Carcinogenic
Spidergoat said:
That's the ever present excuse, Islam is so subtle and mysterious to westerners that we can never understand it. That's nonsense.
So why don't you describe the belief system she represents? Show us what you know?
Because, frankly, people spend a lot of time telling us what S.A.M. believes, and very little time paying attention to what she actually says.
Back at the start of this latest ridiculous mess, S.A.M. and I were having a perfectly pleasant
conversation about the American psyche before we were rudely interrupted by grotesquely misplaced belligerence. I don't know how many people have ever noticed, but she
does in fact, receive—absorb, assimilate, accommodate—new information. One of the biggest problems I see around Sciforums in general—and not just in the S.A.M. issue—is that the information many people would prefer to transmit to others is their personal disgust, superiority, and righteousness. But if you have a real, substantive, and
useful discussion with her, there isn't much for a headache.
But, you know, some people prefer headaches so they can complain. Indeed, some seek ways to get headaches.
When I encounter stupid, bigoted accusations like yours, it is quite clear that such bile has no other purpose than to make accusers feel better in the face of something they don't understand. It's a fairly human response to the insecurities that arise when one recognizes his own ignorance; people lash out at what escapes their comprehension.
Treat people as human beings first and foremost. Labels are useful for classification and organization, but they can become a hindrance if one depends on them in lieu of genuine, human experience.
Think of the labels you might apply to yourself. Are you bigger than any one of them? That is, would you say there is more to you than any one general label might describe?
Is it just S.A.M., then? Or can no Muslim be more than the label by which you classify and disdain them?
If I put a Quaker pacifist and a Southern Baptist warmonger next to each other, would you call them both Christian and leave it at that? Are they the same? Is there no more to them than that?
If Islam is the only thing you can associate with S.A.M., it sounds like the problem is yours, and not hers.
When I read through your summary of S.A.M.'s semantics, what is striking is your blatant insensitivity. There are, indeed, times when there isn't any practical difference between the indiscriminate murder of non-combatants and the "accidental by-product of a military operation". When you fire a missile into a crowd of people, for example, hoping to knock off a couple of terrorists you think
might be present, the civilians you kill aren't accidents. If you drop bombs on your allies, and part of the reason it happened is because your pilots are wired to the insides of their skulls on amphetamines, sure, you can call it an accident the same way a drunk driver who t-bones a minivan carrying a family of six has an accident. Where else in life and death, save for patriotic need, do we make such excuses for negligence or sociopathy?
And, hey, if you start a war based on completely bogus justifications, there's no way you're responsible to any degree whatsoever for the collateral damage, right?
But such distinctions, apparently, are impossible for a Muslim. Do I have that right? After all, it's
your generalization. Treat atheism, or Western culture with such clumsy disdain and people throw a fit around here. But Muslims? Hey, apparently that's just
fine.
Since you spend so much time having constructive conversations with, and demonstrate such careful, exacting, and balanced scrutiny of S.A.M., why don't you enumerate that belief system?
Or are you just another cheap bigot blowing smoke?
• • •
James R said:
Please don't call me a "fucker" again. Ever. Thankyou!
Good advice. He should stick with more conventionally-defined words, like "liar" and "hypocrite".
apologies