Groups you can't criticize

[BigBallinStalin]

religions are successful based on how much they benefit society, not how well their believers adhere to their doctrine

if all christians acted just like christ wanted them to, christianity would probably have disappeared long ago

Hard to say but I would argue that the reason Christianity lasted as long as it did is precisely because its followers tried to follow Christ. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak. I think this applies to all religions.

But government subsidies help, amirite?

Zoroastrianism in Iran died out arguably because the government subsidized Islam (associations, clubs, churches, etc.) while it neglected and at times prohibited/strongly discouraged the practice of Zoroastrianism. Of course, government alone is not to blame, for participants in the market for religion may voluntarily choose to opt away from Zoroastrianism in order to benefit from identifying with Muslims, thus gaining access to those social networks and club goods.

Nevertheless, the government increased transaction costs for those who wished to join Zoroastrianism, and since this would not constitute as a voluntary exchange within a market of religion, then the blame largely falls on the role of government in the market of religion.

[BigBallinStalin]

religions are successful based on how much they benefit society, not how well their believers adhere to their doctrine

if all christians acted just like christ wanted them to, christianity would probably have disappeared long ago

Define successful,define benefit.

[Team J9B-BBS is on the scene]

Benefits:
2. network effects of religion.
3. the benefits of weak ties within a club (i.e. local religious community and a more widespread identity).
4. low search costs to fundamental questions which are difficult to answer.
(Why did A happen? Cuz God. Oh okay! /end dilemma).


2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpersonal_ties
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_goods
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_cost
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substituti ... onomics%29

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=110240&start=1320#p3935576


Success:

Question: have the participants attained benefits which offset their costs? If yes, then it's successful--until of course their valuation of benefits and costs change.

[BigBallinStalin]

Chill mate. I never said christianity was being persecuted, did I? But people can say what they want about christianity. Its cool to bash christianity in the modern liberal climate but say anything bad about Islam and you're a racist.

I love all these groups, so much so that I'm saving up to hold a joint party for Stonewall and the nation of islam. Now that's one party that should go with a bang!

It is your position that those who criticize Islam will be labeled a racist? It seems like you've been saying, "yes."

The misunderstanding is in the use of your words. One can criticize Islam successfully without being labeled a racist--if one can clearly articulate the criticism.

Racist/Prejudiced/Ignorant: "Islam is a religion which breeds hate and terrorism."

Not-Racist: "Particular sects within Islam advocate for violent resistance through insurgency and terrorism in order to overcome the forces which threaten their way of life (and perhaps the salvation of many souls). Although 'raising the black banners' may seem optimal from their perspective, this is not optimal for all individuals for reasons X, Y, and Z. (cuz I'm libertarian, or cuz I'm a classical liberal, or cuz I'm a 'modern liberal', etc.)"


It is true that SOME who criticize Islam will be labeled as racist, and rightly so!, but your assertion, "You cannot criticize any ethnic minority, any religion that's not christian for fear of being labelled a racist," is incorrect because this does not apply to all critics.

[bedub1]

Chill mate. I never said christianity was being persecuted, did I? But people can say what they want about christianity. Its cool to bash christianity in the modern liberal climate but say anything bad about Islam and you're a racist.

I love all these groups, so much so that I'm saving up to hold a joint party for Stonewall and the nation of islam. Now that's one party that should go with a bang!

It is your position that those who criticize Islam will be labeled a racist? It seems like you've been saying, "yes."

The misunderstanding is in the use of your words. One can criticize Islam successfully without being labeled a racist--if one can clearly articulate the criticism.

Racist/Prejudiced/Ignorant: "Islam is a religion which breeds hate and terrorism."

Not-Racist: "Particular sects within Islam advocate for violent resistance through insurgency and terrorism in order to overcome the forces which threaten their way of life (and perhaps the salvation of many souls). Although 'raising the black banners' may seem optimal from their perspective, this is not optimal for all individuals for reasons X, Y, and Z. (cuz I'm libertarian, or cuz I'm a classical liberal, or cuz I'm a 'modern liberal', etc.)"


It is true that SOME who criticize Islam will be labeled as racist, and rightly so!, but your assertion, "You cannot criticize any ethnic minority, any religion that's not christian for fear of being labelled a racist," is incorrect because this does not apply to all critics.

Ah you are starting to get to the crux of the situation. I was wondering how many smart people where here.

If you criticize somebody because of their RACE, it's racism.
If you criticize somebody because of the ACTIONS, it's perfectly fine.
If you criticize a RACE because of their ACTIONS, it's perfectly fine.

There is NO group that is above criticism.

[nietzsche]

Is comparing different races pointing to the advantages of one over another racism?

[bedub1]

Is comparing different races pointing to the advantages of one over another racism?

Can you give me an example of an advantage one race has over another, that is because of their race, and not the environment/upbringing?

[Woodruff]

You cannot criticize any ethnic minority, any religion that's not christian for fear of being labelled a racist.

You cannot criticize gay people for fear of being labelled homophobic.

You cannot criticize mentally/physically disabled people for fear of being called cruel.

This coincides with a huge loss of talented stand-up comedians. We are heading for a humourless world devoid of decent music and any culture.

don't worry, there's no shortage of comedians exploiting the recent movement of pseudo-intellectual america-hating antichristians.

Christians gettin' persecuted again! When WILL it stop happening?

define "persecuted" and then see if it applies to what i said

CHRISTIANS GETTIN' PERSECUTED AGAIN! MAN, THIS IS SUCH A PROBLEM IN AMERICA. SOMEDAY, MAYBE THINGS WILL CHANGE ENOUGH SO THAT WE CAN EVEN GET A PRESIDENT ELECTED WHO IS A CHRISTIAN. MAYBE EVEN 44 OF THEM. IN A ROW.

[Woodruff]

our christians are nothing like our christ

That is certainly the truth for many of them.

but they're still better than most of the alternatives

Well, at least the ones who sincerely try to be like Christ.

[Woodruff]

You cannot criticize any ethnic minority, any religion that's not christian for fear of being labelled a racist.

I don't think you understand the words you're trying to use. Also, Christianity is just SO PERSECUTED, isn't it?

This coincides with a huge loss of talented stand-up comedians. We are heading for a humourless world devoid of decent music and any culture.

Bullshit. Most comedians have never been particularly concerned with political correctness, unless it happens to be the subject of their routine.

Chill mate. I never said christianity was being persecuted, did I?

Explicitly? No. By implication? Yes.

But people can say what they want about christianity. Its cool to bash christianity in the modern liberal climate but say anything bad about Islam and you're a racist.

This certainly isn't true at all, in either case.

[nietzsche]

Is comparing different races pointing to the advantages of one over another racism?

Can you give me an example of an advantage one race has over another, that is because of their race, and not the environment/upbringing?

Do you mean that the differences that my eyes see are an illusion, that there are no differences between races?

Do you mean that Darwin was wrong, groups don't divide into races, later into species, because of mutation and natural selection?

Do you mean that we must be so sensitive towards racism that we lose our ability to think clearly and critically?




Only by principle THERE MUST be advantages for being of one race or another, as they are different. We share most of our qualities and defects because we belong to the same species, because we share knowledge and culture, but we are different in some things.

[bedub1]

Is comparing different races pointing to the advantages of one over another racism?

Can you give me an example of an advantage one race has over another, that is because of their race, and not the environment/upbringing?

Do you mean that the differences that my eyes see are an illusion, that there are no differences between races?

Do you mean that Darwin was wrong, groups don't divide into races, later into species, because of mutation and natural selection?

Do you mean that we must be so sensitive towards racism that we lose our ability to think clearly and critically?



Only by principle THERE MUST be advantages for being of one race or another, as they are different. We share most of our qualities and defects because we belong to the same species, because we share knowledge and culture, but we are different in some things.

Oh there are definitely differences between races. I'm not sure if the differences make one race superior to another though. A race might be more adapted to the climate they live in than another race that developed elsewhere, but this is to their upbringing, not their race.

I honestly can't think of a single area where one race is superior to another. The second I think I've come up with something, I realize it's not their race, but their upbringing and environment that cause the difference. Kenyans aren't racially faster at running, Russians aren't racially better hockey players, African Americans aren't racially better basketball players. It's all environment/upbringing.

Are you talking about differences in DNA? Do you have articles on how the DNA of races compares?

[nietzsche]

our christians are nothing like our christ

Maybe because "christ" is an idolized dude that we have no proof to have done what it's claimed other than a book wrote and re-wrote many times? Maybe the moral ways are best found in ourselves, rather than the idealized interpretations of an entourage, later to be claimed saints?

Idealizations must come second to our sense of being, for idealizations are born out of knowledge and knowledge is only a small part to our more complete full being.

Leave Laputa.

And by la puta I don't mean AoG's mom

[nietzsche]

Is comparing different races pointing to the advantages of one over another racism?

Can you give me an example of an advantage one race has over another, that is because of their race, and not the environment/upbringing?

Do you mean that the differences that my eyes see are an illusion, that there are no differences between races?

Do you mean that Darwin was wrong, groups don't divide into races, later into species, because of mutation and natural selection?

Do you mean that we must be so sensitive towards racism that we lose our ability to think clearly and critically?



Only by principle THERE MUST be advantages for being of one race or another, as they are different. We share most of our qualities and defects because we belong to the same species, because we share knowledge and culture, but we are different in some things.

Oh there are definitely differences between races. I'm not sure if the differences make one race superior to another though. A race might be more adapted to the climate they live in than another race that developed elsewhere, but this is to their upbringing, not their race.

I honestly can't think of a single area where one race is superior to another. The second I think I've come up with something, I realize it's not their race, but their upbringing and environment that cause the difference. Kenyans aren't racially faster at running, Russians aren't racially better hockey players, African Americans aren't racially better basketball players. It's all environment/upbringing.

Are you talking about differences in DNA? Do you have articles on how the DNA of races compares?

Articles, do I need and article??? OH MAan I'm screwed.

You are contradicting yourself man. You have the logical truth within the reach of your intellect, in fact you reached it for a bit there. but you've been brainwashed long enough with the "good boys aren't racists, you are a good boy" or "smart boys aren't racists".

About the DNA, I don't know much, but if I understand it correctly, a big change in genes might mean less that a minute change in just a tiny part of a gene, for the implications. Our genotype is almost identical to the chimp's genotype but our phenotype it's quite different.

Why does it hurt too much to accept that races have differences? What does it mean? Associations, that's all we are said Ralph Waldo Emerson, I bet you are associating accepting the differences with racism and furthermore associating being racist with being bad or stupid. The thing is the association was created for you by particular groups that might have not meant wrong, they might have meant only good, but that are clouding your clear thinking.

EDIT:

If you criticize somebody because of their RACE, it's racism.

In this of course you are right, which was your point to begin with.

I'm just overly sensitive with people being overly sensitive about races differences. The differences exist, that's we even label a race different to begin with, but people like to think they don't exist because they equate seeing the differences with racism.

[stoicbird]

You cannot criticize any ethnic minority, any religion that's not christian for fear of being labelled a racist.

I don't think you understand the words you're trying to use. Also, Christianity is just SO PERSECUTED, isn't it?

This coincides with a huge loss of talented stand-up comedians. We are heading for a humourless world devoid of decent music and any culture.

Bullshit. Most comedians have never been particularly concerned with political correctness, unless it happens to be the subject of their routine.

Chill mate. I never said christianity was being persecuted, did I?

Explicitly? No. By implication? Yes.

But people can say what they want about christianity. Its cool to bash christianity in the modern liberal climate but say anything bad about Islam and you're a racist.

This certainly isn't true at all, in either case.In my humble opinion

I fixed that last statement for you.

[BigBallinStalin]

Chill mate. I never said christianity was being persecuted, did I? But people can say what they want about christianity. Its cool to bash christianity in the modern liberal climate but say anything bad about Islam and you're a racist.

I love all these groups, so much so that I'm saving up to hold a joint party for Stonewall and the nation of islam. Now that's one party that should go with a bang!

It is your position that those who criticize Islam will be labeled a racist? It seems like you've been saying, "yes."

The misunderstanding is in the use of your words. One can criticize Islam successfully without being labeled a racist--if one can clearly articulate the criticism.

Racist/Prejudiced/Ignorant: "Islam is a religion which breeds hate and terrorism."

Not-Racist: "Particular sects within Islam advocate for violent resistance through insurgency and terrorism in order to overcome the forces which threaten their way of life (and perhaps the salvation of many souls). Although 'raising the black banners' may seem optimal from their perspective, this is not optimal for all individuals for reasons X, Y, and Z. (cuz I'm libertarian, or cuz I'm a classical liberal, or cuz I'm a 'modern liberal', etc.)"


It is true that SOME who criticize Islam will be labeled as racist, and rightly so!, but your assertion, "You cannot criticize any ethnic minority, any religion that's not christian for fear of being labelled a racist," is incorrect because this does not apply to all critics.

Ah you are starting to get to the crux of the situation. I was wondering how many smart people where here.

If you criticize somebody because of their RACE, it's racism.
If you criticize somebody because of the ACTIONS, it's perfectly fine.
If you criticize a RACE because of their ACTIONS, it's perfectly fine.

There is NO group that is above criticism.

Yeah, that underlined isn't what I'm supporting.

The other two depend on how you say it.

[nietzsche]

Chill mate. I never said christianity was being persecuted, did I? But people can say what they want about christianity. Its cool to bash christianity in the modern liberal climate but say anything bad about Islam and you're a racist.

I love all these groups, so much so that I'm saving up to hold a joint party for Stonewall and the nation of islam. Now that's one party that should go with a bang!

It is your position that those who criticize Islam will be labeled a racist? It seems like you've been saying, "yes."

The misunderstanding is in the use of your words. One can criticize Islam successfully without being labeled a racist--if one can clearly articulate the criticism.

Racist/Prejudiced/Ignorant: "Islam is a religion which breeds hate and terrorism."

Not-Racist: "Particular sects within Islam advocate for violent resistance through insurgency and terrorism in order to overcome the forces which threaten their way of life (and perhaps the salvation of many souls). Although 'raising the black banners' may seem optimal from their perspective, this is not optimal for all individuals for reasons X, Y, and Z. (cuz I'm libertarian, or cuz I'm a classical liberal, or cuz I'm a 'modern liberal', etc.)"


It is true that SOME who criticize Islam will be labeled as racist, and rightly so!, but your assertion, "You cannot criticize any ethnic minority, any religion that's not christian for fear of being labelled a racist," is incorrect because this does not apply to all critics.

Ah you are starting to get to the crux of the situation. I was wondering how many smart people where here.

If you criticize somebody because of their RACE, it's racism.
If you criticize somebody because of the ACTIONS, it's perfectly fine.
If you criticize a RACE because of their ACTIONS, it's perfectly fine.

There is NO group that is above criticism.

Yeah, that underlined isn't what I'm supporting.

The other two depend on how you say it.

I don't see the underlined.

[BigBallinStalin]

Bold, whatever.

[bedub1]

Bold, whatever.

What's wrong with criticizing a race for their actions? I think us Americans were a bunch of asshats for killing so many Native Americans when we came to their country. What's wrong with that?

[BigBallinStalin]

Americans = race?

That doesn't make sense because Americans are not a race.

Nor did "Americans" as a whole do that, which is what the bolded statement suggests. An organization called the US federal government fully sanctioned and subsidized such efforts for eradicating the Native Americans. (And yes, State governments did something similar in vary degrees). But "Americans" did this? No.

[AndyDufresne]

BBS with a boot to the face!




--Andy

[2dimes]

That's got to be the new avatar.

[bedub1]

Americans = race?

That doesn't make sense because Americans are not a race.

Nor did "Americans" as a whole do that, which is what the bolded statement suggests. An organization called the US federal government fully sanctioned and subsidized such efforts for eradicating the Native Americans. (And yes, State governments did something similar in vary degrees). But "Americans" did this? No.

Okay, so American's aren't a race. They sure are a group of people. And you just specified even more specific groups.

So if we modify the bold item you disagreed with as such:

If you criticize a GROUP because of their ACTIONS, it's perfectly fine.

Do you still disagree with it? Or do you agree with it?

[jimboston]

About the only people I don't criticize, if warranted are the mentally disabled.

I think the whole idea that there are groups of people we can't criticize is RETARDED!

(in before someone points out that I'm being an ass again.)

[BigBallinStalin]

Americans = race?

That doesn't make sense because Americans are not a race.

Nor did "Americans" as a whole do that, which is what the bolded statement suggests. An organization called the US federal government fully sanctioned and subsidized such efforts for eradicating the Native Americans. (And yes, State governments did something similar in vary degrees). But "Americans" did this? No.

Okay, so American's aren't a race. They sure are a group of people. And you just specified even more specific groups.

So if we modify the bold item you disagreed with as such:

If you criticize a GROUP because of their ACTIONS, it's perfectly fine.

Do you still disagree with it? Or do you agree with it?

Excuse me, sir, while I refer you to my past self:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=180364&start=45#p3942087

I disagree because that is way too vague. It depends.


One can criticize a group because of its goals or actions successfully without being rightly labeled negatively--if one can clearly articulate the criticism and if one is actually correct to begin with (that helps!)

Then there's the problem of aggregating. It depends on the meaning of "group." For example:

Racist/Prejudiced/Ignorant: "Islam (GROUP) is a religion which breeds hate and terrorism (ACTIONS)."

Not-Racist: "Particular sects (GROUP) within Islam advocate for violent resistance through insurgency and terrorism (ACTIONS) in order to overcome the forces which threaten their way of life (and perhaps the salvation of many souls) (GOAL). (Criticism:) Although 'raising the black banners' may seem optimal from their perspective, this is not optimal for all individuals for reasons X, Y, and Z. (cuz I'm libertarian, or cuz I'm a classical liberal, or cuz I'm a 'modern liberal', etc.)"

[john9blue]

define "persecuted" and then see if it applies to what i said

CHRISTIANS GETTIN' PERSECUTED AGAIN! MAN, THIS IS SUCH A PROBLEM IN AMERICA. SOMEDAY, MAYBE THINGS WILL CHANGE ENOUGH SO THAT WE CAN EVEN GET A PRESIDENT ELECTED WHO IS A CHRISTIAN. MAYBE EVEN 44 OF THEM. IN A ROW.

it should be to the left of your 'A' key