Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Islam subway ads cause stir in New York
by CNN
Thanks to catskill for the link.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/22/islam.ads/index.html
Islam subway ads cause stir in New York
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Ads promoting Islam are to be placed on New York subway cars in September, but a U.S. congressman finds people sponsoring the messages unacceptable.
"I have no problem with the ad itself, but I have a very, very real problem with those behind it," Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican, said Tuesday. He is urging the Metropolitan Transit Authority to reject the ads.
The campaign is to feature ads on 1,000 of the subway system's roughly 6,200 cars. The main sponsor is a grassroots organization, Islamic Circle of North America.
The ads, simple black-and-white panels, will feature key words or phrases about Islam on one side of the panel such as "Head Scarf?" or "Prophet Muhammad?" and the words "You deserve to know" along with the Web site address WhyIslam.org on the other side.
"The idea is to evoke certain thoughts in the mind-set of the person who is looking at the ads and get them to a point where they can reflect upon certain words that one could define as hot words or key words that get thrown around a lot but are not necessarily defined in the most proper context," said New York University's Imam Khalid Latif, a cleric who is promoting the project in a YouTube video created by the Islamic Circle. Video Watch the controversy surrounding the subway ads »
Another of the backers of the advertising campaign -- which will launch in September to coincide with the monthlong Islamic holiday of Ramadan -- is Siraj Wahhaj, imam of a Brooklyn mosque.
Wahhaj was the first Muslim to lead a prayer before the House of Representatives, but King objects to him because he was a character witness for convicted 1993 World Trade Center bombing mastermind Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman.
"He is a known Islamic extremist, and you would be giving him credibility and stature through a known government facility," said King, ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee.
Wahhaj also appeared on a list of 170 potential unindicted co-conspirators in the 1993 bombing case. A prosecutor said not everyone on the list was considered a co-conspirator.
Speaking to reporters Monday, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg did not join in King's outrage about the ads.
"If you were to advocate becoming a Muslim, I assume the First Amendment would protect you," he said.
But King, noting that the ads would be up during the seventh anniversary of the September 11 attacks, said, "I'm calling on the MTA not to have these ads, not to go forward with them, and I don't see this as a free speech issue at all."
King said he sent a letter to the MTA on Monday night demanding it reject the ads.
The New York Post has reacted strongly to the ads, running a cover photograph of Wahhaj on Monday with the headline "Jihad Train" and posting an article on its Web site with the headline "Train-ing day for jihadists" and the first paragraph saying, "Allah aboard!"
Abdel-Rahman and nine others were convicted in 1995 of seditious conspiracy for their role in a plot to bomb the United Nations, FBI headquarters in Manhattan, two tunnels in New York and a bridge connecting New Jersey with Manhattan -- all in one day.
The government said the group also was responsible for the February 26, 1993, World Trade Center bombing that killed six people and injured more than 1,000.
Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor in that case, said Wahhaj's name was included in a filing that prosecutors were required to provide to defense attorneys in the case, a list of all the names of people who could possibly be foreseen to come up in the evidence. The filing, McCarthy said, has been called a "co-conspirator list." But Wahhaj was never named by the prosecution.
"The only time he came up in a meaningful way before the jury is when the defense called him as a witness," McCarthy recalled.
McCarthy said that although the list named anyone the government might allege during the trial was a co-conspirator, not everyone on the list was so labeled.
Wahhaj said Monday that he was a character witness for Abdel-Rahman in the context of "what we knew about him before the incident," citing him as a "scholar in Islam" and "a great reciter of the Quran."
"People try to make the connection as if I'm endorsing some bad deeds that [were] done by Sheik Abdel-Rahman," he said. "That had nothing to do with it."
He added, "Not only have I never been charged with anything, not one FBI agent has ever asked me one question in relationship to that bombing."
Wahhaj also said that he regrets some of his more controversial statements, such as calling the FBI and the CIA "terrorists."
"What I was saying is that not all the FBI or CIA are terrorists, but there are some elements in there," he said. "So if you want to accuse some Muslims [of being terrorists], OK. These Muslims did that, but don't undermine the entire faith. That's what the message is."
Wahhaj said the New York Post's "cheesy" and "anti-Islam" reaction to his participation in the Subway Project is "the very reason the young Muslims want to put out this ad campaign."
Islamic Circle spokesman Azeem Khan called the situation a "perfect microcosm" of what the ads seek to address -- that Wahhaj's portrayal in media reports is similar to how Islam is often depicted.
"I think that even more so reinforces the idea as to why a project like this is necessary, where Muslims have to be more pro-active in terms of educating people about their religion, by no means proselytizing the faith in any capacity, but really setting a standard and defining what mainstream Islam stands for," Latif said.
advertisement
The project is the Islamic Circle's first such advertising campaign. The group has run ads before but not on New York's subways.
The transit authority said the cost of the monthlong campaign is about $48,000.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/22/islam.ads/index.html
Islam subway ads cause stir in New York
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Ads promoting Islam are to be placed on New York subway cars in September, but a U.S. congressman finds people sponsoring the messages unacceptable.
"I have no problem with the ad itself, but I have a very, very real problem with those behind it," Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican, said Tuesday. He is urging the Metropolitan Transit Authority to reject the ads.
The campaign is to feature ads on 1,000 of the subway system's roughly 6,200 cars. The main sponsor is a grassroots organization, Islamic Circle of North America.
The ads, simple black-and-white panels, will feature key words or phrases about Islam on one side of the panel such as "Head Scarf?" or "Prophet Muhammad?" and the words "You deserve to know" along with the Web site address WhyIslam.org on the other side.
"The idea is to evoke certain thoughts in the mind-set of the person who is looking at the ads and get them to a point where they can reflect upon certain words that one could define as hot words or key words that get thrown around a lot but are not necessarily defined in the most proper context," said New York University's Imam Khalid Latif, a cleric who is promoting the project in a YouTube video created by the Islamic Circle. Video Watch the controversy surrounding the subway ads »
Another of the backers of the advertising campaign -- which will launch in September to coincide with the monthlong Islamic holiday of Ramadan -- is Siraj Wahhaj, imam of a Brooklyn mosque.
Wahhaj was the first Muslim to lead a prayer before the House of Representatives, but King objects to him because he was a character witness for convicted 1993 World Trade Center bombing mastermind Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman.
"He is a known Islamic extremist, and you would be giving him credibility and stature through a known government facility," said King, ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee.
Wahhaj also appeared on a list of 170 potential unindicted co-conspirators in the 1993 bombing case. A prosecutor said not everyone on the list was considered a co-conspirator.
Speaking to reporters Monday, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg did not join in King's outrage about the ads.
"If you were to advocate becoming a Muslim, I assume the First Amendment would protect you," he said.
But King, noting that the ads would be up during the seventh anniversary of the September 11 attacks, said, "I'm calling on the MTA not to have these ads, not to go forward with them, and I don't see this as a free speech issue at all."
King said he sent a letter to the MTA on Monday night demanding it reject the ads.
The New York Post has reacted strongly to the ads, running a cover photograph of Wahhaj on Monday with the headline "Jihad Train" and posting an article on its Web site with the headline "Train-ing day for jihadists" and the first paragraph saying, "Allah aboard!"
Abdel-Rahman and nine others were convicted in 1995 of seditious conspiracy for their role in a plot to bomb the United Nations, FBI headquarters in Manhattan, two tunnels in New York and a bridge connecting New Jersey with Manhattan -- all in one day.
The government said the group also was responsible for the February 26, 1993, World Trade Center bombing that killed six people and injured more than 1,000.
Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor in that case, said Wahhaj's name was included in a filing that prosecutors were required to provide to defense attorneys in the case, a list of all the names of people who could possibly be foreseen to come up in the evidence. The filing, McCarthy said, has been called a "co-conspirator list." But Wahhaj was never named by the prosecution.
"The only time he came up in a meaningful way before the jury is when the defense called him as a witness," McCarthy recalled.
McCarthy said that although the list named anyone the government might allege during the trial was a co-conspirator, not everyone on the list was so labeled.
Wahhaj said Monday that he was a character witness for Abdel-Rahman in the context of "what we knew about him before the incident," citing him as a "scholar in Islam" and "a great reciter of the Quran."
"People try to make the connection as if I'm endorsing some bad deeds that [were] done by Sheik Abdel-Rahman," he said. "That had nothing to do with it."
He added, "Not only have I never been charged with anything, not one FBI agent has ever asked me one question in relationship to that bombing."
Wahhaj also said that he regrets some of his more controversial statements, such as calling the FBI and the CIA "terrorists."
"What I was saying is that not all the FBI or CIA are terrorists, but there are some elements in there," he said. "So if you want to accuse some Muslims [of being terrorists], OK. These Muslims did that, but don't undermine the entire faith. That's what the message is."
Wahhaj said the New York Post's "cheesy" and "anti-Islam" reaction to his participation in the Subway Project is "the very reason the young Muslims want to put out this ad campaign."
Islamic Circle spokesman Azeem Khan called the situation a "perfect microcosm" of what the ads seek to address -- that Wahhaj's portrayal in media reports is similar to how Islam is often depicted.
"I think that even more so reinforces the idea as to why a project like this is necessary, where Muslims have to be more pro-active in terms of educating people about their religion, by no means proselytizing the faith in any capacity, but really setting a standard and defining what mainstream Islam stands for," Latif said.
advertisement
The project is the Islamic Circle's first such advertising campaign. The group has run ads before but not on New York's subways.
The transit authority said the cost of the monthlong campaign is about $48,000.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 | PermalinkComments 251 - 300 of 511 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers252. Comment #217498 by newskin on July 24, 2008 at 11:49 am
kkellyI think there is a difference from something being said 'in jest' and it being witty, let alone funny. Whilst sometimes i think i can see your sense of humour behind the text, you fall foul of the fact that sarcasm/black wit doesn't work at all in written form.
Other Comments by newskin
253. Comment #217501 by thewhitepearl on July 24, 2008 at 11:52 am
Rkelly,
*chuckles*
He likes to argue. Most of these argues seem like they are ones that he has overheard, and not really researched. So he doesn't have a clue. His argument style is similar to kids in school arguing democrat vs republican based on what they have heard their parents say.
Other Comments by thewhitepearl
254. Comment #217504 by Quetzalcoatl on July 24, 2008 at 11:53 am
kkelly-
Well I hope that it's evident by now that my insults are all in jest.
Does the same apply to your arguments?
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
255. Comment #217505 by al-rawandi on July 24, 2008 at 11:53 am
TWP,
Rkelly sings "Your body.... is my port-o-potty"
kkelly,
Answer my question.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
256. Comment #217506 by kkelly on July 24, 2008 at 11:55 am
al, in certain jurisdictions, strippers are not allowed to stand within 3 feet, sometimes even 6, of the person to whom they are giving a lapdance. It's a LAP dance, that means in the fucking lap!! This misogynistic, judeochristian bullshit morality cuts into their profit margin. Happy? Other Comments by kkelly
257. Comment #217509 by kkelly on July 24, 2008 at 11:58 am
256, yeah your cause of lesbianism argument was the most sophisticated of rhetoric. Other Comments by kkelly
258. Comment #217518 by thewhitepearl on July 24, 2008 at 12:03 pm
strippers are not allowed to stand within 3 feet, sometimes even 6, of the person to whom they are giving a lapdance
That rule is set up to protect the strippers by the strip club owners. I don't recall this stopping them from doing lap dances. I don't think you really know all the facts on that. And was prob the worst example you could come up with. I would go so far as to say that doesn't even apply.
And if you have a problem with my lesbianism argument, take it up with the lesbians I've talked to.
edit
Other Comments by thewhitepearl
259. Comment #217522 by al-rawandi on July 24, 2008 at 12:09 pm
kkelly,
That is to prevent strippers from being molested.
Assuming you didn't just make that shit up.
So try again fuck wit.
You know what? I am just going to assume you are full of shit and don't know what you are talking about, and can't come up with any evidence.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
260. Comment #217523 by hawt4dawk on July 24, 2008 at 12:09 pm
If you're at all wondering where I am... I am tearing out my hair because I just lost my carefully composed (with statistics and references) reply to this firestorm.To quickly recap:
- grossly unfair to focus on feminists-for-golf nonsense. This allows media to focus on making clowns out of feminists when in fact:
- most mainstream feminist organizations focus their energy and attention on still high statistics of battering (approx. 170,000 cases treated in hospitals or other medical service per year), which victimizes not only the battered, but the children who witness it (in many cases).
- approx. 1400 women are killed annually in the states by their husbands and boyfriends
- mainstream feminists focus attention on trying to maintain women's ever-encroached-upon reproductive rights
- why would a "vaginaphobic" gay man defend feminists? I'm sorry to say that this really indicates that you know very little of the history of the feminist movement in the United States and other western countries. Feminists took action on behalf of gays and lesbians long before it was even safe for them to take action on their own behalf. Feminism has long been at a junction between gay rights and human rights altogether.
- edit: that may not be why kkelly responded though. I agree that because there are human/women's rights abuses occurring abroad does not mean that the domestic agenda should be abandoned
- yes you're right some feminists do take up silly and trivial issues compared to others.
- Yes, Al, it did sound like you were dismissing feminists for this reason despite your caveat.
- yes, some feminist theorists really fucking hate men and have strived long and hard to attack male sexuality and to shame men
- yes, some feminists, like Germaine Greer, are self-promoting sensationalists who say whatever is gonna get them some media play and don't really have a commitment to women as evidenced by their statements of support for cultural practice of female genital mutilation. yes, this really aggravates me, too.
- Al, the police and the FBI and the U.S. Violence Against Women: A National Crime Victimization Survey Report by the U.S. Department of Justice could disabuse you of the idea that there aren't suffient women's rights abuses in this country.
Also, please let's cut out the name calling and tones of contempt and mockery. It doesn't do Richard Dawkin's website justice and it really just stifles communication.
Other Comments by hawt4dawk
261. Comment #217524 by kkelly on July 24, 2008 at 12:09 pm
261, The rule is set up at the local government level, be that township, city, or county. Club owners object to the rules. Other Comments by kkelly
262. Comment #217527 by newskin on July 24, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Rkelly sings "Your body.... is my port-o-potty"
That and rhyming 'kitchen' with 'ignition'; probably the two defining moments of his glittering career!
Other Comments by newskin
263. Comment #217530 by al-rawandi on July 24, 2008 at 12:15 pm
hawt4dawk,
Good statistics. These men are prosecuted for their crimes if sufficient evidence exists. What would the feminists do, make it MORE illegal? The law is equitable in the US.
Gang rapes in the Pakistani Punjab go unpunished and are considered acceptable.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
264. Comment #217535 by kkelly on July 24, 2008 at 12:19 pm
266, Nobody was arguing that women don't have it far worse in other countries. I objected to your negative characterization of western feminists who focus on western female inequities. I think you're trying to change your stance a bit. For whatever reason I can only speculate. Other Comments by kkelly
265. Comment #217536 by thewhitepearl on July 24, 2008 at 12:20 pm
The rule is set up at the local government level, be that township, city, or county. Club owners object to the rules.
Once again, you dont have a full grasp on what you are talking about.
H4D,
Yes. We are aware of that. No one denied that feminist groups do practice some good. That wasn't the argument. The argument was how spineless they can be. Like I said they are more worried about what goes on in the US and simply ignore other (sometimes bigger) issues in the rest of the world.
why would a "vaginaphobic" gay man defend feminists? I'm sorry to say that this really indicates that you know very little of the history of the feminist movement in the United States and other western countries. Feminists took action on behalf of gays and lesbians long before it was even safe for them to take action on their own behalf. Feminism has long been at a junction between gay rights and human rights altogether
Wrong assumption. But now that you pointed it out, I'll rephrase the rhetorical question to this:
"Why would a gay man be such a vaginaphobic when it is apparent of the support they have shown gay and lesbians."?
And I wonder if the support had more to do with the lesbian side, not necessarily the gay man side. But we won't really ever know seeing how you can't seem to have one without the other.
You seem to be focusing on one part of the argument and not the big picture that we are arguing.
Other Comments by thewhitepearl
266. Comment #217542 by kkelly on July 24, 2008 at 12:23 pm
268, because vaginas are yucky. Other Comments by kkelly
267. Comment #217543 by hawt4dawk on July 24, 2008 at 12:25 pm
On the contrary, I just read a story that suggested that two Pakistani (or maybe I'm thinking of Sri Lankans here) men ran away after their 27 lashes for raping a girl. The girl herself collapsed after some 40 lashes. Yeah, she got punished too because you know naughty girl she brought it on herself and enjoyed every sinful minute. The abuses of women in these countries is grotesque. There should be loads more attention in the Western media, there should be more feminist outcry here, but there should be outcry from all not just women, not just feminist. Women shouldn't have to be the only ones who care about women.
Al, **sings** what have you done for me lately?
267, seconded.
Other Comments by hawt4dawk
268. Comment #217545 by thewhitepearl on July 24, 2008 at 12:25 pm
These men are prosecuted for their crimes if sufficient evidence exists. What would the feminists do, make it MORE illegal? The law is equitable in the US.
oooh touche
I objected to your negative characterization of western feminists who focus on western female inequities
Now, if you could only provide a link to a feminist organisation that claims they are a "western feminist organisation who focus on western female inequites".
Hmm didn't think so.
Other Comments by thewhitepearl
269. Comment #217549 by kkelly on July 24, 2008 at 12:28 pm
271, oh god, do shut up you vapid, thoughtless fool. Other Comments by kkelly
270. Comment #217551 by thewhitepearl on July 24, 2008 at 12:30 pm
but their should be outcry from all not just women, not just feminist. Women shouldn't have to be the only ones who care about women.
True. But maybe some women don't care. Which is exactly what separates "women" from "feminists". A simple dictionary would do well here.
Other Comments by thewhitepearl
271. Comment #217557 by Quetzalcoatl on July 24, 2008 at 12:33 pm
KKelly-
271, oh god, do shut up you vapid, thoughtless fool.
See, it's comments like that that really don't come across well.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
272. Comment #217558 by thewhitepearl on July 24, 2008 at 12:34 pm
oh god, do shut up you vapid, thoughtless fool.
[silently points to avatar]
Other Comments by thewhitepearl
273. Comment #217569 by newskin on July 24, 2008 at 12:42 pm
quetzQuite. Kkelly, the moral crusader for feminists
who finds it amusing to insult tortured war vets continues in the same vane. I was disgusted by that outburst but reserved judgement in the hope it was a one off. It seems not, he is purely out to bait people. Where was the jest in that last post?!
Other Comments by newskin
274. Comment #217576 by Apathy personified on July 24, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Al,Does the 'feminist movement' in America make efforts to help the women in America trapped in forced and/or abusive marriages (mainly in religious communities, of course)?
It seems that too many of the feminist movements goals are directed at the top 0.00001% of women (those who would WANT to play golf at Augusta), rather than the majority of women who are the ones who have to deal with unequal treatment day in day out - i.e. the real victims.
I've personally been against these neo feminists ever since i was called a misogynistic bastard for holding a door open (which i do for everyone i can - regardless of gender or race)
Other Comments by Apathy personified
275. Comment #217583 by kkelly on July 24, 2008 at 12:49 pm
267, No, I am not clearly out to bait people. I like reading the topics and comments at RD.net. Keep in mind there are many insults directed at me, which I'm fine with, just saying.
If you still think that I intentionally insulted an injured war vet then I can't help you, because it's very clear that I didn't, and that I apologized when I realized my error.
Other Comments by kkelly
276. Comment #217585 by Quetzalcoatl on July 24, 2008 at 12:50 pm
newskin-
he's made a couple of decent comments, but on the whole he's heading into troll territory.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
277. Comment #217589 by kkelly on July 24, 2008 at 12:55 pm
279, Why does it always have to be professional here? I see no problem with my bouncing between serious debate and science discussion and what you consider trolling (I don't), but from now on I'll tip the balance toward the former. Other Comments by kkelly
278. Comment #217612 by Quetzalcoatl on July 24, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Kkelly-
my point is that there's a difference between having fun and making comments that might be considered offensive, especially if they're worded in a way that makes it hard to tell.
EDIT- the White Pearl said it better.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
279. Comment #217614 by thewhitepearl on July 24, 2008 at 1:11 pm
The problem is the way you present it and what you say. That's what the problem is. You have an issue with social cues.
We've been over this.
Other Comments by thewhitepearl
280. Comment #217620 by kkelly on July 24, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Well, then it's off to finishing school I go! Other Comments by kkelly
281. Comment #217625 by Cartomancer on July 24, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Come on everyone, lets all get along shall we?I'm sure we've all gathered that Kkelly is a bit... umm... idiosyncratic by now. Perhaps if we treat him with rather more indulgence than usual he will eventually be able to work off some of his tensions and find the appropriate style of interpersonal discourse for the site.
Though if he wants some extra one-on-one lessons with me...
Other Comments by Cartomancer
282. Comment #217631 by hawt4dawk on July 24, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Those of you accusing kkelly of being a troll, what do you think about The White Pearl and Al-Rawandi ganging up on him playground style? What about the slightly bullying rhetorical style of Al-Rawandi? Should we bring up arguments and misunderstandings from other threads to defeat an argument we don't like? Isn't this just character assassination? An ad hominem attack? What does that tell you about his opponents in the argument?You can't shore up weak arguments with crap like that and you can't just say that you just know feminist history when you demonstrate no pith or substance to your assertions about feminists.
Al, you said you thought America was failing women and then you knock aside my statistic of 170,000 women severely battered (leaving out any of the women verbally and less severely abused) with the retort "what do feminists want to do make it more illegal?" And the white pearl says, "ooo touche"? WTF? I know you guys aren't dumb. Are you just deadset on defending your thesis that feminists here are worthy of ridicule no matter what valid points anyone makes? There's no point in wasting any more energy arguing with you if that's the case.
Another point: It's hard to know when you're being serious, but since there wasn't any wink next to your comment, I'll assume that the question of "why would a gay man be "vaginaphobic" when feminists have done so much for him?" was at least meant to be a point or a defense of a previous point, but moreover I want to put forth the theory I've heard which is that sexual preference is set by a chemical hormonal "bath" of a fetus' brain.
Other Comments by hawt4dawk
283. Comment #217633 by ColdFusionLazarus on July 24, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Cartomancer, you're in fine, frisky mood tonight. I do hope you find "the hormonal one" tonight. Ha ha! Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus
284. Comment #217634 by Cartomancer on July 24, 2008 at 1:27 pm
In all honesty I should probably refrain from internet activity while I'm like this... Other Comments by Cartomancer
285. Comment #217638 by hawt4dawk on July 24, 2008 at 1:36 pm
But maybe I shouldn't mention hormonal baths just now...;o) Other Comments by hawt4dawk
286. Comment #217642 by Cartomancer on July 24, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Well, thanks to this particular hormonal bath I'm going to need to take a cold shower... Other Comments by Cartomancer
287. Comment #217647 by Dhamma on July 24, 2008 at 1:54 pm
kkelly, No, I don't think you, necessarily, want to hurt anyone. The fact of the matter is though, that even if you view it as jest, it is absolutely not perceived as jest. You keep insulting people in a bad way.
Reading this last page was, frankly, ridiculous. By all parts I would say, but these stupid discussions didn't happen before you came, so it's really up to you to first show better manners.
I don't think the world would go under for you if you were banned, but I wouldn't be surprised if you will be.
Other Comments by Dhamma
288. Comment #217651 by Cartomancer on July 24, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Bugger. The cold shower didn't work... Other Comments by Cartomancer
289. Comment #217678 by hawt4dawk on July 24, 2008 at 2:23 pm
The White Pearl --Yes. We are aware of that. No one denied that feminist groups do practice some good. That wasn't the argument. The argument was how spineless they can be. Like I said they are more worried about what goes on in the US and simply ignore other (sometimes bigger) issues in the rest of the world.
You seem to be focusing on one part of the argument and not the big picture that we are arguing.
I don't think so. I wrote a post rather broadly covering the issues under discussion and backed up my argued points with some statistics. When has anybody in this discussion provided any basis for what they were saying other than Al-Rawandi bringing up a golf tournament? Nobody but Fanusi and Apathy Personified even attempted to distinguish whom they are referring to when they discuss feminists. We don't just discuss "scientists" on here. My whole point was that there are a number of anti-feminist sentiments consistently expressed in these threads that are connected to deep issues of misogyny in our cultures stemming originally from religion. And I think we need to look at them.
Okay, I'm about ready for a vodka now. I've got some absolut in the freezer. I almost stopped at the store for some cranberry juice.
Other Comments by hawt4dawk
290. Comment #217684 by thewhitepearl on July 24, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Those of you accusing kkelly of being a troll, what do you think about The White Pearl and Al-Rawandi ganging up on him playground style?
Exactly what it is. Ganging up on a troll playground style.
What about the slightly bullying rhetorical style of Al-Rawandi?
Slightly bullying? hmmph. I can only justify that by pointing out that at least Al follows it up with an argument and valid point.
Should we bring up arguments and misunderstandings from other threads to defeat an argument we don't like?
Nope and we don't. If you take a careful look back on the thread you can see that the use of previous arguments and/or misunderstandings is after an argument is already defeated.
Isn't this just character assassination?
If that's what you want to call it. But if you call a whore a whore is the character assination your fault or hers? (That was just an example btw)
What does that tell you about his opponents in the argument?
Whatever you want.
You can't shore up weak arguments with crap like that and you can't just say that you just know feminist history when you demonstrate no pith or substance to your assertions about feminists.
And you can't accuse us of weak arguments without showing how our arguments are weak, crappy, and unknowledgeable. If you are going to say that you need to back it up. Any argument that we have put forth in response we at least show why we believe that said person is wrong. And usually follow it up with a point of our own.
then you knock aside my statistic
Wrong. What Al said was
Good statistics.
Al, you said you thought America was failing women and then you knock aside my statistic of 170,000 women severely battered (leaving out any of the women verbally and less severely abused) with the retort "what do feminists want to do make it more illegal?" And the white pearl says, "ooo touche"?
What Al did was accept your argument and then presented one of his own. No one argued that what you said was wrong. Did we?
It's not like battering and mistreatment of women is legal in america and kept behind closed doors. Feminists aren't swooping in to save the day. They may have had a hand in the past but that's the past. It's illegal in america and without the aid of feminists women would still be protected by the law. Yes feminist groups help women. Wonderful. They provide assistance to battered women. Bravo. Hardly worthy of a prize especially since non-feminist organisations also provide the same assistance. There are women in other cultures that don't have a law to shelter under. Perhaps it would be nice if they spent time raising the awareness about that and trying to help women in other cultures. But they don't. What they are doing is hiding behind the exact same statistics and arguments that you bring up. Why? Not sure why. Perhaps it's because they are scared, gutless, and apparently its an out of sight out of mind issue.
This is the argument that Al was making. Only he summed it up in a couple of sentences. It really didnt need explanation. It was a wonderful point and that is why I responded with "touche".
Are you just deadset on defending your thesis that feminists here are worthy of ridicule no matter what valid points anyone makes?
No. You made a valid argument, proved your point and we responded with our own arguments and our own points. You have yet, at the time I am writing this response, to come back at us with another argument. You aren't even refuting or trying to defeat any of our reasoning. Instead at this point you are attacking the way in which we argue and defeat yours. (or kkelly)
I'll assume that the question of "why would a gay man be "vaginaphobic" when feminists have done so much for him?"
It was a rhetorical question and I was being a bit of a smart ass. The whole point of the "vaginaphobic feminist" was to show that it was a little bit odd. I was trying to show that I didn't think kkelly really gave a rats ass about feminism. He was merely trying to argue for the sake of arguing. (trolling)
moreover I want to put forth the theory I've heard which is that sexual preference is set by a chemical hormonal "bath" of a fetus' brain.
Valid theory. All humans start off as women. And I hope you weren't bringing that up as some sort of defense for kkelly. Please don't think that I was being rude to kkelly just because of his sexual orientation. He is the self proclaimed vaginaphobe.
Other Comments by thewhitepearl
291. Comment #217693 by al-rawandi on July 24, 2008 at 2:35 pm
hawt4dawk,
I'm a bully? How so? Because I am firm and quite biting in my demand for rationalism and statistics.
You said a lot of women are beaten. As my father (a psychologist) spent one year as a volunteer at a battered women's shelter, I happen to have some horror stories. What you failed to mention is that men are prosecuted for beating their wives or killing them.
I was, from the outset, talking about places where these things are legal, or unpunished. Feminists will not stop domestic violence, they can help spread the notion that this should be punished. When I speak negatively of feminists that worry about the wrong things I mean specifically THOSE feminists.
So I see how you operate, I am the bad guy because I criticize the much lauded feminists while the guy talking about pro-lapsed rectums and citing all of zero instances where a woman's right has been violated in the last year in the United States is the good guy. I can see where you fall on the rationalism scale.... heavy on emotion, light on rationalism.
I am still waiting, when has a woman had her rights violated in the last year. Fuck it, the last 5 years. Anyone? Class? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?
But don't worry I am just a bully.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
292. Comment #217695 by Apathy personified on July 24, 2008 at 2:36 pm
hawt4dawk,I think a problem here is, it seems (from my perspective anyway - which is based on limited exposure), that the only people who get airtime or any coverage about inequality for women are these self styled 'feminists' who are actually only trying to further themselves, don't give a shit about 'those other women', but are using the banner of inequality to try and gather support. These women tend to be real bitches (the women that other women really hate) and to be so self serving that they have made 'feminist' into a dirty word.
The women who struggle against inequality (either pay or treatment) and abuse seem to be silent.
I'm sure they are there, but they are being drowned out by these neo-feminists.
End of opinionated rant.
I also find drinking and RD.Net go well together :)
Other Comments by Apathy personified
293. Comment #217700 by Goldy on July 24, 2008 at 2:42 pm
You said a lot of women are beaten. As my father (a psychologist) spent one year as a volunteer at a battered women's shelter, I happen to have some horror stories. What you failed to mention is that men are prosecuted for beating their wives or killing them.
Appears to be a problem here in NZ. Oddly, I read that the incidence goes up when rugby teams lose...
Other Comments by Goldy
294. Comment #217701 by hawt4dawk on July 24, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Al, I said you have "a slightly bullying rhetorical style". You use personal attacks, you routinely use sarcasm and contempt. You don't back up your own arguments with evidence of any sort that I can see. (Edit: except when you talked with me about Islam, you had a lot of stuff then, but not in this argument.) If someone makes a valid point, you ignore it or whip something else out entirely, I didn't accuse you of being a bully, but look at the way you talk to me in that last post #294.EDIT: I "failed to mention" that the men are prosecuted for beating their wives because I thought the mere fact that they are beating their wives said quite a lot to support my thesis that there is a real battleground for feminists on the domestic scene, which it seemed you were arguing against.
Other Comments by hawt4dawk
295. Comment #217705 by al-rawandi on July 24, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Apathy,
Just like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton they are going for headlines.
It is hard to respect that.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
296. Comment #217715 by al-rawandi on July 24, 2008 at 2:52 pm
hawt4dawk,
What ever are you talking about. I asked YOU and kkelly to tell me when in the last year a woman has had her rights violated. I asked you to name ONE time when this has happened. Which implied that a woman had her rights violated without recourse to the law.
You simply ignored me and started telling me that women get beat by their husbands.
Care to try again? There is no point in me getting statistics about violence in the Muslim world because you concede the point. The only remaining issue is to show me that anything at all happens like that here without recourse to the law. So I will ask you for about the 7th time to do so.
Thanks, I look forward to your reply. And yes I am contemptuous of people who defend media stunt artists.
EDIT: Your points weren't valid because they were non-sequiter. I am worried about rights violations without any redress.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
297. Comment #217717 by kkelly on July 24, 2008 at 2:53 pm
294, Al, it's more subtle. Women still make less than men for the same work, and have to deal with the added hindrance of male chauvinism in the workplace. This is still important to address even though there are serious human rights violations elsewhere. Your tone, before I even entered the discussion, came across as dismissive and arrogant...and you were actually being serious. That's what annoyed me about you. Other Comments by kkelly
298. Comment #217729 by Peacebeuponme on July 24, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Those of you accusing kkelly of being a troll, what do you think about The White Pearl and Al-Rawandi ganging up on him playground style? What about the slightly bullying rhetorical style of Al-Rawandi? Should we bring up arguments and misunderstandings from other threads to defeat an argument we don't like? Isn't this just character assassination? An ad hominem attack? What does that tell you about his opponents in the argument?Wait until you meet styrer.
Al does post in a somewhat forthright style, but is willing to be called on it and change his mind if necessary. Moreover he gets on well with pretty much all regular posters around here, managing not to rub them up the wrong way for the most part.
thewhitepearl has something of an excuse for hostility given kkelly's form when he started posting - in playground style "he started it, miss."
kkelly has made some interesting points (some that I agree with), but has approached this website in a rather cack-handed way. The reaction should not have been surprising. Its not a gay (or straight) pick up site for one thing.
Also, when socialising on the web, or out there in the real world, its usually wise to go with the flow and watch the group dynamic at first, which gets you onside. Pretty basic stuff.
H4D's post #217523 was probably the best thing said on this subject.
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
299. Comment #217735 by Auraboy on July 24, 2008 at 3:12 pm
It's nice to know a thread can go up shit creek without my help. Do carry on. It was fun reading. Other Comments by Auraboy
300. Comment #217736 by al-rawandi on July 24, 2008 at 3:13 pm
kkelly,
If women make less than men for the same work, that would be an injustice. So post some evidence for that. I am not here to prove negatives, I am here to tell you my impression of feminism and be proven wrong. I am more than willing to be wrong and admit it, but your word probably isn't going to do it for me.
So please post some relevant evidence.
And finally, I don't give two shits about what you think of me. I really could care less what people here have to say about me, least of them you. There are people who I ask for impressions of me personally, but they generally know me. And you don't know me.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
Upcoming Events:
Mailing List
Enter your email:
DVDs
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Voices of Reason' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
251. Comment #217496 by al-rawandi on July 24, 2008 at 11:48 am
Answer my question.
Other Comments by al-rawandi