How (in)valid are arguments "based on worst example"?

Where exactly in the example posted: "I'm sure I mentioned this before: Once when I was in Japan visiting a Shinto Temple I must have caught the eye of this fat American woman. She nonchalantly mentions to me: It's so sad that all these Japanese will be in Hell." is there a claim of it being representative of the ethos of monotheism, other than a reference to Hell?
Are fat American women not viable as representatives for such?

Then I guess it will boil down to whether the otherwise discredited person can defend their position and demonstrate that these "worst cases", who would claim to be authentic, really are not authentic.

If X says they are a Christian, and Y says they are a Christian, and X does not want to be judged by what Y does...
etc.

And you've got to do this without actually knowing anything about the other person... other than what they supposedly say / do... which in the case of the example given in the OP was to say that some people will be in Hell.

Good luck on that one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In the post it was spliced from of course

Or alternatively, whether persons who insist on using not so authentic examples are capable of researching their claims

try If X says they are a biologist, and Y says they are a biologist, and X does not want to be judged by what Y does...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ah, so now you criticise people for not reading the original thread? Nice. Very decent of you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sure - the onus would be on you to discredit them as "the worst example" of course... or as in the example of the OP you could just rely on stereotype to do that for you. :shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please explain why this reasoning pertains to religion as well.

In my experience, people who call themselves religious demand to be exempted from such worldy notions of assessment.

 

Wasn't she?

 

"Worst" by whose values? Yours, or the category's?

Could you please take a stance on the emic vs. etic distinction mentioned earlier?

 

But what does one do if these are systematically out of synch? For example, one could look at see if the recognized authorities do anything about what the rank and file differ with them on. If they do not do very much to correct 'misconceptions', might that affect our take on the matter? Or to come at it another way: what if the rank and file are not politicians enough to come up with some doublespeak to hide what really is there in the religion?

 

look at the goals of religion (which can be primarily viewed as a sequence of dharma, artha, kama and moksa ... leading on to the 5th principle of course)

sadhu, sastra and guru are three commonly used tools of assessment

I guess there is the off chance that she was thoroughly familiar with the philosophical basis and reformations of her discipline and that she had a further foot in to the wider issues of monotheism ... but I doubt it (simply because its not the sort of thing a person of culture would say in another's place of worship ... what to speak of a person of education in the said field)

both
for instance if you could place "Paris Hilton embodies all the qualities of a singer" similarly, you could also answer both




Could you please take a stance on the emic vs. etic distinction mentioned earlier?[/QUOTE]

the ideal example followed by what is practically perceivable

depends on the nature of the experience

having a clear idea of what is a good example .. which of course entails a bit of understanding on the topic (which would probably begin with what is an example of the genre itself ... never mind whether it is bad or good ... IOW the whole basis of goodness/badness of a genre depends on how one identifies it in the first place)

 

need sleep.... seriously need some sleep

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

But that's not really my point. Again, we'll use the example of WASP Skinheads because most of us agree being a bigot is at least somewhat immoral. You can have a lot of very good WASP Skinheads. People who simply want to keep the White Race Pure. It's not that they are in any way preaching any violence at all against non-Whites. They just don't want the superior White Race polluted with the corrupted genes of the lesser races. I don't see what, in a modern multiracial world, the ideology of WASP Skinhead racism has to offer society? ANYTHING positive that couldn't be reproduced in a less bigoted fashion?

I know Christians. It's not that I'm just talking about Christians, I grew up Christian. I know how most Christians view people who reject Jesus. I know a lot of Muslims, rarely have I met one who didn't think the Bible was corrupted. We can see the knockdown effects these intolerant memes have on society. Many of the ideas INHERENT in monotheism almost beg the believer to be intolerant. To be a bigot. JUST like WASP Skinheads racism. It's simply such a fundamentally intolerant way of viewing the world that I'm surprised violence doesn't happen more often. That it doesn't is a testament to humanity if anything. And we should remember - it does happen. Even if it isn't "violent" there's a lot of negativity associated with this intolerance. Indonesia has some great examples of where Muslims of one flavor murdered Muslims of another - for daring to suggest there was a Prophet following Mohammad. Something only one interpretation of one paragraph on one page in a 1000 year old book says. We've seen Christians wage wars on just about ever culture on Earth under the banner of bringing the light of Jesus to the infidel heathens.


So, suppose we "take the worst case example" a Skinhead who was raised to be a non-violent "Good" WASP. Suppose this person stabbed to death a pregnant Portuguese woman riding on a train. You DON'T think maybe this has something to do with WASP RACISM? You don't think there may be something inherently f*cked up with WASP ideology?


That's really the point here.


Anyway, I asked if there was anything expressed in monotheism that couldn't be expressed in polytheism and as of so far it seems only be this: There's only One God. Oh, OK, that's really not worth all the added negativity The One God meme brings to the table. So what support it?



Are you really all that surprised when a WASP skinhead, one raised to be non-violent, murders a black person? Is this something we as a society want to support? WASP ideology? Because the World is changing. Shrinking. We are going to change. Religion is going to change with it. Game on

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Polytheism may not be the best way. I'm not suggesting that this is the case. I'm not even suggesting we don't have a religion. I wouldn't push atheism onto anyone. It seems to be the natural inclination of people living in a prosperous society anyway. If we are peaceful, people think about things rationally, and atheism is a naturally adopted ideology. In times of great stress, people worry, don't think rationally, and believe in superstitions and/or Aliens.


In summary all I'm saying is this: We made it up, we can make it up better. THAT seems fair enough doesn't it?

 

Ahhhhh.... one RedBull later..... It should also be noted: We are Winning

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

By we I mean society is shifting in a less intolerant direction. Which has great implication for inherently intolerant memes, like WASP racism or Fundamental Monotheism. This has nothing to do with me or you. It's just the way things go.

You see, only but 50 years, the actions of the American would have been seen in a positive light. Interesting huh? Things are moving in the right direction. And a lot faster than we may think.

 

now you just have to explain why taking a universally accepted class of bigot is a suitable category to draw a parallel with monotheism ... and then we can see whether you are judging a genre by its worst example

actually all you have shown is that some cultural groups are intolerant of others .. which is kind of par for the course .. especially since you love to air your own intolerant views based on similar principles

in the course of your preaching, you are also calling upon fundamentally intolerant viewpoints (more than likely as a result of judging a genre by its worst example)

and similarly we have seen school teachers misuse their position of power, politicians misuse their position of power and even scientists ... so I guess now we have a great argument for suspecting everyone, distrusting everyone and preventing anyone from doing anything (as mentioned before, congratulations on advocating a world view that can keep conflict resolution experts in employment for the next 500 years)

or similarly ... now suppose a school teacher chopped the arms off a student who didn't do their homework ... does that suggest that there is something wrong with teachers?

(IOW its one thing to use an example that has at the center of its ideology a necessarily intolerant view and extrapolating such incidents of intolerance to all categories in general)

You haven't even properly established that the negativity is a concomitant factor of the ideology. I mean even even at a really basic level, if there is one god, and all living entities emanate from him, what is the basis for intolerance (aside from the pursuit of resources fueled by such things as avarice, envy, etc)?

No, but I am really surprised that you continue with this fallacy of holding skinheads and monotheists as similar on the basis of recorded events of violence (since practically every profession or category of culture has some associated issues of violence) ... and it becomes even more wondrous when you advocate that polytheism can somehow bring everyone to some neutral platform of peaceful relations

well duh
in case you haven't noticed, the game has been on for thousands of years and religion has been adapting (for better or worse) to the fluidity of social values for quite some time now

(cough cough)

:m:

In case you haven't noticed, we're actually making things worse

huh?
where do you get your news of the world from?
Sports Illustrated?

and it just so happens that 50 years ago was about the same period of time that the gauntlet of international #1 trouble maker in pursuit of their own prosperity was passed from Britain to the United states

 

The problem, as I see it, with Christianity is that an outsider is by definition disqualified from proper understanding of Christianity:
"If you do not have the Holy Spirit with you (ie. if you're not baptized) you cannot properly understand the Bible (and you might as well not read it at all)."

In other words, an outsider is faced with a cultist / mystical requirement, which, for all practical intents and purposes, cannot be fulfilled.


How do you address the possibility that what you (your religion) think and believe about God is completely wrong?

What if God indeed is that moloch, the petty tyrant as presented by mainstream Christianity?

What if it indeed is justice and love for God to torture His children in hell for all eternity?

How can such - albeit to our common sense, absurd, but no less popular - notions be dismissed with any certainty?

One argument that Christians give is that the above is a mundane, human view of culture.


And from the previous post:

Do you think that even an outsider can come to such a clear idea?

 

When you basically have the gun of eternal damnation pointed to your head?

 

Actually WASP bigotry was very common up until about 25 years ago.

Relatively speaking, there's a lot of white people who are naturally inclined to feel uncomfortable around black people (and vice-versa). Do you think most of those WASPs are violent? No they are not. Do you think most of those WASPs even acknowledge that they are bigots? Most probably don't think of themselves as bigots.

Only a 50-70 years ago Germans were considered a different race than French, Polish, English. Japanese and Chinese often think they are different "races". Some Jewish think Jew is a race and some Arabs think Arabs are all Muslims.

So? Why use the race meme as a comparison. For one, race is an artificial construct. We've made up "race". We perpetuate "race". Perhaps "race" memes were useful in the past. So was Slavery. I personally don't think that the race meme is useful in "multi-racial" societies. So, why perpetuate it.

monotheism is very similar to WASP-like mentality. Mostly people sit back and peacefully perpetuate this intolerant meme. A few of those infected, those who are probably already predisposed towards acting violently, use this meme to justify their violent acts.

Should we tolerate WASP racism? It is after all a personal choice. Yes, people are intolerant of others, but, we've shown that with proper information people are tolerant of others.

Again, the fat American woman was intolerant of Japanese Shinto Gods because she was conditions to think there is only One God. While some people here may think this is a worse case example of intolerant, others will agree with her POV.

I'm not preaching

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You're simply being a monotheist apologist. I mean, can you tell me LG, how you would judge WASP racism? Please put WASP racism in a positive light. I'd like to see it.

This is a side track. I'm not saying removing WASP racism is going to bring peace to the world, just remove one more intolerant meme in the way of a more peaceful world. Likewise monotheism.

Is there something inherent about school teachers ideology that leads to this behavior? I don't think so. But, we can find example, after example, after example of monotheist intolerance of other people's Gods and beliefs and acting violently against other people and their beliefs.

It's all made up LG, we can make it up better

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

all hypothetical. give me a concrete example of wher you think this may be occuring and I shall respond.

 

You still haven't explained why monotheism bears a suitable parallel to a movement which is racially based.

and strangely enough, we can also show that with proper information (or even proper abidance to the philosophical structures that form them) monotheists can also be tolerant

the first q is whether she's even guilty of an act of intolerance (I mean a polytheist could come to NYC and comment that the population live in transgression to the shinto pantheon .... infact to move to a different polytheism, some chinese think that westerners are something like ghosts since they have lifestyles completely devoid of rituals to the ancestors .... so go figure). Not like they use this for a means of intolerant action

the next q is whether it is a view exclusive to a particular take on monotheism, or applicable to the wider category of monotheism as a whole. If one can (easily) find monotheists or monotheisms that offer a different perspective, the answer appears to be a resounding "no".

I meant preaching in the sense of driving home a value (that monotheism is bad) at the expense of a logical structure to frame it ... not in the sense of racking up sci infractions

Judge wasp racism outside of racism?
Obviously I can't.

What I am asking however is that you categorize monotheism within the confines of racism in order to lend validity to your analogy.

As mentioned earlier, one can take any category and do the same deal on it (for instance one can find racist politicians, racist school teachers, racist librarians or even racist stamp collectors ... still such evidence mongering falls short of labeling such categories as racist ... namely because they have recourse to more accurate definitions that don't involve any sort of racism)

well duh

remove the racism "meme" and you also won't have racist stamp collectors either
(BTW good luck in trying to do that unless one has recourse to some sort of transcendental world view ... or view that the self is not ultimately an issue of being designated by the body that one happens to take birth in ... which is a key element of monotheism)

take the dial back about 100 years and you can also find example after example after example of racist school teachers

so go figure
:shrug:

at the moment the main thing that appears to be made up is your notion that monotheism is indubitably connected to racist issues

 

Michael

Your argument is something like :

Guns don't kill people.
People with mustaches kill people.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Lightgigantic,

Could you please address my post no. 33 above?

 

strawman much?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Firstly, let me backtrack and ask once again.
If you taught 1000 White children that all Black children were inferior. That Black children were in some manner irredeemably corrupted. That, at times, White people had to kill Black people, in defense of their Good, Godly and Perfect White race.

Would you be surprised if a many of those White people had a negative view of Black people?
Would you be surprised if a few of those White people found a God Damn good excuse to harm Black people?


While this is an example straight out of our recent History, is it all just too much to think about? It just isn't crystal clear enough?



Secondly, (and another real-world example, only even more recent) in Indonesia (actual the world over), Muslims are taught two intolerant religious-memes: (1) that the Qur'an is Perfect and (2)that Mohammad was the Last Prophet.

This isn't an extreme example LG. We're talking about MOST Muslims in Indonesia. Just like most Americans 50 years ago were bigots. Back when the race meme wasn't being challenged.

Is it clear enough for you to see that the two religious memes noted above are directly related to the intolerant and violent attitude of main-stream Indonesian Muslims directed against the peaceful Ahmadiyya Muslims? Both people are Indonesian Citizens. They live side by side. All other things being equal, if it weren't for these two intolerant Islamic memes (fundamental to the beliefs of most Muslims) there'd probably be no problem at all between them. None at all. All of this violence is directly related to these fundamental Islamic memes.



Tell me LG, why do you think these thousands of Indonesian Muslim protesters turned out to burn an Indonesian Ahmadiyya mosque to the ground?

Any ideas?


Again, the actions are a reflection of the memes. Just like the race memes of the 1900s. These memes are like mental plagues and sure it'll take vigilance for generations to wipe them out completely. Just like WASP racism. Which, by the way, you'd have probably thought was a perfectly respectable view of the world order 150 years ago. The ONLY reason you think it's a "worst case example" is because people like me taught you to think so

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!