It has been far too long since I received a death threat from a member of the Religion of Peace. So in the spirit of free speech, a concept that is uniquely part of Western secularism, I offer the following. Have I reminded you all lately that the penalty for blasphemy in Islam is very explicit?
.
Ooh, I like that last line.
You offended yet? Just wait, I'm just warming up.
Whew, good thing that the Pakis have moderated their stance on killing blasphemers.
A. They only have one camel.
"Who do you expect to please with that little thing?" she says.
A-- The Muslim one blows itself up.
*I don't really hate Muslims. I apologize for the Muslim jokes above, they were insensitive, stupid, etc. But I do hate any social system that responds to the above offensive material by resorting to force or coersion. Inasmuch as most of the above would get me either killed or put in prison in the Islamic world----well, I can only say this says something about the underlying philosophy which would breed such intolerance. Tolerance is not about loving or accepting something, it is about allowing that which you disagree with to be done. If even moderate Sharia law would prohibit me saying any of the above, than it is an oppressive legal system.
1
"Inasmuch as most of the above would get me either killed or put in prison in the Islamic world..."
Rusty, either killed or put in prison? Really now. We all know your fate would be kidnapping and beheading. They wouldn't fool around with prison.
Posted by: The Maximum Leader at December 02, 2004 11:01 AM (jmfvP)
2
Way to take the high road.
Here's a question: What would your university do if they knew you wrote all this and posted it in your blog?
Posted by: Venom at December 02, 2004 11:51 AM (dbxVM)
3
Dr. Rusty,
I would like to know what supposed class you teach so I can immediately tell my son to avoid taking it. I don't care who you are or where you teach the class but just to improve the chance that he is not infected with the cancer that is you, I want him to avoid the subject altogether. In fact, I am willing to teach whatever subject you teach to him myself if it means that he will not come in contact with your hate and utter ignorance.
I am a Christian but I am still shocked at the kind of crap I read on this blog today. Your half-ass "apology" at the end of the post was about as genuine as the fanatical terrorists who supposedly represent Islam. I would like to see how you or the people who freguent this blog would react if they knew someone who wrote similar "jokes" about Christianity and Jesus or even the United States. You would probably be up in arms.
If you are truly educated in any way, then you would know that Islam is a way of life. To people who live in villages in the most uncivilizezd parts of Iran or any other third world country, religion is all they have. They don't have TV, Strip Clubs, or Shooting Ranges. All they have is their religion whose codes they have lived by for thousands of years. Yes they should be modernized. Yes they should reform some of their punishments. But first you have to understand why they react to the things they do. If something comes along and violates everything they know in such an antiquated society, then all they can do is to react in the way that they have been taught. Instead of hating them for that, we should try to spread reform and try to modernize those areas. There are thousands of people in this country who break the Seventh Commandment. The difference is that in our society, we react to it with either high fives or divorce papers. Their society is different. You cannot hold that against them.
Yes the hard liners go too far but that is why they are called HARD LINERS and they do not represent the majority. Grouping all Muslims together and denouncing the entire religion is no better than the monsters who issue fatwas everyday.
My son goes to UC Davis and I hope he never comes in contact with you. Please tell me what subject you teach. If it is not general (like math, history) then nevermind. I don't want you to supposedly risk your pathetic life by revealing some obscure subject that is only offered in a remote community college in some backward town that might give away your identity and jeopardize your safety. Please. You talk about keeping annonomity due to death threats but then when they don't come, you post some ridiculous crap in order to bait them in. You are a sad person who craves attention because you probably don't get it from your wife. If you truly have one that is.
Jim
Posted by: Jim at December 02, 2004 12:08 PM (PH1UJ)
4
Hey it's working! The White Guilt Squad is leading the charge!
You know Dr., and I say this as someone who loves you, maybe taking a blog break isn't such a bad idea. ;-)
Posted by: Gordon at December 02, 2004 12:15 PM (dqTOU)
5
Here's a question: What would your university do if they knew you wrote all this and posted it in your blog?
To hell with the university. All he'd have to worry about was his department, and mine would probably laugh. (Not telling you who they are. But I'm fairly confident of it.) The fact is that although Rusty is couching this as humor and jibe it is serious content. The fatal flaw of Islam (and I do mean fatal, unless it's corrected soon) is that it's unreformed. In fact, all it needs is a reformed element with significant influence, to perform about the some function in the culture as a control rod performs in a nuclear reactor. It prevents the reaction from "going critical."
There are orthodox versions of both Christianity and Judaism, but the reason they don't establish slaughterhouses like those in Fallujah (with the exception of the Phalange in Spain, which is retarded Christianity) is that the reformed version of the faith compels them to moderate. In the Ummah it's precisely the opposite.
Any institution of higher learning that didn't back Rusty 100% is, in reality, an institution of lower learning.
Posted by: Demosophist at December 02, 2004 12:19 PM (7AGFb)
6
Come on people, that Imam/Annan joke is priceless! I plan on telling it in mixed company, possibly a garden party or sock hop.
Posted by: Wine-aholic at December 02, 2004 12:49 PM (Wsn+K)
7
'Have I reminded you all lately that the penalty for blasphemy in Islam is very explicit? Death.'
How does that compare with other religions? and whats the penalty for geerally just having issues?
Posted by: actus at December 02, 2004 12:58 PM (CqheE)
8
Great stuff! You deserve a delicious fruit basket for that one, not a beheading! Viva Infidel!
Posted by: Preston Taylor Holmes at December 02, 2004 12:59 PM (WsZ4F)
9
"Any institution of higher learning that didn't back Rusty 100% is, in reality, an institution of lower learning."
Hmmm...sounds like a challenge. Maybe someone out there that knows Rusty's university would like to pass this along to them. You know, to see if it's an "institution of lower learning" or not? Oh, sorry, now I'M just kidding.
"There are orthodox versions of both Christianity and Judaism, but the reason they don't establish slaughterhouses like those in Fallujah (with the exception of the Phalange in Spain, which is retarded Christianity) is that the reformed version of the faith compels them to moderate."
Your comment could easily be countered by simply looking at the abortion clinic bombings of several years ago. Again, committed by people who take a literal approach to a religion (this time, Christianity). Does this make all of Christianity a terrible religion? What about the Branch Davidians? David Koresh slept with children, stockpiled weapons, and ultimately contributed to the deaths of dozens of people in Waco. Does he speak for all Christians?
I see the point you're trying to make, but here is the main point you're overlooking: Rusty is generalizing across all of Islam. So are you in trying to paint Fallujah as a microcosm of the religion. The fact is that there are secular Muslim countries (like Turkey, for example) that are moderate. And, the fact is that many other Muslim countries don't follow Shariah law (which, I think, is an example of them being more "moderate" than those that commit these awful crimes in cities like Fallujah). A group of Islamic extremists (and, they're called "extremists" for a reason, you know) don't represent the whole religion, the same way Mormons don't represent all facets of Christianity. Does a Democrat represent your value system? I mean, he is an American. And no, I'm not trying to defend (nor have I ever) the criminals that perpetrate these awful crimes in Iraq. But, I also don't see why an entire religion needs to be demonized for the actions of a few thousand extremists. I'm sure America looks pretty harsh in relation to other, more liberal countries. It doesn't necessarily make the whole country a bad place.
Posted by: Venom at December 02, 2004 01:13 PM (dbxVM)
10
Jim, what confusing world do you live in? People in this country make jokes about our predominant religious institutions all the time. That Imam/Annan joke is often told about Catholic Priests. The difference is, we don't then publicly call for the violent end to the joke teller's life. Let your kid learn what he can in school and stay out of his business, make the world a better place.
Posted by: rev. rick at December 02, 2004 01:17 PM (TG49H)
11
Today, I referred to them as "sick f*cks*, and hinted that Arafat (not Israel) was responsible for spreading AIDS in the Arab world. I'll try harder!
Posted by: Princess Kimberley at December 02, 2004 01:31 PM (C9FiU)
12
Jim, don't mean to single you out, but maybe you should try going to the shooting range once in awhile - you'll feel a WHOLE lot better.
Posted by: Editor at December 02, 2004 01:41 PM (adpJH)
13
It's hate, hate hate hate, i see hate! BLAH BLAH BLAH. Anybody who can see an emotion is definately the product of a pair of aged hippies who did every drug from A to Z in no particular order!
To hell with these murderous allah barkers and if they get sent there enmass, I care! They do to, they'll lop off your head the second they felt you didn't praise their laws, allah and child rapist enough. Tell me, is your head up your ass for warmth, view or both?
I say let the crudest jokes be told!
Q) what did the muslim female say after sex?
A) Daddy your crushing my cigarettes.
Q) Why do muslims smell bad?
A) so blind people can hate them.
Posted by: Andre at December 02, 2004 01:42 PM (hD5mx)
14
How do you know when a Taliban is potty trained?
They take the diapers off their asses and put them around their heads.
What do you call a dozen Afghani women smiling?
A full set of teeth!
Those are just for starters. Man, people, lighten up, it's Christmas!
:-)
Posted by: Laura at December 02, 2004 02:00 PM (ptOpl)
15
Man, I'm feeling the hate--but where are the death threats!!!???
PS-I don't teach any of this in class. As a matter of fact, I take it as a professional point of pride that I don't blog on my field of expertise. I'll save that for the peer reviewed journals.
Obviously, the point of this exercise was to intentionally piss people off and seeing how tolerant they are. Islam, as it stands today, is not tolerant.
Last, Venom, get off of it. In the past 20 years how many abortion clinics have been bombed and how many have died in those rare acts of violence? How can you compare the acts of a very very very few who use violence against what the perceive as murder to the institutionalized killing or jailing of people who use offensive language? Again, under sharia law they KILL YOU for saying bad things about Allah. Under even a 'moderate' Islamic regime George Carlin's new book "When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops" would be banned and Carlin thrown in the pokey (if he didn't find himself torn apart in the riots he caused).
Posted by: Rusty at December 02, 2004 02:04 PM (JQjhA)
16
The point is about generalizing and using the extreme acts of "extremists" to define the culture of an entire religion. Sure, they're (abortion clinic bombings and beheadings) different acts of repression, but they're both being committed by "extremists." Abortion clinic bombings was just one example I used. What, am I supposed to list every single murder that's happened in the name of Christianity in the last 20 years? Give me a fucking break, and get your head out of the sand.
Posted by: Venom at December 02, 2004 02:18 PM (dbxVM)
17
But were not talking about beheading here, were talking about governments putting people in jail based on Islamic law. This isn't Fallujah, this is all Muslim countries (don't know abut Turkey, which is secular). The difference between moderate Muslims and extremists is that the moderates just want to put you in jail, while the extremists want to kill you. Liberal Muslims are something entirely different and rare.
And need I remind you that the basis of all scientific investigation is generalization. The reason we use statistics in hypothesis testing is because samples of populations do indeed represent the entire population.
Posted by: Rusty at December 02, 2004 02:23 PM (JQjhA)
18
Venom,
Rusty does a fairly good job of listing Islam's casualties. If you want to make the argument, you should reciprocate.
Posted by: Editor at December 02, 2004 02:24 PM (adpJH)
19
Rusty, the basis of all scientific examination is a theory, which is then either proved or disproved. If Islam were reduced to statistics, incidents such as the Fallujah beheadings would be outliers and discarded because they're not representative of the total study. Sure, samples of the population will reflect the entire population, BUT ONLY when it's drawn randomly. When you specifically go out of your way to draw from one sub-segment of the population (in this case, extremists), you're statistical analysis will be fundamentally flawed.
And no one is arguing that Shariah law is harsher than western law; we're talking about whether or not the extreme actions of a minority constitute the beliefs and values of the total population (remotely or otherwise). Yeah, it sounds harsh to us that someone gets thrown in jail in Saudi Arabia for blasphemy. I'm sure it sounds harsh to someone from the Netherlands that burning the Flag can get you thrown in jail in America. But I don't see any soul-searching over here.
Editor, I've made my case umpteen times about broad generalizations in this blog. I don't think it's necessary for me to do it once again for you.
Posted by: Venom at December 02, 2004 03:06 PM (dbxVM)
20
I've made my case umpteen times about broad generalizations in this blog.
So you think if we don't "get it" through reasoning we're going to get it through osmosis?
Posted by: Editor at December 02, 2004 03:10 PM (adpJH)
21
'But were not talking about beheading here, were talking about governments putting people in jail based on Islamic law.
Egypt puts advocates of islamic law in jail.
Posted by: actus at December 02, 2004 03:17 PM (1312n)
22
"So you think if we don't "get it" through reasoning we're going to get it through osmosis?"
Tough question. You never really know what will happen to people who habitually refuse to listen to anything remotely different from their own value systems. I never see the harm in listening to opposing viewpoints and consider what they might be saying.
Posted by: Venom at December 02, 2004 03:23 PM (dbxVM)
23
Sorry,
Theories are not tested--theories explain the causal relationship between two phenomena. Good theories, though, ought to be able to produce testable hypotheses. Theories then may neither be 'proven' or 'disproven' but may fall out of favor in an epistemic community.
The theory proposed here is that ideology produces tendencies toward behavior. Islam, as an ideology, tends to promote anti-liberal behavior. This is a theory. From that theory we can produce testable hypothesis.
a) All things being equal, Muslims will be more likely than other religious adherents to be willing to jail/kill those who speak blasphemy.
From this hypothesis we might then be able to operationalize the test in such a way that it becomes testable, presumably through a survey instrument.
Q1-Should people be put in jail or receive the death penalty for saying the following: "Mohammed was a false prophet, a child molester, and is in hell?" vs. "Jesus was not the Son of God, was a homosexual, and is in hell?"
From such a survey instrument (holding constant through simple statistical manipulation other demographic information which could serve as counter-theoretical explanations) my theory would predict that the percentage of Muslims willing to put people in jail for saying blasphemous things would be much greater than the percentage of, say, Buddhists, Hindus, and Christians.
This is how science works. This is why scientists practice the art of generalization. And this is why theory is not something tested/proven/disproven but is rather a causal explanation of the interconnectedness of phenomena.
Posted by: Rusty at December 02, 2004 03:24 PM (JQjhA)
24
No, Egypt puts advocates of violent jihad for the goal of establishing and Islamist state in jail (such as memebers of the Muslim Brotherhood). Otherwise, Al Azhar University would have been long since closed. Hence, while the inellectuals at Al Azhar advocate the Islamic Caliphate, they publicly decry (mostly, not always) violent jihad as a means to that ends. But they still advocate the ends!!! Which is exactly the point. I oppose terrorism in order to impose sharia, but as a secularist I oppose sharia imposed through any means.
Posted by: Rusty at December 02, 2004 03:31 PM (JQjhA)
25
I think we're missing the fact that the foundational documents of Islam advocate the kind of measures (death for insulting Mohammed, etc.) that Islamic countries routinely carry out. The Christian documents do not.
Further, entire Islamic governments advocate the kinds of measures Rusty is talking about. The governments of Christian nations do not.
It gets a bit hard to play the equivalency game when the governments of Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and more are part of that system Venom describes as "outliers" while no governments at all fall on the Christian side.
Call it hate, if you like. Point to history and make wild assertions about the Crusades or the Inquisition if you want. But at least open your eyes enough to acknowledge that what is happening RIGHT NOW is that the Muslim religion is full to overflowing with evil ideology.
Posted by: Gleeful Extremist at December 02, 2004 03:41 PM (1hRqD)
26
"Theories are not tested--theories explain the causal relationship between two phenomena."
Are you mad? What you're basically saying is that something unproven (i.e. a theory) rightfully explains the relationship of something observable but not tested. You do realize that your idea of theory vs. fact was popular about 2500 years ago. In fact, you're going so far as to say theory IS fact because it somehow, magically, explains a relationship. In your world, I could say the Earth is the center of the universe because I see the stars moving above my head. And I would be right, because in your world I don't need to prove it. Theories ATTEMPT to explain a causal relationship, but theories ALONE do not constitute a causal relationship. Relationships are proven by testing.
Based on your inability to grasp the basic nuances of what a theory is, I think it's pointless to pick apart the rest of your post.
"This is how science works. This is why scientists practice the art of generalization."
Give me a fucking break. I would love to hear ONE scientist that could, in good conscience, condone this comment. You do realize that until something has been PROVEN, it's called a THEORY. That's why it's called "Einstein's THEORY of General Relativity" and not "Einstein's LAW of General Relativity." Because it HASN'T been proven. That's why they're called Newton's LAWS of Motion, not his THEORIES of Motion. Because they HAVE been proven. A theory, by definition, DOES NOT explain a relationship, it only attempts to with very little measure of accuracy.
Posted by: Venom at December 02, 2004 03:44 PM (dbxVM)
27
'Hence, while the inellectuals at Al Azhar advocate the Islamic Caliphate, they publicly decry (mostly, not always) violent jihad as a means to that ends. But they still advocate the ends!!!'
Oh. So they're advocating it because Egypt doesn't use islamic law.
Posted by: actus at December 02, 2004 04:11 PM (1312n)
28
Please see Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revelution for the most popular discourse on the epistemology of scientific theory.
Proof is something no scientist would ever claim about his theory, at least none has since Einstein's time. Cartesian notions of theory as reality have long since been discarded among the scientific community. Theory attempts to explain reality, and thus is subject to revision over time--thus, theory is never "proven".
I'm sorry, you simply don't understand what theory is. Using the word "law" when describing something is nothing more than a rhetorical device.
Posted by: Rusty at December 02, 2004 04:14 PM (JQjhA)
29
"Theory attempts to explain reality, and thus is subject to revision over time--thus, theory is never "proven". "
You're blurring the lines a little, I think. You implied that theory DOES explain reality. Now you modify your statement. Theories are of coruse subject to revision until they are proven as fact. If all traces of doubt in a scientific experiment are throroughly explained, it no longer is a theory, is it. Newton's Law that Force = mass x acceleration isn't subject to revision because it's fact. It's not a theory. It's been proven. Sure, it's been a long time since someone called a theory a Law, but that's just convention. The fact that a theory is proven or not doesn't change.
Also, attempting to turn a philosophical discourse like Khun's into some kind of guide as to what is considered theory is pretty weak. Khun's book was an attempt to explain how scientific discovery is elicited (i.e. the book itself was a theory). While I have great respect for his accomplishments in physics, his whole book centered about paradigms and how scientists (in theory) are not objective and instead will ignore findings that conflict with their own biases (thus triggering a competing paradigm). His purpose was not to define theory, but how scientific advancements are the product of new ideas that supplant outdated ones through conflict. If you somehow got something else then this, then that's your take on the book.
Posted by: Venom at December 02, 2004 04:43 PM (dbxVM)
30
Ok Venom, now you're entering the realm of the philosophic, which is way OT but fine. Geek alert: I'm not a postmodernist, but I do subscribe to epistemelogical reletavism (but not ontological reletavism).
" Newton's Law that Force = mass x acceleration isn't subject to revision because it's fact."
Not true, Einstein showed that Newton's laws only applied to special circumstances. Thus, his "laws" were not universally applicable and were only true at very low speeds. Using your lexicon, Newton was "proven wrong". Also, when you make up a word like "force" as Newton did, then you can define it however you wish. Force equals Mass x Acceleration exactly because that is how Newton defined it. Einstein, on the other hand, would measure the same phenomenon using an entirely different theory (and more accurate). From what I hear, quantum physics rejects both theoretical descriptions, although I'm too dumb to really get it. Didn't you get that out of Kuhn?
The point is this, scientist collect evidence and test hypotheses--not theories. Over time, if enough of the hypotheses are rejected than the general theory comes into question. As Kuhn describes it, when a new theory to describe the phenomenon replaces the old this happens not because the old was 'disproven' but because the new theory seems to make more sense than the old (of course, the way Kuhn tells the story it's more like a popularity contest than a contest of testable hypotheses).
So, let's get back to the point. Do you agree with the theory that ideas are causally connected to action? Not all theories hold this. Marxists, for instance, would argue that it is 'objective material conditions' which determine actions (ideology being a 'superstructure'). If ideas matter to human action, then what an ideology teaches matters. And if what an ideology teaches matters than exploring Islam as an ideology is a legitimate research goal.
We see this phenomenon: Oppression (defined in secular Western liberal terms) of people in the Islamic world.
Some theories would be that the CAUSE of this oppression is poverty, culture (unrelated to religion), Imperialism, colonial legacies, etc.
Another phenomenon: The number of wars between Muslims and their neighbors. Again, many different theories trying to explain this.
Any way, my point is that theory is nothing more than an attempt to explain why things happen. There may be better theory or worse theory, or popular theory and unpopular theory, but never proven theory and unproven theory.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at December 02, 2004 05:10 PM (JQjhA)
31
Are you guys talking about the dude in the movie The Wrath of Kuhn?
Otherwise you lost me. (not really, but I couldn't resist)
Posted by: Leopold Stotch at December 02, 2004 06:07 PM (xRVGT)
32
No, but remember after the people of the soil told Ned Beatty they were going to stick him like a pig in Deliverance? I think they said they were going Kuhn hunting afterwards.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at December 02, 2004 08:37 PM (JQjhA)
Posted by: Jeremy at December 02, 2004 08:52 PM (/U19w)
34
Re: Jim
The difference betwixt Jimbo and the fanatics is that Jim is against the DEATH penalty for blasphemy. He's quite enightened.
Posted by: slickdpdx at December 02, 2004 09:45 PM (ywZa8)
35
Enlightened! You know, cause he thinks there should be a penalty, he's just not comfortable with the death thing.
Posted by: slickdpdx at December 02, 2004 09:47 PM (ywZa8)
36
Jim Shocked---are you Michele's big brother? Jes' askin.
Anyhoo, since you wanted to know, "Rusty" is of course a nom de blog. If you are worried about your son being "infected" by his "hate", then I'd suggest your son stay away from studying Linguistics, Linguistic Theory, Syntax, Semantics, Philosophy of Language, and Home Refrigeration Repair at a certain tech school in Cambridge Mass. Let's just say Rusty is going to get sMITed for this, and leave it at that!
Sorry, Rusty, your secret is out!
Posted by: Gomer at December 02, 2004 10:12 PM (VGQaO)
37
Thank God my son isn't a genius then. I think it is very nice that Venom got Rusty to show a more intellectual side, one that was willing to hear out an arguement and come up with counters. On the other hand, posts like "Islam is retarded" sound like they were made by some pubescent punk. The sad fact is that Rusty is split between two personalities. One of them honestly wants people to take his views seriously and blogs in order to make a difference, the other just wants to stir shit up and get hits so he can win some blog award. That is why I can't take him seriously. Maybe that is why his peers regard him as "the guy who has beheading videos up". He is basically a snuff film provider. I can just picture him anctiously waiting for the most recent video he can post up to generate hits.
With that said, regardless of where Rusty teaches, I would rather read Venom's blog if he or she has one instead of waste my time on this one.
But not before someone explains what this comment means:
"The difference betwixt Jimbo and the fanatics is that Jim is against the DEATH penalty for blasphemy. He's quite enightened."
Posted by slickdpdx at December 2, 2004 09:45 PM
My feeble mind just doesn't understand.
Posted by: Jim at December 03, 2004 02:15 AM (PH1UJ)
38
I'm not sure which made me laugh harder. True, I blew coffee all over the screen while reading this post but Jim..... Jim, Jim, Jim. You made laugh so fucking hard I farted and blew mud in my shorts. Thanks.
Posted by: Dick at December 03, 2004 06:47 AM (1Z4Aq)
39
"Not true, Einstein showed that Newton's laws only applied to special circumstances. Thus, his "laws" were not universally applicable and were only true at very low speeds. Using your lexicon, Newton was "proven wrong"."
Holy smokes, ok, why don't we split hairs even further. Even in that they were clarified as such, Newton's Laws were still proven, even if only under certain circumstances. I mean since, as you say, they were "true" under certain circumstances, they clearly weren't "false" under same circumstances - so, how are they open to revision when they're empirically proven to be true in those circumstances? They aren't theories anymore since they empirically demonstrate the causality between the variables. Again, that's the difference between theory and fact.
"As Kuhn describes it, when a new theory to describe the phenomenon replaces the old this happens not because the old was 'disproven' but because the new theory seems to make more sense than the old (of course, the way Kuhn tells the story it's more like a popularity contest than a contest of testable hypotheses)."
True, but now you get into the debate as to whether or not Khun was correct or not. He's clearly philosophising. HIS interpretation of paradigm shifts is about as relevant as anyone's. Of course, he's the one that basically coined the term "paradigm" - so I guess he can call it whatever he wants and be correct, right? Just like Newton?
"Marxists, for instance, would argue that it is 'objective material conditions' which determine actions (ideology being a 'superstructure'). If ideas matter to human action, then what an ideology teaches matters. And if what an ideology teaches matters than exploring Islam as an ideology is a legitimate research goal.
We see this phenomenon: Oppression (defined in secular Western liberal terms) of people in the Islamic world.
Some theories would be that the CAUSE of this oppression is poverty, culture (unrelated to religion), Imperialism, colonial legacies, etc. "
I see where you're coming from with this, but I'll again point out that theories don't categorically explain anything, they only attempt to explain the phenomena (something I maintained from the beginning). I mean, getting back to Khun, it's pretty much clear that you can have competing theories. Now, he essentially argues that a better theory supplants an outdated one and that's how scientific progress occurs. He essentially makes the assumption that in the event of such competing theories, one is clearly superior to the other. But if one appears no better than the other, then how can they both explain causality? They're both theories, aren't they? If I'm not mistaken, there are two competing theories to explain relativity. They can't both be right; I'm not saying I know the answer here, but I am saying that based on this, you can't assume a theory is necessarily the answer. Anyways, I think that we're probably more on the same page then our debate might appear. From what I can gather, you're stating that a theory does a pretty good job at explaining relationships and, as such, is just as good as if it were possible to be proven (though it can never be proven outright). I'm being a little more stringent in that a theory can never be considered as good as fact because, by your admission and mine, they ATTEMPT to explain (which, to me, implies they don't necessarily explain). Phenomena either are or they aren't, and our present inability to explain some of them doesn't mitigate that.
Anyhow, agreed, this has gotten OT.
Posted by: Venom at December 03, 2004 09:06 AM (dbxVM)
40
Can't we all just get along? [runs for cover]
Posted by: spacemonkey at December 03, 2004 11:10 AM (DN55C)
41
JIM: You are a little shit who makes it possible for the Islamic terrorists to continue to exist. If you don't agree with what is said on another person's blog then then stay off of it. Personal attacks on his beliefs only get personal attacks back. So.
As for sons, I would much rather have mine listen to a realist like Rusty than a pie in the sky little sissy like you. We are at war with an evil religion. If your not man enough to take part then go wash your bra and let the men continue on.
Posted by: greyrooster at December 06, 2004 07:22 PM (8Ljrv)
42
HEY VENOM: What would Rusty's university do?
Here's a better one. What would a patriot do if he got his hands on you?
Posted by: greyrooster at December 06, 2004 07:25 PM (8Ljrv)
43
Probably shake my hand for embodying the free speech values enshrined in the Constitution?
Posted by: Venom at December 07, 2004 10:53 AM (dbxVM)
44
Rusty! DIE DIE DIE DIE!
(No death threats amonsgt the theory/hypothesis semantics arguments, so I thought I would atleast give you one.)
Posted by: Scoobymkay at December 08, 2004 08:54 AM (QcmGe)
45
OK now my 2 cents again. I read ALL of this thread and I hope you 2 are happy I need Excedrine in massive doses.!! I feel like I have had my refresher course some from High School and a Little from College. I took Criminal Justice, so some of that theory stuff made sense or at least reminded me of my younger days of arguing with my teachers.. Oh the days of bliss... Thank gawd nothing was brought up about Evil-ution (Evolution)... ... "self get bottle of excedrine before reading Rusty's blog".
Hey Greyrooster, how have you been? Speaking of highballs, rooster do you know of Taco Toddy, Pleeeeeeese try to find me the recipe for it.
Andrea
Posted by: Andrea at December 08, 2004 10:36 AM (ywZa8)
46
- Sometimes Allah screws the camels where you can't see Him....
- Allah doesn't play dice with the camels....
- Don't tell Allah what to do with the camels....
- Allah Akbar ....may all your camels be desirable....
Posted by: LC Hunter Weapons Officer at December 08, 2004 05:17 PM (k9TnY)
47
Habib Fermi: Sometimes Allah screws the camels where you can't see Him....
Hashim Einstein: Allah doesn't play dice with the camels....
Habib: Don't tell Allah what to do with the camels....
Hashim: Allah Akbar ....may all your camels be desirable....
Posted by: LC Hunter Weapons Officer at December 08, 2004 05:26 PM (k9TnY)
48
That was the koolest thread, aside from the one at the democratic underground the other day that stated that the poll results are finally in and Bush lost. hrmph!
Posted by: kermit at December 08, 2004 08:41 PM (+jIPl)
49
Andrea: Been fishing. Unbelieveable this year. Limits for all. Biloxi Marsh is like Marti Gras everyday. Next time I am at C W Coops in the Quarter I will get taco toddy receipt.
Posted by: greyrooster at December 11, 2004 06:52 PM (linwh)
50
moslems do never fight against nothing..
Just a piece od a shit that you are....
Just wait and see!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Shlomo at December 13, 2004 04:04 PM (Q9MQy)
51
World Hope, Freedom, Peace, Love, free speech
Lets make America safer from Muslim Killers,Rapist,and liars.
(1) Seal our borders, and ports. No illegal immigrants allowed to enter
america. (2) Deport all but native born muslims to the middle east
countries. (3) Out law the Islamic religion. Declare it a threat to
national security. (4) Convert islamic Mosque into public recreational
facilities for young people. (5) Double the sizes of our military. (two
year military service mandontory after high school, Starting pay, twenty
thousand a year )
(6) Remove Islamic dictators that do not promote civil rights!
................
.................. (Vote World Freedom Fighter for President.)
Posted by: wff at February 05, 2005 02:32 PM (UDSDO)
52
We have become such a PC world, we can't laugh about anything any more. My last name made me a joke most every day in school. My poor children also put up with it. This made me a better person, and in the Navy we bad mouthed each other. This did not make us split, it helped us to become a better team. The person who could not take it would leave sooner or later. If we can not take a joke, what can you do? The problem is that jokes are only funny when they are close to the truth!
Good writing and jokes!
Posted by: Ernie at February 07, 2005 07:18 PM (aMBco)
53
This webpage tells me three things:
1) Americans need to travel to Muslim countries, in order to experience things firsthand.
2) We need more Islamic and Middle East history in our schools and colleges.
3) We need to get outside of the bubble that is our media, and take the government and media-imposed wool off from over our eyes.
-People like the author of this page are products of big historical events, such as the Iran hostage crisis or 9/11. Such people then extrapolate from such events, thinking they have the genuine picture. What we need to do is take pity on them, that the only exposure they have to the Muslim world is in such moments, and that they miss out on all the other amazing aspects of Muslim culture because of their narrow focus on the aspects of the Muslim world that are in their strategic interest.
The Prophet Muhammad neevr performed b eastiality, and never condoned anal sex, let alone took part in it. There is even a verse of the Quran which outlaws anal sex. see if you can find such attention to detail in other holy books.
Posted by: Historia at April 06, 2005 01:55 PM (ZkIhb)
54
Keep up the good work.
What a swell info site.
Damn good jokes about dirty ass thives in night shirts running around throwing rocks and eating sand. Better known as camel jockeys gone wild while wearing dirty cloths and stinking up the planet.
Posted by: devo at May 17, 2005 01:55 AM (38Fab)
55
"I think we're missing the fact that the foundational documents of Islam advocate the kind of measures (death for insulting Mohammed, etc.) that Islamic countries routinely carry out. The Christian documents do not."
Since you know so much about the 'Christian documents,' of which, as I'm sure you know, there is only one, let me ask you some more questions.
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
In sum, let me just say, Rusty, that the jokes are hateful, you're a worthless, pathetic guy, and that you have no business teaching anyone's children anything at all. I'd be incredibly surprised if you actually were at MIT, and I'd be even more surprised to see you produce some form of proof.
You know, since you're obviously a spineless coward; unwilling to address real problems instead of telling racist jokes.
Posted by: Furiousjon at June 21, 2005 10:54 PM (2SXF8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
