|
|
#21
11-04-2007, 10:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Pakistan
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Back in my NYC days I knew a fair number of Pakistanis who had small construction companies that did repair work for mine. To a person they were polite, hard-working types and didn't display any kind of weirdness. It was a big surprise to me that their country turned out to be chock-full of nut-cases. [/ QUOTE ] Their country is no more full of nut-cases than ours. [/ QUOTE ] And you are basing this statement on what? [/ QUOTE ] Logic. Taking a bird's perspective over a situation usually helps. [/ QUOTE ] I don't see how it's related to logic; it strikes me more as being based on assumption. And that's why I asked. edit: Pakistan's Northern provinces contain a high percentage of bin-Laden and al-Qaeda supporters. Is the percentage of nuts higher in such groups? Pakistan contains tens of thousands of (madrassas) Islamic schools; maybe a fourth of those are radical. Might there be a higher percentage of nuts involved in those radical schools? Is it unreasonable to ask such questions? edit 2: are the only reasonable assumptions the following: 1) groups everywhere contain equal percentages of lunatics, and 2) groups of people everywhere are equally rational? Are those assumptions or are they facts? And if they are facts, based on what are they evidenced? [/ QUOTE ] It happens often that people just ignore their own steps and heavily condemn the same steps of the others. Either because of simple ignorance (or lack of information as an excuse) or a belief of their superiority over the others. I believe any thinkable man should be able to find some reasons for consequences unless he thinks as above of course. [/ QUOTE ] So it appears to me that you're basing on your view of what is appropriate in how to view and treat others. That's fine insofar as a base model, but it ought not to blind you to the possibility that there may exist some major genuine statistical differences between some groups. In other words, good ethics does not equal good science. Given that there ARE huge numbers of al-Qaeda supporters in Northern Pakistan, I don't think it is unreasonable to ask what that may imply. I also don't think it is reasonable or scientific to merely assume that the percentage of lunatics in one group or area is necessarily anything close to equal with another group or area. That was the point that brought out my first question: logically, one cannot make such assumptions while also presuming that they must be valid. Of course, much depends on what defines a lunatic, or what defines rationality. I was hoping to get to that question, but it seems I first have to discuss why one cannot have full confidence in such assumptions as the one postulated by AlexM. Unless, of course, he was basing it on something more than an assumption. 
|
|
#22
11-05-2007, 10:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pakistan
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Their country is no more full of nut-cases than ours. Ours just seem normal to those who are around them all the time. [/ QUOTE ] No, our nutcases don't think it's perfectly OK to blow people up [/ QUOTE ] ninja plz.   
|
|
#23
11-05-2007, 08:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pakistan
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Back in my NYC days I knew a fair number of Pakistanis who had small construction companies that did repair work for mine. To a person they were polite, hard-working types and didn't display any kind of weirdness. It was a big surprise to me that their country turned out to be chock-full of nut-cases. [/ QUOTE ] Their country is no more full of nut-cases than ours. [/ QUOTE ] And you are basing this statement on what? [/ QUOTE ] Logic. Taking a bird's perspective over a situation usually helps. [/ QUOTE ] I don't see how it's related to logic; it strikes me more as being based on assumption. And that's why I asked. edit: Pakistan's Northern provinces contain a high percentage of bin-Laden and al-Qaeda supporters. Is the percentage of nuts higher in such groups? Pakistan contains tens of thousands of (madrassas) Islamic schools; maybe a fourth of those are radical. Might there be a higher percentage of nuts involved in those radical schools? Is it unreasonable to ask such questions? edit 2: are the only reasonable assumptions the following: 1) groups everywhere contain equal percentages of lunatics, and 2) groups of people everywhere are equally rational? Are those assumptions or are they facts? And if they are facts, based on what are they evidenced? [/ QUOTE ] It happens often that people just ignore their own steps and heavily condemn the same steps of the others. Either because of simple ignorance (or lack of information as an excuse) or a belief of their superiority over the others. I believe any thinkable man should be able to find some reasons for consequences unless he thinks as above of course. [/ QUOTE ] So it appears to me that you're basing on your view of what is appropriate in how to view and treat others. That's fine insofar as a base model, but it ought not to blind you to the possibility that there may exist some major genuine statistical differences between some groups. In other words, good ethics does not equal good science. Given that there ARE huge numbers of al-Qaeda supporters in Northern Pakistan, I don't think it is unreasonable to ask what that may imply. I also don't think it is reasonable or scientific to merely assume that the percentage of lunatics in one group or area is necessarily anything close to equal with another group or area. That was the point that brought out my first question: logically, one cannot make such assumptions while also presuming that they must be valid. Of course, much depends on what defines a lunatic, or what defines rationality. I was hoping to get to that question, but it seems I first have to discuss why one cannot have full confidence in such assumptions as the one postulated by AlexM. Unless, of course, he was basing it on something more than an assumption. [/ QUOTE ] I’m talking about double standards and a wish (or demand) that other groups accept the rule of the master. You like to compare religions for example and Islam stands a few steps below of Christianity always, talking about how violent it is, what’s wrong with the religion and their beliefs, etc. You very often take a superiority stance of your religion over Islam. I’d say best thing we can do is to accept differences, not asking or demanding a change of their rituals, beliefs, etc. Wouldn’t that be better? Next thing is an ability of trying to connect some events together. Causes have consequences. One would find the reason for the most of bad things which are happening in the Middle East in US aggression against Iraq, the other would try to find the reasons in other groups, their wrong beliefs and again finding things how different, hostile, lunatic they are, etc. That includes over half a million death in Iraq, Iran’s tensions for their defense until it’s too late, situation in Pakistan, rising extremism in the wider area and strengthening of AQ. Who’s responsible for that? Fanatics that noone can understand? What I meant is this: no problem if you think those mad fanatics are responsible until you would say the same vice versa. Example – China someday attacks the USA without any good reason, installs a puppet regime, dictate rules and plunder the country. See? You have a moral superiority stance here unless you would say those Americans fighting against aggressor and for their freedom are mad fanatics. Same with Iran. Why not take them equally? Why taking a position of their master? Why extremism is rising in Pakistan? Why AQ is stronger than ever before, spread where it wasn’t before, why it have no problems with recruiting now? What I want to say is fight against causes, not against consequences should be a goal (and much easier to accomplish). Just try to imagine what would happen in case of war with Iran in the whole region. Double standards. Ignorance. Belief of superiority over the others. That’s why it would be good to take a bird’s view sometimes. Vice versa. Putting yourself in other’s position. I think World would be much safer, people happier and nut-cases couldn’t win that often. Respect. Treating others equally. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that was your master preaching about and not the above. Peace.
|
|
#24
11-05-2007, 09:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pakistan
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Back in my NYC days I knew a fair number of Pakistanis who had small construction companies that did repair work for mine. To a person they were polite, hard-working types and didn't display any kind of weirdness. It was a big surprise to me that their country turned out to be chock-full of nut-cases. [/ QUOTE ] Their country is no more full of nut-cases than ours. [/ QUOTE ] And you are basing this statement on what? [/ QUOTE ] Logic. Taking a bird's perspective over a situation usually helps. [/ QUOTE ] I don't see how it's related to logic; it strikes me more as being based on assumption. And that's why I asked. edit: Pakistan's Northern provinces contain a high percentage of bin-Laden and al-Qaeda supporters. Is the percentage of nuts higher in such groups? Pakistan contains tens of thousands of (madrassas) Islamic schools; maybe a fourth of those are radical. Might there be a higher percentage of nuts involved in those radical schools? Is it unreasonable to ask such questions? edit 2: are the only reasonable assumptions the following: 1) groups everywhere contain equal percentages of lunatics, and 2) groups of people everywhere are equally rational? Are those assumptions or are they facts? And if they are facts, based on what are they evidenced? [/ QUOTE ] It happens often that people just ignore their own steps and heavily condemn the same steps of the others. Either because of simple ignorance (or lack of information as an excuse) or a belief of their superiority over the others. I believe any thinkable man should be able to find some reasons for consequences unless he thinks as above of course. [/ QUOTE ] So it appears to me that you're basing on your view of what is appropriate in how to view and treat others. That's fine insofar as a base model, but it ought not to blind you to the possibility that there may exist some major genuine statistical differences between some groups. In other words, good ethics does not equal good science. Given that there ARE huge numbers of al-Qaeda supporters in Northern Pakistan, I don't think it is unreasonable to ask what that may imply. I also don't think it is reasonable or scientific to merely assume that the percentage of lunatics in one group or area is necessarily anything close to equal with another group or area. That was the point that brought out my first question: logically, one cannot make such assumptions while also presuming that they must be valid. Of course, much depends on what defines a lunatic, or what defines rationality. I was hoping to get to that question, but it seems I first have to discuss why one cannot have full confidence in such assumptions as the one postulated by AlexM. Unless, of course, he was basing it on something more than an assumption. [/ QUOTE ] I’m talking about double standards and a wish (or demand) that other groups accept the rule of the master. You like to compare religions for example and Islam stands a few steps below of Christianity always, talking about how violent it is, what’s wrong with the religion and their beliefs, etc. You very often take a superiority stance of your religion over Islam. I’d say best thing we can do is to accept differences, not asking or demanding a change of their rituals, beliefs, etc. Wouldn’t that be better? [/ QUOTE ] It would be better PROVIDED no religions include the earthly goal to dominate others and to spread and enforce their own religious law over others; then your proposal would make perfect ethical sense. But if any religion inherently contains such a political or earthly mandate, then criticizing and resisting that calculated tyranny is NOT out of line at all. Tolerance is great, but does that also include being tolerant of tyranny and intolerance? [ QUOTE ] Next thing is an ability of trying to connect some events together. Causes have consequences. One would find the reason for the most of bad things which are happening in the Middle East in US aggression against Iraq, the other would try to find the reasons in other groups, their wrong beliefs and again finding things how different, hostile, lunatic they are, etc. [/ QUOTE ] Why do you view it as either/or? I think it is BOTH. [ QUOTE ] That includes over half a million death in Iraq, Iran’s tensions for their defense until it’s too late, situation in Pakistan, rising extremism in the wider area and strengthening of AQ. Who’s responsible for that? Fanatics that noone can understand? [/ QUOTE ] I never disputed the impact or influence of such things. [ QUOTE ] What I meant is this: no problem if you think those mad fanatics are responsible until you would say the same vice versa. Example – China someday attacks the USA without any good reason, installs a puppet regime, dictate rules and plunder the country. See? You have a moral superiority stance here unless you would say those Americans fighting against aggressor and for their freedom are mad fanatics. [/ QUOTE ] No argument from me. [ QUOTE ] Same with Iran. Why not take them equally? Why taking a position of their master? Why extremism is rising in Pakistan? Why AQ is stronger than ever before, spread where it wasn’t before, why it have no problems with recruiting now? [/ QUOTE ] There are many reasons why extremism is rising: In no particular order: 1) backlash or blowback against Western policy or actions, 2) increasing contacts occurring between Islam and the West is more revealing of underlying frictions, 3) Islam is undergoing a period of greater self-awareness and returning to a greater overt emphasis on Classical Islam, 4) A sense of frustration or inferiority as compared to the West [ QUOTE ] What I want to say is fight against causes, not against consequences should be a goal (and much easier to accomplish). Just try to imagine what would happen in case of war with Iran in the whole region. Double standards. Ignorance. Belief of superiority over the others. That’s why it would be good to take a bird’s view sometimes. Vice versa. Putting yourself in other’s position. I think World would be much safer, people happier and nut-cases couldn’t win that often. Respect. Treating others equally. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that was your master preaching about and not the above. Peace. [/ QUOTE ] I think you're missing what I'm saying somehow. I'm ALL FOR tolerance, but DON'T let your tolerance blind you to the intolerance of others or of other (or any) belief systems. For some reason you seem to be thinking I am saying it is all their fault or something. If one religion's founder advocates turning the other cheek, and the other religion's founder advocates the exact opposite, WHY do you so strenuously resist making a comparative judgment on that? Isn't is possible to be on the higher moral or spiritual ground and say so? Or is the intellectual analysis only legitimately available to unaffiliated parties??? There are myriad al-Qaeda supporters in Pakistan. WHY do you think it necessary to presume that they are statistically as sane as we are here? Why can't you allow for both possibilities? Or even allow for the reverse possibility, that Pakistanis just might on average be more sane than Americans? Or allow for the possibility that religious fanaticism is not necessarily indicative of insanity at all??? I allow for ALL of those possibilities in my analysis. I don't see why Alex, or myself or you or anyone should RULE OUT any of those possibilities without basis or evidence. That's all I was questioning, WHY AlexM would make a statement (apparently unsupported by evidence or reasoning) that Pakistanis are on average just as rational as Americans. Don't let ethical considerations blind analysis; that's how one derives mistaken answers. Ethics and analysis do not inform each other. Take the best analysis possible, and your best ethical approach, and reconcile it as best as possible. That doesn't mean ethics or morals change facts, though, and facts don't always suggest the best ethical approach, either. Thanks for reading, and sorry if I seem to have a frustrated tone here, but I get tired of people ignoring or trying to presume away things that might be factual merely because facts may not comport with their preconceived ethical likings. If something is intolerant, there is NOTHING WRONG with saying so, even if that intolerance comes from the other side not your own side. It's easy for you perhaps to say don't be so critical of others; it isn't seemly. But what if YOU were an oppressed party under Islam. What if YOU were a woman living in the Middle East, or a non-Muslim living without religious freedom, or a gay to be executed by Iran, or a teenage girl to be hanged for promiscuity, or a woman being beaten for not wearing a hot overly restrictive garb? Would you object to Westerners criticizing your oppressors, or the oppressive system you were living under, then??? Taking a bird's eye view in my opinion means stepping outside the box to see things as they really are. That's all I'm trying to do. Making factual observations is valid REGARDLESS of where you stand or what side you are on. Speaking out against oppression and oppressive systems is ALWAYS valid. And once again I'll say that I'm not discounting the effects of anti-Western blowback; I'm saying that's just part of the picture. And I'm objecting and trying to dig deeper instead of merely regurgitating platitudinous, feel-good rhetoric or principles. All of this is like an extremely complicated poker hand in a sense. Both sides aren't equal, didn't start with the same cards, aren't betting in the same manner, and aren't even presuming the rules are the same. So I think it is a great error to presume that everything was equal at the outset or that both sides are thinking along the same lines. Both sides come from VERY different backgrounds. We4 don't assume our poker opponents think like we do or are automatically as rational as we are, do we? Why should we assume that of others then? This world, these ideas, these religions, and history, and world events, are far far too complex for such a superficial approach. Thanks for reading and I know this was too long but I'm going out and no time to edit. And thanks for your thoughtful post and questions. Maybe you just automatically assumed the worst of my perspective or something. I'm trying to be as analytical as possible and that precludes assuming much of anything in a vacuum.
|
|
#26
11-06-2007, 10:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pakistan
What I wanted to say is very simple.
One who think / act / believe he’s CHOSEN to dictate / rule / change the others instead of treating them equally, usually cannot expect a wide support for his actions beyond his borders. That’s why ‘chosen’ usually are rejected even by the closest friends no matter if that is reduced only to couple of people or the whole nation’s policy. That’s why AQ or terrorist groups are rejected beyond their limited ‘borders’ and that’s why current US policy is rejected worldwide. You want examples – Iraq is a good one. Over 95% of Iraqis reject AQ and at the same time 80% of Iraqis demand US forces to leave within 2 years. Both groups are acting as chosen to dictate / rule / change Iraqis. I can show you how rejected current US policy really is worldwide including in the closest allies to get you examples / evidences if you’d like that (have posted them several times). Also, history is full of evidences how those acting as chosen get rejected all the time. I think you’ll agree that is totally natural to oppose those acting as chosen and that’s good because they are devastating and demolishing for the wider society and relations. Here is a good link about what we’re talking about (funny, it was published today).
|
|
#27
11-06-2007, 10:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pakistan
[ QUOTE ]
What I wanted to say is very simple. One who think / act / believe he’s CHOSEN to dictate / rule / change the others instead of treating them equally, usually cannot expect a wide support for his actions beyond his borders. That’s why ‘chosen’ usually are rejected even by the closest friends no matter if that is reduced only to couple of people or the whole nation’s policy. That’s why AQ or terrorist groups are rejected beyond their limited ‘borders’ and that’s why current US policy is rejected worldwide. You want examples – Iraq is a good one. Over 95% of Iraqis reject AQ and at the same time 80% of Iraqis demand US forces to leave within 2 years. Both groups are acting as chosen to dictate / rule / change Iraqis. I can show you how rejected current US policy really is worldwide including in the closest allies to get you examples / evidences if you’d like that (have posted them several times). Also, history is full of evidences how those acting as chosen get rejected all the time. I think you’ll agree that is totally natural to oppose those acting as chosen and that’s good because they are devastating and demolishing for the wider society and relations. Here is a good link about what we’re talking about (funny, it was published today). [/ QUOTE ] I don't disagree with you on that at all. Also, I'm not in favor of ruling over others. I'm trying to say it is irrational to asssume that they look at things as we do OR that they are necessarily as rational as we are (on average, and partially dependent on the definition of rationality, too). I read somewhere today that something like 50% of Pakistan supports bin-Laden. Is that rational? Who knows? Is it rational by our standards: no. But why assume that others look at things like we do, or that what we see as rationality, they do also??? IMO it's a great mistake to make such assumptions.
|
|
#28
11-06-2007, 10:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pakistan
[ QUOTE ]
Didn't the US put Musharaf into power to begin with? [/ QUOTE ] I don't know. [ QUOTE ] Isn't the US funding his entire operation? Isn't the US continuing to fund his operation right now while he has declared the state of emergency? [/ QUOTE ] Yes. I wasn't saying otherwise and don't understand why you are asking me this.
|
|
#29
11-06-2007, 11:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pakistan
I wasn't. Quick reply. I was asking rhetorically to everyone.
Also, I am under the impression that the US did fund and assist Musharaf to get into power to begin with and my other questions were rhetorical in nature and designed to illustrate the hyprocrisy of the US foreign policy in general. I find it amusing to read about the US criticizing Musharaf's "emergency rule" as they fund it!
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
