev.BigDumbChimp channeling Robert Anton Wilson?
My best guess.
Chimpy, great job flinging the poo around!
wait
What?
@Janine #476:
Neither would I, and for much the same reasons.
Louis
It’s a bit more complicated than that, though. (And not just because this is the blog of someone from the US with a number of commenters from the US.) As you say, “I don’t tell people in the USA that they are ‘acting the cunt’.” Simply recognizing contexts in which the misogynistic connotations have (allegedly) been lost doesn’t negate the fact that in US culture they have not been. In fact, pointing to these cases I think provides an excuse for people who implicitly retain those meanings to use the word. This needs to be recognized. So we can’t be sure of the extent to which someone who is using it is doing so with an awareness of that meaning or an intent to convey it – we can only point out that it has that meaning in our culture. Now, it’s possible that being exposed to these other uses will contribute to change in our culture, but that change hasn’t happened yet, so it’s reasonable to be suspicious about people’s motives, especially if they are aware of these connotations and seem contemptuous towards or dismissive of us or our concerns.
There Janine you have the jest of it. That’s what makes AJ Milne such a vilely evil super poopyhead – the ability to catch unicorns.
Huh?!
I, too, came to a halt when I read that. That has to be the first time that anyone claimed that a regular agreed with Facilis. What is next, Barb and I become drinking buddies?
All of a sudden, my super evil powers of sarcasm pales in comparison. There is a corner I have to go sit in and cry.
That’s it. I’m tired of falling out of my chair. Seatbelts are in order.
yeah well..you’re all just a bunch of….fucking…CREATIONISTS!
Now there’s a “c” word I never want to hear again!
(Though, to be honest, if it weren’t for them, I wouldn’t be honing my Abuse Knives on this site. For those interested, my technique is a traditional one – involving large quantities of manure, and plain old-fashioned finger grease.)
Sorry about that. When the quotes got to five, I just deleted them all. Now I have to go back and read through 500 posts again to figure out how I made that argument. I’ll just up front say that I was intellectually careless on at least one level, probably more.
I suspect what I meant was that you were letting him/her get away with it, but it was half an hour between writing and posting due to internet issues.
@ SC,OM #489:
Oh I agree entirely! Hence why I am not defending the use of the word here because of that specific problem.
This is a diverse forum, and we all need to recognise it. I’m not saying the UKians/Aussies need to be given more latitude regarding their choice of language, or that the Americans need to toughen up in this regard or anything like it. I’m only disagreeing with absolutist pronouncements like the ones made by others upthread.
Suspicion about motives is perfectly justified, especially as you say in the case of people who know the USAian attitude to the word “cunt”. Then it also bears saying that “innocent until proven guilty” applies, and is also perfectly reasonable. Not only that, because as I’ve said I’m not really interested in condemning or defending specific uses, but it’s not unreasonable for people (esp the usually intelligent bunch posting here at Pharyngula) to realise that words are not simply magic spells with power, and that words don’t carry all their baggage to every situation.
Trust me, I have no desire to change USAian attitudes to the word under discussion, or alter the culture in any way. I was merely taking issue with an erroneous and illogical linguistic claim. In fact, I’d rather we were discussing less charged words like “nice” or “right” because the linguistic point would be less obscured by the emotional baggage associated with swear words.
Louis
Yes. Please go back and re-read. Everything. Including all previous threads where Facilis has deposited his turds.
We don’t let Facilis get away with anything. Mainly because he’s a walking 10 pound bag stuffed with 20 pounds of bullshit.
Emu Sam,
Fyfe doesn’t seem to be arguing that in that post. His arguments seems to be against defining ‘being good’ as ‘intending to minimize harm in the world’.
Rev BDC #498:
20 pounds? You flatter Facilis too much.
Louis