Yeah, "She's welcome to come join us to engage in a dialogue" is definitely banning someone from expressing themselves. I guess I wasn't aware people aren't allowed to express themselves unless they've got an honorary degree.
Nutball buzzwords-You mean crap like "white privilege" and "rape culture". A privilege is a special right, what special rights do white people have that they should not? Culture refers to the norm as in the experience one can expect, while rape is terrible it is no where near common enough to be the norm, except in men's prisons the one place I have never seen a feminist ever use the term to describe.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
A link to someone expressing themselves is not a good way to argue that they can't express themselves.
Nutball buzzwords-You mean crap like "white privilege" and "rape culture". A privilege is a special right, what special rights do white people have that they should not? Culture refers to the norm as in the experience one can expect, while rape is terrible it is no where near common enough to be the norm, except in men's prisons the one place I have never seen a feminist ever use the term to describe.
Man, you sure are desperate to get these usual screeds into every thread, aren't you?
In NZ, dislike for american politics comes from stuff like the Kim Dotcom thing, where (in summary) the USA is trying to extradite a NZ resident for copyright infringement, and is putting pressure on NZ's government and legal system to do so as rapidly as possible while trying to suspend as much of NZ's legal processes as they can get away with.
The extension of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is being negotiated in secret (but leaks from these meetings suggest it'll tip the power balance away from NZ and towards major US companies) is also kind-of connected, as are other US-based trade and copyright enforcement laws.
As things like this are being funded and set up by US companies, it's led to a groundswell against the both US and NZ governments for basically being tools of the rich against the people.
Sending troops into a country to help rescue kids from terrorists could be good PR for you guys.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
A link to someone expressing themselves is not a good way to argue that they can't express themselves.
You honestly view this as a counter argument? The issue was whether or not she was censored for her viewpoint not whether or not the interent exists.
Man, you sure are desperate to get these usual screeds into every thread, aren't you?
Not nearly as desperate as you are to defend your screeds. So this is the quality of your argument, what next name calling?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
You honestly view this as a counter argument? The issue was whether or not she was censored for her viewpoint not whether or not the interent exists.
Clearly not being awarded an honorary degree, but being welcome to come and discuss her views, and having no shortage of other outlets to express her views is censorship.
Not nearly as desperate as you are to defend your screeds. So this is the quality of your argument, what next name calling?
Exactly the quality that your rambling non-sequitur about rape culture deserved.
Clearly not being awarded an honorary degree, but being welcome to come and discuss her views, and having no shortage of other outlets to express her views is censorship.
Tiax-Your placing a higher value on what they claim is their stance then what they have actually shown to be their stance. Your also STILL trying to shift the goalposts.
Exactly the quality that your rambling non-sequitur about rape culture deserved.
Do you even know what non-sequitur means? So what's the false middle? Please do explain.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
Tiax-She was only denied the honorary degree because of her viewpoint and what she would say if allowed to speak. Your focusing on something irrelevent to the actual issue of censorship. This is known as a red herring...Red herring is a kind of fallacy that is an irrelevant topic introduced in an argument to divert the attention of listeners or readers from the original issue. In literature, this fallacy is often used in detective or suspense novels to mislead readers or characters or to induce them to make false conclusions. http://literarydevices.net/red-herring/
In your case the red herring is that this debate is about an honorary degree.
Let us consider a simple example of a red herring. A teacher catches a student cheating during a test. The student in response says, “I know I’ve made a mistake. But think of my parents. They’re going to kill me”. The student uses a red herring in his response. He tries to appeal to pity to distract his teacher from the real issue.
You still did not explain how my comment on rape culture was a non-sequitur, not that I expect you to.
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
I think it is obvious that we should help. They asked for our help and it isn't like we would need to invade with an occupying force. Insert supposed Burke quote here.
Tiax-She was only denied the honorary degree because of her viewpoint and what she would say if allowed to speak. Your focusing on something irrelevent to the actual issue of censorship.
She was denied the honorary degree because her past statements on Islam are not in line with Brandeis' values. She was invited to still discuss her views, and she declined. That's certainly her prerogative, but a declined invitation is surely not censorship.
You still did not explain how my comment on rape culture was an non-sequitur, not that I expect you to.
Your comment on rape culture had no connection to anything we've been discussing. I am certainly aware there is also a definition of non-sequitur as a type of logical fallacy, but as you have not said anything with even the slightest pretension of being a logical argument, I think we can agree it's clear I was not using that definition.
She was denied the honorary degree because her past statements on Islam are not in line with Brandeis' values. She was invited to still discuss her views, and she declined. That's certainly her prerogative, but a declined invitation is surely not censorship.
You do realize they meant she could show up and basically be in the audience right?
On Tuesday, after protests by students, faculty and outside groups, Brandeis University revoked its invitation to Ayaan Hirsi Ali to receive an honorary degree at its commencement ceremonies in May. The protesters accused Ms. Hirsi Ali, an advocate for the rights of women and girls, of being "Islamophobic." Here is an abridged version of the remarks she planned to deliver.
She was going to be a speaker and the students, faculty, outside groups said hells no her viewpoint is not welcome. Then the school to save face made that statement you believe trumps reality.
The funny thing is her comments are tame compared to the average "critique" of western culture you would see at such a college.
The amount of resources devoted to dealing with Boko Haram has increased many hundreds of times due to them kidnapping girls, had they just continued to murder boys by the hundreds they would have remained in relative obscurity.
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
You do realize they meant she could show up and basically be in the audience right?
She was going to be a speaker and the students, faculty, outside groups said hells no her viewpoint is not welcome. Then the school to save face made that statement you believe trumps reality.
The University meant what it said, and she declined. I'm going to decline your invitation to join in your delusional version of the situation.
The funny thing is her comments are tame compared to the average "critique" of western culture you would see at such a college.
I'm sure you've spent a lot of time at Brandeis and know exactly what sort of place it is.
Ooooohhhh no. After you put Hirsi Ali in a moral category with Abubakar Shekau? You get no breaks.
A fuller quote makes her meaning even more clear:
Yes; yes it does. And although I shouldn't have to expend any words explaining why you've mischaracterzed Hirsi-Ali, since you can see it by simply reading and listening -- and further, since even if she's guilty of what you say, it shouldn't matter (and the fact that I have to explain that is, again, an exemplar of the problems) -- the fact is that all the specific accusations you make against Ali are either false or misleading. This interview that was mined out of her entire corpus of written and spoken work is one of the more strident things she's ever said, and even then it still doesn't match up with your caricature of her.
So, let's look at your allegations:
1) You assert that "She lumps all of Islam into the barbaric category"
Immediately and prima facie false. Her answer to question #1:
Quote from Ali »
Hirsi Ali: Only if Islam is defeated. Because right now, the political side of Islam, the power-hungry expansionist side of Islam, has become superior to the Sufis and the Ismailis and the peace-seeking Muslims.
Where she wrote "peace-seeking Muslims" you must have read "unicorns," as if she were referring to something that doesn't exist.
2) You assert that she "states that the entire religion must be 'defeated'".
While it's true that those words can be attributed to her, this quote-mine isn't a reflection of her full view on the matter. She wants the geopolitical structures of Islam, which, wherever they hold sway over nations, covertly support if not overtly espouse radicalism, to be cleared away -- making room to give the peaceful elements of the religion the ability to step into the vacuum of power and influence. She explains as much in considerably more detail in the debate I linked.
3) You assert that "This is a woman who wants to forcefully close all Islamic schools in the West"
False; She does not actually assert this. She says "There is infiltration of Islam in the schools and universities of the West. You stop that."
You could, if you wish, believe that's what she meant even though it's not what she said. I, for one, would like to put the question to her directly: "Do you want to forcefully close all Islamic schools in the West?" If she said that she did, then I would disagree with her and I would be prepared to debate against her position.
Unfortunately, we don't get the opportunity to do that, because once we put her in the "racist" or "islamophobe" or "extremist" or other appropriate shibboleth-of-the-month box, we don't bother asking questions like this any longer, because her entire corpus of views can now be safely dismissed.
4) You put her in a moral category with Abubakar Shekau, a person who actually has destroyed schools, murdered children, traded in slaves, and a hundred other actual vile deeds with actual victims.
Quote from Tiax »
Maybe we should give her and Abubakar Shekau both honorary degrees for their work to shut down educational institutions they don't like. After all, we have to be a place of free thought. And nothing says free thought like shutting down schools.
This is the worst of all, and of course you should be ashamed but I know you won't be. Because even if she belongs in one of the bull***** ideological boxes you create so that you can conveniently ignore dissenting views, the most she's ever done is speak out about her experiences and opinions.
Shekau is destroying schools right now. Like, for realz, man. He's not just talking about it (as if Ayaan Hirsi-Ali were even talking about it) -- he's doing it.
Debating with people on these issues is fascinating, because opponents of this position can't help but personify the moral failures that I'm talking about. I mean, it's not like debating free will or economics or something where you can get lost in a logical abstraction that doesn't quite seem to apply to the people speaking. I almost don't have to argue; I can simply point, and anyone can see the moral defect on actual display.
The fact that you appear to be unable to make a moral discernment between Ali and Shekau makes you a living embodiment of my point. And believe me, I have this argument all the time and you're far from the only one who appears to have lost this crucial ability to form coherent moral categories. How can the West hope to stop young girls from being stultified, tortured and abused if, philosophically, an overwhelming number of its people uphold such wrongheaded moral positions?
I don't always agree with Ali. I particularly disagree with this quote that you've mined, as it is, in places, a little too strident for even my taste. But Ali has a whole corpus of spoken and written works, all of which have to be taken together to understand her position. I know "Hirsi Ali says kill all the Muslims" fits nicely into a tweet, but it's just not representative of any actual position.
Ooooohhhh no. After you put Hirsi Ali in a moral category with Abubakar Shekau? You get no breaks.
If this is what you read as putting two people in the same moral category, I think I see the source of your problem.
Yes; yes it does. And although I shouldn't have to expend any words explaining why you've mischaracterzed Hirsi-Ali, since you can see it by simply reading and listening -- and further, since even if she's guilty of what you say, it shouldn't matter (and the fact that I have to explain that is, again, an exemplar of the problems) -- the fact is that all the specific accusations you make against Ali are either false or misleading. This interview that was mined out of her entire corpus of written and spoken work is one of the more strident things she's ever said, and even then it still doesn't match up with your caricature of her.
So, let's look at your allegations:
1) You assert that "She lumps all of Islam into the barbaric category"
Immediately and prima facie false. Her answer to question #1:
Quote from Ali »
Hirsi Ali: Only if Islam is defeated. Because right now, the political side of Islam, the power-hungry expansionist side of Islam, has become superior to the Sufis and the Ismailis and the peace-seeking Muslims.
Where she wrote "peace-seeking Muslims" you must have read "unicorns," as if she were referring to something that doesn't exist.
She lumps all of Islam into that category. This is not the same as her asserting that every person who considers themselves a Muslim is in that category. Nice try, though.
While it's true that she says so, this quote-mine isn't a reflection of her full view on the matter. She wants the geopolitical structures of Islam, which, wherever they hold sway over nations, covertly support if not overtly espouse radicalism, to be cleared away -- making room to give the peaceful elements of the religion the ability to step into the vacuum of power and influence. She explains as much in considerably more detail in the debate I linked.
Yes, and?
3) You assert that "This is a woman who wants to forcefully close all Islamic schools in the West"
False; She does not actually assert this. She says "There is infiltration of Islam in the schools and universities of the West. You stop that."
You could, if you wish, believe that's what she meant even though it's not what she said. I, for one, would like to put the question to her directly: "Do you want to forcefully close all Islamic schools in the West?"
Unfortunately, we don't get the opportunity to do that, because once we put her in the "racist" or "islamophobe" or "extremist" or other appropriate shibboleth-of-the-month box, we don't bother asking questions like this any longer, because her entire corpus of views can now be safely dismissed.
She absolutely does assert this. She says that she wanted to use the state to shut down these institutions, but that her political allies wouldn't go along with it.
Hirsi Ali: I wanted to get rid of them. I wanted to have them all closed, but my party said it wouldn’t fly. Top people in the party privately expressed that they agreed with me, but said, “We won’t get a majority to do that,” so it never went anywhere.
4) You put her in a moral category with Abubakar Shekau, a person who actually has destroyed schools, murdered children, traded in slaves, and a hundred other actual vile deeds with actual victims.
I'm not going to respond to this, because it's such a ridiculous reading of my post.
Tiax-It took me five seconds to find a course at Brandeis that describes white and male privilege and all about how the west is super racist and all that delusional crap. It even goes on to sing that praises of non-western cultures presenting them as utopian.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
Tiax-It took me five seconds to find a course at Brandeis that describes white and male privilege and all about how the west is super racist and all that delusional crap. It even goes on to sing that praises of non-western cultures presenting them as utopian.
I think perhaps the problem is your willingness to form these opinions over the course of five seconds. Consider putting a bit more thought into things.
Considering Crude oil only makes up 14% of Nigeria's exportation, they have no gold, and the USA isn't at risk of losing any of this meager sources of things we like, i think we'll keep our nose out of it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Whats the big deal about black lotus you ask? Well you see, there is no big deal about it. It IS the big deal.
Tiax-It took five seconds to find the evidence, my opinions have never been made in haste.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
Considering Crude oil only makes up 14% of Nigeria's exportation, they have no gold, and the USA isn't at risk of losing any of this meager sources of things we like, i think we'll keep our nose out of it.
I don't like that we tie weather or not we'd stop a clear abuse of human rights and child trafficking because we wouldn't be sufficiently rewarded.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
Tiax and Lord Owlington-So attacks on me personally is all you've got.
I've spent more then a reasonable amount of time studying the "Social Justice" movements and I know all about them. Mostly that with few exceptions it's just expropriation.
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
There's nothing of substance to respond to, unfortunately. All you've offered is that you spent five seconds skimming a course description, and have concluded that Brandeis is a bastion of hatred for the West.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
She was only denied the honorary degree so she couldn't speak. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304512504579493410287663906
Nutball buzzwords-You mean crap like "white privilege" and "rape culture". A privilege is a special right, what special rights do white people have that they should not? Culture refers to the norm as in the experience one can expect, while rape is terrible it is no where near common enough to be the norm, except in men's prisons the one place I have never seen a feminist ever use the term to describe.
A link to someone expressing themselves is not a good way to argue that they can't express themselves.
Man, you sure are desperate to get these usual screeds into every thread, aren't you?
The extension of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is being negotiated in secret (but leaks from these meetings suggest it'll tip the power balance away from NZ and towards major US companies) is also kind-of connected, as are other US-based trade and copyright enforcement laws.
As things like this are being funded and set up by US companies, it's led to a groundswell against the both US and NZ governments for basically being tools of the rich against the people.
Sending troops into a country to help rescue kids from terrorists could be good PR for you guys.
Art is life itself.
You honestly view this as a counter argument? The issue was whether or not she was censored for her viewpoint not whether or not the interent exists.
Not nearly as desperate as you are to defend your screeds. So this is the quality of your argument, what next name calling?
Should we get involved in murder cases in France when the police are unable to find the killer?
Or is it a matter of scale?
Art is life itself.
Clearly not being awarded an honorary degree, but being welcome to come and discuss her views, and having no shortage of other outlets to express her views is censorship.
Exactly the quality that your rambling non-sequitur about rape culture deserved.
Fair enough. I didn't know that they asked for help.
Tiax-Your placing a higher value on what they claim is their stance then what they have actually shown to be their stance. Your also STILL trying to shift the goalposts.
Do you even know what non-sequitur means? So what's the false middle? Please do explain.
Sorry for not placing enough value on your imaginary version of their stance.
"a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said"
In your case the red herring is that this debate is about an honorary degree.
Let us consider a simple example of a red herring. A teacher catches a student cheating during a test. The student in response says, “I know I’ve made a mistake. But think of my parents. They’re going to kill me”. The student uses a red herring in his response. He tries to appeal to pity to distract his teacher from the real issue.
You still did not explain how my comment on rape culture was a non-sequitur, not that I expect you to.
She was denied the honorary degree because her past statements on Islam are not in line with Brandeis' values. She was invited to still discuss her views, and she declined. That's certainly her prerogative, but a declined invitation is surely not censorship.
Your comment on rape culture had no connection to anything we've been discussing. I am certainly aware there is also a definition of non-sequitur as a type of logical fallacy, but as you have not said anything with even the slightest pretension of being a logical argument, I think we can agree it's clear I was not using that definition.
You do realize they meant she could show up and basically be in the audience right?
source http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304512504579493410287663906
She was going to be a speaker and the students, faculty, outside groups said hells no her viewpoint is not welcome. Then the school to save face made that statement you believe trumps reality.
The funny thing is her comments are tame compared to the average "critique" of western culture you would see at such a college.
Getting back to the origional point of how our media/culture is gynocentric...
http://www.mediaite.com/online/why-did-kidnapping-girls-but-not-burning-boys-alive-wake-media-up-to-boko-haram/
The amount of resources devoted to dealing with Boko Haram has increased many hundreds of times due to them kidnapping girls, had they just continued to murder boys by the hundreds they would have remained in relative obscurity.
The University meant what it said, and she declined. I'm going to decline your invitation to join in your delusional version of the situation.
I'm sure you've spent a lot of time at Brandeis and know exactly what sort of place it is.
Ooooohhhh no. After you put Hirsi Ali in a moral category with Abubakar Shekau? You get no breaks.
Yes; yes it does. And although I shouldn't have to expend any words explaining why you've mischaracterzed Hirsi-Ali, since you can see it by simply reading and listening -- and further, since even if she's guilty of what you say, it shouldn't matter (and the fact that I have to explain that is, again, an exemplar of the problems) -- the fact is that all the specific accusations you make against Ali are either false or misleading. This interview that was mined out of her entire corpus of written and spoken work is one of the more strident things she's ever said, and even then it still doesn't match up with your caricature of her.
So, let's look at your allegations:
1) You assert that "She lumps all of Islam into the barbaric category"
Immediately and prima facie false. Her answer to question #1:
Where she wrote "peace-seeking Muslims" you must have read "unicorns," as if she were referring to something that doesn't exist.
2) You assert that she "states that the entire religion must be 'defeated'".
While it's true that those words can be attributed to her, this quote-mine isn't a reflection of her full view on the matter. She wants the geopolitical structures of Islam, which, wherever they hold sway over nations, covertly support if not overtly espouse radicalism, to be cleared away -- making room to give the peaceful elements of the religion the ability to step into the vacuum of power and influence. She explains as much in considerably more detail in the debate I linked.
3) You assert that "This is a woman who wants to forcefully close all Islamic schools in the West"
False; She does not actually assert this. She says "There is infiltration of Islam in the schools and universities of the West. You stop that."
You could, if you wish, believe that's what she meant even though it's not what she said. I, for one, would like to put the question to her directly: "Do you want to forcefully close all Islamic schools in the West?" If she said that she did, then I would disagree with her and I would be prepared to debate against her position.
Unfortunately, we don't get the opportunity to do that, because once we put her in the "racist" or "islamophobe" or "extremist" or other appropriate shibboleth-of-the-month box, we don't bother asking questions like this any longer, because her entire corpus of views can now be safely dismissed.
4) You put her in a moral category with Abubakar Shekau, a person who actually has destroyed schools, murdered children, traded in slaves, and a hundred other actual vile deeds with actual victims.
This is the worst of all, and of course you should be ashamed but I know you won't be. Because even if she belongs in one of the bull***** ideological boxes you create so that you can conveniently ignore dissenting views, the most she's ever done is speak out about her experiences and opinions.
Shekau is destroying schools right now. Like, for realz, man. He's not just talking about it (as if Ayaan Hirsi-Ali were even talking about it) -- he's doing it.
Debating with people on these issues is fascinating, because opponents of this position can't help but personify the moral failures that I'm talking about. I mean, it's not like debating free will or economics or something where you can get lost in a logical abstraction that doesn't quite seem to apply to the people speaking. I almost don't have to argue; I can simply point, and anyone can see the moral defect on actual display.
The fact that you appear to be unable to make a moral discernment between Ali and Shekau makes you a living embodiment of my point. And believe me, I have this argument all the time and you're far from the only one who appears to have lost this crucial ability to form coherent moral categories. How can the West hope to stop young girls from being stultified, tortured and abused if, philosophically, an overwhelming number of its people uphold such wrongheaded moral positions?
I don't always agree with Ali. I particularly disagree with this quote that you've mined, as it is, in places, a little too strident for even my taste. But Ali has a whole corpus of spoken and written works, all of which have to be taken together to understand her position. I know "Hirsi Ali says kill all the Muslims" fits nicely into a tweet, but it's just not representative of any actual position.
Flame warning. - Blinking Spirit
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
If this is what you read as putting two people in the same moral category, I think I see the source of your problem.
She lumps all of Islam into that category. This is not the same as her asserting that every person who considers themselves a Muslim is in that category. Nice try, though.
Yes, and?
She absolutely does assert this. She says that she wanted to use the state to shut down these institutions, but that her political allies wouldn't go along with it.
Hirsi Ali: I wanted to get rid of them. I wanted to have them all closed, but my party said it wouldn’t fly. Top people in the party privately expressed that they agreed with me, but said, “We won’t get a majority to do that,” so it never went anywhere.
I'm not going to respond to this, because it's such a ridiculous reading of my post.
Flame warning. - Blinking Spirit
I think perhaps the problem is your willingness to form these opinions over the course of five seconds. Consider putting a bit more thought into things.
Clearly not.
Five seconds seems a little hasty.
I don't like that we tie weather or not we'd stop a clear abuse of human rights and child trafficking because we wouldn't be sufficiently rewarded.
I've spent more then a reasonable amount of time studying the "Social Justice" movements and I know all about them. Mostly that with few exceptions it's just expropriation.