posted
Oh, by all means, in a thread where Sa'eed uses phrases such as, just recently, 'worldwide Jewry', that's what makes you uncomfortable. I guess we really are supposed, for whatever damn reason, to pretend Sa'eed is just another poster on these subjects.
I don't like to be irritated or upset with you in your moderator role, because almost invariably I think your decision making is solid and fair, and on the rare occasions I don't, I still appreciate it. If you feel like it's important Sa'eed get full measure of respect and consideration on this particular topic, given his undeniable history of anti-Semitism...well to be truthful I likely will react along similar lines if be continues to espouse his contemptible, hateful politics-or play this little game of his that no one, even you I expect, doubts he is doing. If that merits a moderator response, I don't doubt it will be to the letter of the rules. But not, I expect, to the spirit.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh: Sa'eed has already stated several times that he finds the Muslim view on circumcision no less wrong. Maybe his biases cause him to hone in on the Jewish aspect of the opposition, but then again, pretty much every Western news outlet I've read glosses over Muslim opposition in Germany and focuses on Jewish aspect of it as well.
I'm not trying to give Sa'eed any more respect than I would give any other poster here. But I am getting the vibe that I am being more permissible in this instance because it is Sa'eed, which immediately causes me to reevaluate the situation as if I don't know the poster at all.
History is important, but only as a gauge of a poster's behavior, and how their posts should be interpreted, *not* as a means of deciding whether other posters should be permitted to get away with certain comments made against them.
I recognize that for many posters just about anything Sa'eed says needs to be filtered for anti-semitism, and you feel he's shown that color already so you're going after it. Fine. But don't do it by bullying him into that conversation, as if it's somehow better for everybody if he just gives in to those beliefs and starts honestly expressing those terrible ideas.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Who are both Libertarian members of the CATO institute...
Gasp! The horror!
If we were talking about a Bullshit episode on, say, global warming, or the bank bailouts, this sort of scattershot guilt-by-association game might be halfway sensible. But what was the point of it here?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
It matters because of their libertarian values regarding personal liberty in this case of 'the child's right to consent' and personal involution trumps the parents right to raise them in their religion and community which they feel is best for the child.
That and as I explained they're skeptics, so obviously they aren't going to buy into the importance of religious or cultural values.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: It matters because of their libertarian values regarding personal liberty in this case of 'the child's right to consent' and personal involution trumps the parents right to raise them in their religion and community which they feel is best for the child.
That and as I explained they're skeptics, so obviously they aren't going to buy into the importance of religious or cultural values.
Lots of libertarians (including libertarian favorite and all around terrible crackpot Rothbard) think that parental rights are far more important than anything as silly as child autonomy. So saying it's because they're libertarians, again, is a total non sequitur.
For someone who cries "ad hom" at the drop of a hat, I just want to point out this delicious irony: This is ad hominem. Ad hominem doesn't require mean words. It just means that you say someone should be dismissed because of who they are or what they believe, instead of addressing what they actually said.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
You do realize your nitpicking over the use of the word 'libertarian' and whether its relevant to the discussion rather than addressing the content of the post itself right? Which you obviously didn't read.
IP: Logged |
posted
Of course I read your post. Your assertion that their opinions didn't matter because they were libertarian and affiliated with Cato was part of that post. It was part of the content of your post. It was the content I chose to respond to. If you didn't want responses to that part, you should have left it out.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That and as I explained they're skeptics, so obviously they aren't going to buy into the importance of religious or cultural values.
Yes, they are. They're just not going to give any practice a free pass or pedestal of preference just because it's been grandfathered in under a prejudiced or superstitious legacy of thought.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Right, which is the whole point of their show; they find and take anything that we as a society "take for granted" when we go about it and call it out. Their mindset is "Their culture makes it important to commit MGM to children; F-em!", being skeptics make it obvious what the end result will be.
Nevertheless, as I said in my post to The Somalian about their show, the episode linked if watched in its totality (which I did a long time ago) it never at any point makes any substantiative argument beyond "It is a needless and unnecessary surgical procedure for limited medical reasons." That they spend the good deal of 40 minutes of airtime dressing up with a lot of swearing and appeal to emotion in order to pad it out.
*That* is the principle point of my original post, the rest is essentially window dressing and you Dan are wasting a lot of time complaining about whether or not said window dressing may or may not be pertinent or valid, it's pointlessly pedantic.
IP: Logged |
quote:*That* is the principle point of my original post, the rest is essentially window dressing and you Dan are wasting a lot of time complaining about whether or not said window dressing may or may not be pertinent or valid, it's pointlessly pedantic.
If you think dan's comment is 'pointlessly pedantic' 'window dressing' you simply don't understand what dan's point was and should go back and re-read it.
Perhaps this time with better intent.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
