william.scherk

-- or so says the headline at International Business Times: More at the link. I guess that this virus has been part of humanity for a long while. Would the human world be less-stupid if this piece of the virome puzzle was removed?

I did not mean ALL Imams. (And where did I say Mosques?) Imams are mosque worship leaders, prayer leaders (in Sunni traditions). They are the public face of a congregation. I think we pretty much agree on the complicated nest of factors leading to radicalization. If I left the impression that mosques are not ever seedbeds of radicalization in some purlieus, that was wrong. I did want to underline how disinfected Canadian mosques have become -- how mainstream. There are of course other ways to ground religious fanaticism. That Canada has hundreds gone to Syria to fight Assad/the infidels/the west, and has hundred more under some kind of surveillance -- this suggests there is something else at work than a faith or attendance at public prayers. Otherwise I would expect much greater numbers of radicals being spawned by Canadian Imams of the mainstream mosques. (of course, I should mention that 'virtual congregations' or 'masjids' are penny a thousand. And the Gulf-states, especially, sponsor or finance a variety of crazy Salafi preachers and their media networks. And a real international radical network of Salafist-style jihadi leaders certainly exists.) I need to do some additional research to find out which are the most radical of Canadian mosques, or which might shelter the equivalent of Anjem Choudary -- freelance 'educators' or 'community leaders' who comprise a kind of parallel structure to the mainstream. It will be a good further discussion to get down to some particulars. Thanks for opening that door. Formal and informal (even virtual) congregations that have 'spawned' handfuls or more of committed warriors for ISIS -- these need attention. As you style them, "hotspots" are real-world groups of indoctrination. The fullest accounting will bring up their names and associations and what they preach. What might push communications into the underground (and virtual underground via the Internet) is that most agitating for holy war or counselling congregants to join the ISIS cult would be illegal (here in Canada). Those public leaders who want to conduct this kind of business should be careful not to cross the obvious lines. The more I learn about recruitment, the more I think Brant is right in that there is a zeitgeist right now that is attractive to young 'warriors,' and that much of the inculcation of terrorist ethic can be done completely outside the formal framework of organized Islam; there is enough material and operators on the jihadi-internet, that a would-be ISIS warrior can find a way to his goals without the knowledge or encouragement of the would-be Muslim leaders in his home community. It's in this sense that jihadis are disaffected not only with 'the West,' but also with their mainstream non-violent community of faith. I look forward to your further thoughts and findings on radicalization routes. The more we know, the better.

Thanks to Brant for opening this target in the Garbage Pile. Discussion about The Islam tends to bog down into sloganeering or worse. I like that Brant is trying to detail a plan to counter the menace, whereas the other folks with strong opinions still haven't offered much more than a sketch. In the other garbaged thread which opened with Wilder's speech to his claque in Copenhagen, Brant takes issue with the Infidel Approach. The Infidel Approach seems to be mostly warnings and calls -- no particulars. It just isn't clear what right-thinking people in his nation should do, or what campaigns they should cooperate on. It's not apparent how the clear and present Islamic menace to Australia is to be countered. I think Richard's Infidel Approach would be less boring and less ripe for the garbage pile -- if it it were laid out like a series of steps to be taken in each realm of action and/or education, helping the rest of us grasp just what an individual can do and ought to do. -- personal and individual -- social or cooperative -- organized civil and criminal law -- military and intelligence Part of me agrees to this immediate placement -- just because I don't want my haunt (OL) to get tagged as an anti-Islam or anti-Muslim forum. But to prejudge any and all topics concerning Islam, Islamism, Jihad -- as garbage -- is probably not indicated. I trust Michael's nose, though, if and when discussion veers off into bigotry. The personal efforts of Infidel may be all that he knows, all that he does. He might just be satisfied with alarmist statements and reposting inflammatory material from elsewhere. But I expect he could lay out a plan for one or several of the different realms. It would be in his interest to broaden discussion. I think. Maybe he is most expert on the personal and social, low-level efforts to inform, and that is what he sticks with. He doesn't perhaps have a plan in mind for the things people can do together, as an interest group, as information purveyors, as a social force (I'd like to hear what he thinks Australians can do better to confront Islamism/jihadism at home, how grass-roots activism can 'nip it in the bud,' how Muslim Australians should be encouraged to behave). But I'd still like to hear from him on each of the levels of action. The plan here seems to cross from the individual realm to the military in one jump -- with a stop at social psychology. It foresees a terrible death toll in America, followed by overwhelming destructive power. It sees 'the muslim culture' frightening and angering 'people.' It mentions 'identification with very dangerous irrational people' but not by whom, and it counters this murky general threat with an equally murky counterthreat: Zero Tolerance for Terrorism and Intimidation. No negotiation (with who?) or half-measures (like what?). What are the details of this prescription? Before I join with Mikee I want to know what is entailed for me, personally -- what am I doing that is incorrect? or what can I do personally and socially, how do I engage in the civic space, which penalties or preventative measures need be taken in law? what should I agitate for that isn't being done now? Which group might I join? What military plans and actions are on the table? -- parallel to Mikee's plan, what can an individual do to self-educate? What should I do to learn about 'The Muslim Culture'? Are there allies studded here and there in that otherwise awful mass of Islam? I want to know why there are only 90-odd Canadians on a CSIS 'watch-list' -- when there are over 800 thousand Muslims resident citizens and landed immigrants. I want a replacement term for 'radical' -- one that has the same connotations of extremist views and propensity to violence. I want to know how to understand how to efficiently and accurately generalize to "the world of Islam" from [replacement term for 'radical'] Islam. I want to know what in particular I can do as an individual, and I want to know what Tony has in mind for the rest of the realms. "Each [islamic 'radical'-supporting person] has to look to themself and mature" ... is a comprehensible statement, but I don't know what it entails. If each "radicalized Islamist/Jihadist" needs to mature and examine his or her self, how to potentiate this? How to identify those 'radicalized'? How to identify and reach those at most risk of 'radicalization'? And who is to do the identification and persuasion? What are the tools at hand, and how should those tools be used? I think Tony's negating of the term doesn't clear up the field. If we are concerned about continuing recruitment into the ISIS cult, I think we need to know how exactly the jihadis form their intents to do violence. In multicultural Canada, for example, I want to know what typifies these men who have broken away from their life in the West, who have gone to fight under the black flag. This is murky -- 'radicalization' [a change in belief and behaviour, a willingness and ability to use violent terror tactics at 'home'; to join ISIS] is used too many Muslims to justify their own actions? Too many to mention a particular example? Let's say there never were 'radicalized' Christians, ever. Let's pretend that no other 'radicalized' group has been identified that wasn't Muslim (like, say, the Tamil Tigers or the Buddhist 'radicals' who engage the Rohyngya). Let's say all that is true. What to do, Tony, as an individual, as a social grouping, as a political movement for civil action or new law and policy, as a military entity and as intelligence service? Do you have some kind of roadmap for action, education, propaganda, 'de-radicalization' or counter-radicalization? Geert Wilders bores me. He wants to ban the Quran, strip citizenship, bar Muslim immigrants, ban religious education for Muslims in his home country (the Netherlands). The speech is long on calls and warning, and short with particulars. No more Moroccans. No-one in the Netherlands wants more Moroccans. Round up hatemongers. There is only one Islam. De-islamize our nation ... clap in jail the all the Islamists. "The 'fighting'... has to be through our ideas on this forum, NOT against religionism and Faith ... but against force by any religions". I agree with that. Still, I bet you have specific recommendations for action in all the realms I noted. When you say that recent 'intersectarian and international conflicts' may be too complicated for most of us to understand, that is the bigotry of low expectations. I think anyone wanting to weigh in on "The Muslims" or "The Islam" needs to know some basics about those billion and change Muslims. They need to know what means Shi'a and what means Sunni, what means Salafi and what means Takfiri, what means Ismaili and Sufi and Bektashi and Alevi and Alawi and Ahmadiyya. If things are too complicated for us to understand -- then we don't understand. That's hardly a goal I would share. I am going to disagree with you on the notion that it is Imams and Mosques who turn the pre-radicals into violent radicals. My understanding is that in North America and in the Middle East/North Africa, the mosques have 'lost' these young men to ISIS/other jihadi fascists. In Tunisia for example, the radicalization is outside the mainline Islamism of Ennadha (the Tunisian Muslim Brotherhood). In Egypt, the mosques are state-controlled, same in Turkey, Jordan, Syria (though not in Iraq). They do not preach the ideology that requires militant, violent Jihad right now right there. Another example is the guy who shot up Parliament Hill. He chafed at the mosque in Vancouver, and was told to seek another congregation. It is the mosques in Canada, too, that act as an 'early-warning system' -- and share with police and secret services the names of the 'too radical' elements. Not that there aren't preachers and self-styled sheiks on the internet or on religious television shows who urge Jihad against the Assad regime or the 'Crusaders,' but by and large the extremists are adopting a New Age of Old Ways religious justification that stands outside the regular institutions of faith. Eg -- no mosque in Algeria or Morocco may indulge in Jihadi recruitment -- it is underground. In the European countries, for better or worse, mosques have at once more freedom to be 'radical' and more reason to be under surveillance. It is the un-official semi-underground 'recruitment' that predominates. In the UK, for example, radical clerics and self-styled leaders have emerged outside the mainstream, such as Anjem Choudary, and have found themselves on the edge of the knife of sedition (and newer anti-terror laws). Others are under close scrutiny. I have a few links to flesh out this angle, bu will include just this one from the New Statesmen. The author tracked some of the British jihadis to Syria and ISIS and their deaths. I don't know what you mean by 'effective (non-crap) airstrikes' ... the US is being extremely careful not to target other than ISIS or Al-Nusra. In the Syrian context, this means practically that the USA is acting as arm of the Syrian air forces. The Syrian regime is the enemy not only of ISIS, but also other Jihadi groupings, as well as the near five-million refugees. The Syrian regime did not at any time bomb Kurdish areas in the same way they continue to bomb 'rebel' areas. The Syria war is the war of a thousand proxies. Sectarian militias range from Alawite-dominated National Defence Forces to 'volunteer' militias staffed by Iraqis and Lebanese -- Shi'a sect militias -- to a thousand Sunni and a few 'secular'. Defeating ISIS in Syria does nothing to advance US interests in terms of a bloodthirsty family dictatorship. The war against Assad will continue regardless, beyond removing ISIS from control of its cantons. Israel is still in a state of war with Syria (with a decades old disengagement agreement). It has established an aid and medical relationship with rebels who have taken control of the former UN buffer zones. Binyamin Netanyahu has been pictured with an injured Syrian rebel soldier (they are patched up and return to the Syrian front). As Tony suggested, Brant -- it's way complicated! I haven't in all these years following Syria seen a plan to end the war that makes any practical sense. Nor have I seen a practical military plan to take down Assad without turning the entire country to a mad sectarian bloodbath to end all bloodbaths (with its millions of refugees and million casualties and wrecked urban fabric and non-stop state torture-machine it is hard to imagine an even worse situation). Care to revisit the 'non-crap airstrikes'? Jerry, you rarely disappoint. This simple prescription is about as simplistic and stupid as it gets. You haven't managed to engage with one part of the real world (starting with Alberta: what do you think of the brown Muslim Mayor of Calgary? Why don't you tell a little bit of truth about his nasty religion?). -- Calgary elected and reelected their first Muslim mayor, for those who don't follow Alberta's political news. His name is Naheed Nenshi. I would love Jerry to fight Nenshi's religion with his bold two point plan. Perhaps Jerry can conduct his fight closer to home, and go tell truth about Islam to Edmonton Muslims on an outreach night at one of the eight local mosques. Or he could volunteer for the Al-Rashid Mosque at the local kid-friendly pioneer-heritage park at Fort Edmonton. It was built by a Ukrainian, which is why it looks a bit Slavic ...

Now we know who made the crop circles ...

I am stumped, with a question I cannot answer: why Greg posts at OL. I liked reading Greg's stories of Carlos Castaneda and the odd cult life he and his wife documented. I'd lke to see more of that. I'd also be interested in Greg's telling the story of his acquaintanceship with Zen ideas, how his spiritual views have changed over time, how he has struggled with his faith ... The to-and-fro about argument has been revealing. Greg appears to absent himself from the sometimes tedious process of argumentation, in the sense of argument as logical persuasion, built from objective observations, buttressed by a framework for reasoning. In that sense, Brant is correct and Greg is correct -- Greg is not offering an argument nor is he interested in arguing in the classic sense. This doesn't mean Greg is not interested in arguing in other informal senses -- meaning respond/reply/react/attack. I think it is clear that Greg relishes a crude kind of argument, where one simply counters an opponent with a sermon or platitude or insult or passive-aggressive misspelling or all combined into an arch moralistic posturing. The least savoury aspects of Greg's argumentative ploys are malefic labels like pussy, feminized, degenerate, immoral, stinking, sickness, impotence. These are, sadly, the most memorable retorts. The condescension and hostility to "Helen," the too-sleazy pokes at the worthless "Frank." Jonathan cast as some random leftist moral cretin. It's this off-by-a-mile meanness that I find quite revealing. Is this a lively, bright collaborator in reason, or a live and let live kind of guy, one who is interested in what you have to offer? If you disagree, are you more than a target for a half-baked put-down? I don't think Greg is aware of what his ploys look like to an agnostic/atheist audience. I don't think he cares. His payoff is probably in feeling morally superior, not in the satisfaction of successful communication or the advancement of reason. Of course, the most incoherent parts of Greg's postings are the proclamations on God, creation, cosmology, evolutionary science, reason, logic, evidence, objectivity. Why does he think mere proclamations will be well-received here? What is his aim or goal, besides the light entertainment of trolling?

I think William means talking in a special language common to some purported Objectivists and so acting creating a special culture not quite rational and not quite silly. Other than that you'd have to ask him. He's the only one I know of here (or anywhere[?]) who uses the word although he thinks I must know all about it. My understanding is vague and I'm disinterested anyway, so I've never asked him WTF he means. I took the 'Objectivish' term from Joe Maurone some years back. It has been used by a number of folks here and there, including Jonathan in this thread. What the F does it mean? Well, an Objectivish person would be someone who is sort-of Objectivist, almost Objective-ist, or Objective-ish to some degree. It's a sloppy neologism that for me covers those who do not call themselves Objectivist but who profess some Objectivist values and who adhere to an Objectivist-ish philosophy. So, the term is useful for marking out an uneasy aggregate of folks who are influenced by or deeply affected by Objective-ist thought -- without being formally attached to Ayn Rand's philosophy. Here's a small excerpt from Robert Tracinski on the term: There was also a small intense scuffle between Binswangerites and Speicherists back in 2007. The term 'Objectivish' was laid on the Ayn Rand Fans forum by Robert Mayhew, in a snippy posting to the Binswanger list. Much sad hilarity ensued. Mayhew's disdainful mention: "Unfortunately, I'm reluctant to discuss these issues further. My essay is being "discussed" on a dubious Objectivish internet forum"

Please enumerate the lies in the article. If you're referring specifically to taqqiya, then one of us misunderstands what that means. Neither of the two quotes I pulled out were said by people who are denying their faith nor do either of them seem to be in fear for their lives. One of the reasons I generally ignore Richard is that he is unreasonable. He says the first link -- from CBSNews -- is full of outright lies. Will he enumerate them? I doubt it. The purported lies would be either statements of fact, reporting of events, or actual quotes, and it would be too much work for him to pick them out individually. Far easier to simply poison the well. I am guessing, but I think a non-lazy Richard would pick out all the quotes about Islam from Muslim lips, and style them mostly deceptive. Richard is a self-taught freshman expert on Islam, so he would tell us that any imam's words could be dissimulation. I further expect he would scoff at the notion that tweets and gatherings and actual anti-extremist, ant-ISIS opinions were anything but a kind of dissimulating taqqiya lie -- a front for 'real opinions.' It's a bit similar to Tony's "it's not enough" attitude toward Muslim revulsion for ISIS. Both Richard and Tony likely believe they have adequately sampled Muslim opinion -- though Richard is much less likely to see 'strong disagreement with extremism' than is Tony, to my eyes. Beyond my disagreements with the both of them, certain questions remain: what is a proper, rational response of a given Muslim or assumed collective (French Muslims, Canadian Muslims, South African Muslims) to extremist terror? I mean, what should a reasonable and rational person expect or demand from The Muslims? Richard believes, I think, that The Muslims are dissimulating when they say or demonstrate opposition to ISIS and other extremist dangers. Richard in essence only trusts an ex-Muslim (or jihadi) to tell the truth about what is in his heart and in the Quran. Richard only trusts apostates or infidels or jihadis when they speak of their bedrock beliefs about Islam. What separates Richard and Tony is that Tony has some criteria established to guide his demands of The Muslims. He wants big, brash collective expressions of significant numbers: in public, en masse, across the world weekly if not daily. I don't think Tony would weight additional ways of expressing discontent as significant -- he does not urge us to scour Arabic media for other indications. He doesn't urge us to gather information from surveys, studies, historic polls or other rigorous means of assaying opinion shifts and sways. He doesn't ask us to find trends, long and short term, for The Muslim's opinions over time. He doesn't share a recipe for accurately and objectively sampling belief, intent, guilt, immorality. But he does have a bottom line: The Muslims must demonstrate to his satisfaction their opposition not only to ISIS but to every single manifestation of terror/extremism. They must march and denounce in big numbers or their opposition will be marked feeble -- not even a 'squeak.' And they must march in solidarity with Israel, not Palestine. Will Tony examine other evidence that The Muslims do not countenance ISIS terror? I think he surely might, though he seems to think someone else not him should collect this evidence or counter-evidence; if news and evidence of 'squeaks' and 'roars' do not reach him, he has no particular programme for seeking it out for himself, and no detailed methodology to share with the rest of us for objective assessment. Richard on the other hand has gone far past Tony's tentative conclusions about The Muslims and their failure to demonstrate to him their moral worthiness. Tony believes that a Muslim here and a small Muslim collectivity there are morally worthy. Richard discounts any moral worthiness -- even an apparently worthy Muslim like the French lady quoted is a liar and a cheat. I think the most interesting discussion in this thread would be a no-holds barred showdown between Tony and Richard. I know where I differ with Tony and I know where I differ with Richard. Where do those two differ with each other?

Weird little viral video that allowed Canadians to feel just a little bit smugger than usual. Headline from Global News. It's funny/sad. And it gets bloody.

The online forum belongs to Joshua Landis, a professor in Oklahoma. His forum pre-dates the 'Arab Spring' and the terrible war in Syria. That forum is called Syria Comment. Landis is not a Muslim, but is married to a woman from Syria who is of the Alawi community. The discussions there that I participated in are too many to reasonably describe. I became a moderator when I complained to Dr Landis that some commentary was seething with hatred and sectarian bigotry -- counter to the site's rules. He gave me the opportunity to moderate, and I did to the best of my ability until I was "outed" by a partisan and former writer/editor for the Syria Comment blog. Michael, I think you give me too much credit for understanding The Muslims, but by participating at Syria Comment (and via Twitter) in debate and discussion, I learned about history in Syria (and to a lesser degree Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Tunisia and Libya. It might be fairer to say that I have been exposed to and participated in debate, discussion, dispute with a wide variety of Middle East and North African discussants, Muslims of many stripes. I am also exposed to a wide variety of media and particular people making/reporting news and comment (I could probably give a three-hour 'talk' on Syria and its religious/political history). I search out and digest a lot of 'data points' that purport to illuminate The Muslims -- from surveys to opinion pieces, from historical essays to intelligence dossiers. It's an ongoing project. It's challenging, frustrating at times. I haven't reached conclusions about The Muslims except to understand that "The Muslims" are about as varied as "The Christians." I like Tony a lot. I appreciate his perspective. I think we are both committed to Reason, sweet Reason. And I think that a face-to-face discussion between the two of us would probably bear much good fruit -- would lead to mutually-satisfactory agreements on facts. Sometimes we know so well the detailed warrants for our own claims that we forget that the other discussants have little access to these warrants, experiences, and other building blocks of an opinion. Sometimes, with Tony (but of course with other OLers), I know or suspect or assume he has a lot of personal experiences that inform his present opinions -- but the details are not always apparent, they sometimes need to be teased out. It is a feature/bug of online discussion that questions can be left hanging. In face-to-face discussion neither discussant can simply roll on over questions. Neither discussant can entirely evade the other's questions in conversation ("But let me ask you again, what evidence do you have that ...?"). If I were to have a real-life discussion with Tony on "The Muslims," I have no doubt that we could find agreement in many subject areas. We could get down to specifics, details, and better understand each other's conclusions by becoming much more familiar with each other's bases for particular opinions. With regard to "The Muslims," my arguments often focus on generalizations that are poorly supported. These are epistemological issues for me -- how we 'know'(believe) such and so, how we best approach fraught questions, how to best assemble and challenge 'data points,' how we can best avoid the operation of bias and other cognitive errors.

Taken one by one, fact by fact, I can approach an approximation of reality (or aspect of it) in my mind. What do I do with facts? Well, I have a fair memory, a fair retention. The facts go into memory. As for debunking ... this is a fun thing for me, I must admit. The fun is in the work, not necessarily in the outcome, and not necessarily in promoting my conclusions. Often, I just want to be able to better understand a given issue or a given claim. Using reason to explore the issue and claim gives me pleasure. I like to think that I have a talent for thinking things through, and for understanding at least a few means by which I can improve my thinking. I cannot accept the implication that you and I will rarely if ever share a conclusion, for this would suggest we can never agree on particulars. If you mean that there are no facts for us each to grasp and agree upon, I really think that we need to get down to specifics. There are plenty of facts and claims and arguments out there. Well, maybe I kind of understand you. You think something desirable to you isn't happening enough. Reading between the lines, you have not seen one rally and protest by Muslims en masse denouncing the Islamic State. I don't know why you think that something hasn't happened simply because you haven't received news of it. Beyond that, what other issues demand that a community of faith publicly protest en masse? Questions unanswered, of course. If I read between the lines correctly, you believe that you have accurately assessed a 'trend' well enough to give you solid conclusions. I don't know quite what those conclusion are, and I don't know what 'trends' you have ascertained -- beyond the notion that it isn't enough. There are many ways to profess digust and denunciation, and many instances may have escaped your attention. I don't believe you set yourself a task to adequately assess "Muslim outrage" against the Islamic State. Ask yourself: what do the peoples of Syria, for example, think of ISIS? Of Assad? Of Kurdish aspirations? Of the current 'hands-off Assad' policy of the Western coalition? What do Turkish Kurds think of Assad? If you don't acquaint yourself with the details, how are you serving yourself and the best practice of your reason? This is very murky. The comparison is between public (and en masse) demonstrations by Muslims against ISIS terrorism -- and some impressions you arrive at about Israel/Palestinian conflict. You ascribe to Muslims -- too many Muslims, evidently -- a position that they may or may not have. You ascribe to Muslims an acceptance of ISIS terror and other incidents of terror. You suggest by omission that the same Muslims indulge in self-righteous anger. Can you appreciate that your comparison might not add light to your original contentions? Emotive words and phrases like 'vociferous minority' suggests to me that there is only one way to view the Israeli/Palestinian conflict -- your way. It further suggests that there is a true narrative and one only. It devalues those Israelis who oppose policies and practices of their government and armed forces. It suggests that any infra-Jewish controversy has a malignant untruth in opposition to a pure good. It surprises me that you suggest that there has not been a squeak against ISIS by Muslims. It's just not true, Tony. I am surprised that you would let poorly-sampled data dictate your conclusions. It is false to claim there is no opposition to ISIS simply because the manifestation of that opposition does not fit your expectations. I might add that I think you are slacking at inquiry: have you set yourself a task to discover how much opposition there is to ISIS in the Muslim world? I don't think you have. I think you have been incurious if not passive. The passivity has hindered your investigation, and your conclusions may not be sound. If you had a question (how much have Muslims individually and en masse publically condemned ISIS?) then you have also a means to answer it. The first thing to consider is that Muslims speak many languages. Arabic, English, French, Turkish, Kurdish, Persian, Indonesian, Malay ... and so on. Have you done an investigation that queries these constituencies? I said that some bits of your comment were not appealing to me. The bits seemed "somewhat prejudicial and off-beam -- perhaps because there are no instances or examples given." It's my reaction to your glum, generalized and rather murky assertions. Since I hoped you would give examples, I am glad you bring up what it is that concerns you -- that some of the Muslims you know right now have somehow alarmed you. Perhaps you can add some flesh to this glum set of bones. Like how many, and how indicative are your impressions -- how these upsets you feel have given you insight into an otherwise occluded "Muslim Mind." Do you see how prejudicial your initial assessment might seem on the surface? What is the connection to ISIS? What is the connection between 'heated talk' of injustice (in, I guess, Palestine/Israel) and ISIS? I'd be interested in details of the intelligent and highly educated person who raised the issue of Indonesia. How did the details pertain to ISIS? How indeed would you wish a Muslim person to feel about the horror-show in Syria? How would you expect anyone to feel about that nightmare? This seems all over the map. You appear to have cornered the market on grievance and judged any expression of or discussion of grievance to be illicit by your standards. Now, Tony, you know exactly what you mean when you write something. You have the memory of Mr Patel ranting about the Israelis. You have Mr Panalang ranting about the shit that the Dutch did, in your mind. But we don't have these examples. We don't have access to the details unless you spell it out. Now, all these disagreements behind, I want to stress my main point: you are relatively unaware of what Muslims feel about ISIS because you have not conducted a fair inquiry. You let yourself down by assuming an 'absence' of Muslim repugnance without doing a proper assay of the weight of the repugnance. I think that you will understand and acknowledge my objections where they seem reasonable and rational.

These are some rather attractive general comments. A watershed moment for their religion/culture is appealing. The form of the watershed process is a little unclear. Individuals committing openly and implicitly to living the peaceful life under Western secular regimes seems more than a very good idea. Indeed, many individuals and communities across the Western and non-Western world have denounced and deplored instances of criminal acts and acts of terror by extremists. In Canada, for example, there is as I noted in my earlier post, universal revulsion at the acts of Bibeau and Rouleau (and before him, one who did not immediately meet death -- Bourque). The bits about 'self-righteous anger' at what you consider 'mostly fictitious' grievances (deprivations and insult), they are not appealing to me. The bits seem somewhat prejudicial and off-beam -- perhaps because there are no instances or examples given. (though I imagine you can give an example from every Muslim-majority nation in the world) Here's one example of a Canadian Muslim speaking to the most recent deaths in Ottawa, Taslima Jaffer. I wonder, Tony, if her article meets your requirements.

"Simply sitting on a porch and spitting out an unfavorable opinion or feeling about Group A or Person B has no effect." That's only true if there's no one else sitting on the porch. Deanna, thanks for sifting out that line -- it doesn't make a lot of sense. I argue that the effect of prejudice -- like any hasty cognition -- does have an effect on the porch-spitter, degrades the porch-spitter's grip on the real world. So to say that it has no effect is not logical. The porch is just a stand-in for the spitter's world. If he is like other prejudiced people, his thoughts (and verbalizations and expectations) can and will have an effect (for example upon his children's views) beyond hobbling his own cognitions. And beyond the porch and property, not even a hermit survivalist will have zero effect. Shoddy arguments can be appealing to other prejudiced people. Shoddy arguments can be quite effective.

Good points from Michael on the essentials -- Maher's conclusions are not reliable, are not valid. The underlying fault is one of reason (that's my take). Maher has shown himself to be incorrigible ... on other subjects (eg, germ theory, death of Pasteur), and is incorrigible now. Much like Richard, he uses faulty generalizations to drive his arguments. I thought it was telling that the first thing out of Maher's mouth was that he didn't want to talk about Islam anymore. I figure that was almost right: he didn't want to be challenged anymore. It seems obvious to me that several of Maher's arguments are bigoted -- just from the definition of the word. It is in the conclusions and opinions -- how they are derived. If they are not derived from rigorous thought and reasoning, using the best tools to defeat cognitive errors and biases -- then they are on mushy, epistemogically-weak grounds. Archie Bunker grounds. He is an entertainer, a comedian at heart. He isn't in the business of reason full-time. He doesn't know how to gracefully take correction on any matter. His bigoted thought processes and cheap arguments marred his movie badly. The movie showcased the unpleasant lazy arrogance of his public 'persona.' I mention these behavioural and epistemelogical factors because they were what made me skeptical of Maher's reasoning long before the current flap. What makes the current flap so tedious is that it deepens prejudice in those folks who are just as tetchy and arrogant/ignorant as Maher himself. I see an ultimate laziness of mind, and incorrigibility as key. I mention Archie Bunker. How many times was Archie's ignorance at the bottom of his bigotries? How resistant was he to information that challenged his conclusions? I see a common thread running through Archie, Bill and Richard. A set of conclusions in seek of confirmation, rather than a search for reliable knowledge. It falls to the faulty generalizations and unexamined prejudices. I think Maher really believes he is discussing a real thing when he uses the phrase "The Muslim World." He starts out quoting ... surprise, surprise ... Andrew Sullivan and Thomas Friedman ... "this is a civilization in distress ... pathologies ..." "no other religion comes close to the menace and violence of Islam ..." Can we say 'confirmation bias'? Can we suggest that the only people Maher can get to discuss The Muslim World are, um, three non-Muslim people? He says, of Tunisia, no other country has sent as many fighters to join ISIS ... and they talked to people in cafes and they were Big Fans ... so Tunisians are Big Fans of ISIS. This one culture is combustible. Which is horseshit. It would be interesting to see what scrap of reporting Maher was apparently citing in his Tunisians R Big Fans of ISIS claim.

Exactly. It also depends on whose ox is being gored. And it depends on the effects of the prejudice. Simply sitting on a porch and spitting out an unfavorable opinion or feeling about Group A or Person B has no effect. If that opinion or feeling formed before or without knowledge, thought, or reason, well that has not much effect beyond the porch. That person who judges without knowledge or reason is, I would argue, harming himself by sloppy cognitions. His basic self-interest is in gaining the most reliable knowledge, using the tools of reason, applying the hard grind of thought -- not being fooled, duped or unduly ignorant. I'd say that his failing to abide by reason leaves him vulnerable to other consequential interests. In the end, the sloppy thinker is cognitively disabled, and the prime victim of himself -- with reduced ability to navigate the world wisely and honestly. For example, a great majority of Americans polled on attitudes towards minority groups single out atheists/unbelievers for particular heightened mistrust based on their perceived lack of morality. Atheists are seen as more dangerous even than Muslims. Americans would vote for a Muslim before they would vote for an avowed atheist. What does this prejudice serve, how are the consequences sorted out? Could this be a (selfishly) healthy prejudice against objective thinkers/atheists, cultivated by most religious groups across the board, for humane reasons and to the benefit of the individuals who hold it? Well, it depends, doesn't it? Brant, if you are not too busy or sidelined, I am sure you can give multiple further examples of It Depends.

Thanks, MSK. I listened to the whole debate and banged out some swift notes. I've been following the whole sprawling mess of discourse that began to erupt following Bill Maher's bigoted thinking about Them. -- I will take down these rough notes in an hour or so, when I figure out if I have anything else to add to the thread. I will just say that Sam failed to convince me that some recent criticism of his opinions and stance was unjustified. He gave not one inch in this conversation. Not realizing why people object to particular claims is a clue that Sam is more arrogant than wise. If you don't want to listen to three hours of Sam Harris, these notes will let you skim through some of the terms and turns of the conversation. Probably most OLers would wonder if there is any benefit in subjecting oneself to any three-hour Youtube conversation (JTS excepted).

What was your first clue?

It's a special day when boring Canada gets in the news. You guys can only imagine how much play the event gets up here. A few things stood out. One was the contrast between NBC/CBS/ABC/FOX/CNN breaking coverage, and that of our state-funded CBC/Radio-Canada. I wasn't the only one marking the difference. Another stand-out was the instant solidarity and revulsion across the spectrum. As expected, everybody and their dog condemned the attack, and everyone grasped the gravity of an attack on two national symbols. What united in revulsion was not only the murder of the Highlander, but the attack on Parliament, the national forum. That's where the whole country sits symbolically under one roof, deliberates its business ... Official solidarity was also on display in small ways and large -- like emails sent to all Muslim organizations by police. It's not the first time some whackjob has brought death into a Canadian legislature. Who remembers Denis Lortie? Who remembers Paul Joseph Chartier? Who remembers the other major event? I take depressing note of comments to articles, to social bulletin boards like Twitter and stories related elsewhere, characterized by fear and anger and assorted calls for forceful action of some kind. These extend from things like "Impose the War Measures Act (martial law)!" and 'close all the mosques and deport all Muslims' to stuff smirking about Muslim's peaceability and the urgent necessity to uproot and destroy all Canadian Muslims. This is the fringe, though, and surely those who call for mass deportations of enemy Muslims know there is not even the smallest chance that this would happen. Perhaps this is just how some people reason under emotional provocation. More broadly, I sensed a shrinking-in of the body politic, a kind of tent-meeting revivalism, affirming of values, 'standing on guard' for the symbols, for each other, publicly testifying adherence to Canadian values. Every brown Canadian and non-brown Canadian rattled out the values that are expressed at a national scale, all those otherwise hokey acts of allegiance. Every Muslim I know was not only as revolted as me, but the Canadian Muslims took it just as 'personally' as me. They felt a cowardly hit on the Highlander at the Cenotaph was a hit on them as much as on 'Us'. They took a little punch to the gut. They are somewhat fearful that another nutter shooter will emerge to 'avenge' the murder by hacking off at Mr Visible Minority. This makes them angrier at the shooter than me ... Last greatly symbolic theatre from shooter's mother (an apparatchik in Canada's refugee apparat). She said she cried for the victims, not for her son. She and the shooter's father apologized for the fear, death and chaos their son brought to Ottawa. Everybody gets to play a part in this morality play. It's been instructive, heartening and at times depressing to see how a free and democratic liberal society gets itself through the night, how it navigates attacks on national narratives by strongly affirming the narrative, reinforcing the narrative. I am pretty proud of Canadian reaction on the whole. Fringe maniacs will always come out of the woodwork like bedbugs when blood is in the public square. Here's one of those unfunny caricatures that captures a feeling quite well. -- note to Brant/Adam regarding the essentially unarmed soldiers. There did not used to be a ceremonial guard until some home-grown louts pissed on the memorial last decade. This created a ruckus, and the Highlanders were recruited for the job of standing on guard for Canada's war dead. No need for a gun to counter drunken louts. Until yesterday.

Greg, I am sure glad that your wife beat cancer, sincerely. I have a sister who is a fifteen year survivor of breast cancer, and I have another sister receiving adjuvant radiation therapy for breast cancer (after a successful surgical resection of a tiny tumour). Do you remember what the particular cancer was that your wife had (no need to answer this)? I can't imagine an oncologist giving such a dead-line for a cancer. Guy/gal sounds like a jerk ... The downside of Gerson therapy protocol is the relentless coffee enemas. From the website link above:

It bears mentioning the kind of cancer Chris had (colon cancer). It also bears mentioning that Chris had his 'golf-ball sized tumour' resected.** In other words, Chris had the cancer cut out of him (including affected lymph nodes). So, Jerry, your suggestion that he cured his cancer by nutrition alone is quite misleading. It's a fanciful and dangerous assumption that a cancer can be cured only by nutrition. It isn't reasonable and it isn't rational. For a skeptical take on Chris's claims, I recommend the blog post "Chris beat cancer? He did indeed, but it wasn’t quackery that cured him." _______________________ ** one of the commenters at Orac's blog made a pretty grim point: Funny that for all his anecdotes, he was so lacking in faith in nutrients and smoothies that he opted for surgery to save his life, giving him his present opportunity to tell his readers how unimportant that surgery was.

With the depressing reality of AIDS in South Africa, and the history of denialism and public health failures through the eighties and nineties of the last century, maybe you are right to expect an outbreak down there -- due to no plan, no resources, no action. I've read some news of the plans and structures said to be in place. If you were more hopeful on the subject, this could be reassuring. (do you recall any details of the Facebook lady's story, like which SA airport she flew into? Do the SA authorities heat-screen only direct flights from the three countries with epidemics, as far as you know?)

Canada is just about as tight-ass as anywhere with allowing doctors to prescribe medication that hasn't at least gone through phase one trials. The CBC show The Current did a good show on the issues in Canada. That article you pasted underlined one risk of un-tightening access -- a proliferation of crank cocktails and quack remedies. As long as some clinic in Tijuana could tout 'human trial' results of a given agent's utility, new rules could mandate customer choice for off-label/pre-trial use of almost any kind of remedy. I can imagine a lot of wasted resources and delay and death under that kind of looser regime; if it brings more woo into cancer clinics, I won't like it. I empathize with the particular terminal patients and their families. I'd hate to think that we deny plausible remedies just because they haven't been proven in human trials, or are at a very early stage in the process; I'd worry about the fringey-plausible remedies currently touted in alternative health markets. it could drive out the good. I can a see a bad law applied to no particular advantage of anyone except the nostrum producers.

William, you ought to be honest enough to speak for yourself instead of lying about what others said. None of the things you listed impinge on the operation of my business or the quality of my life. My comments weren't directed at you or "Helen" or "Fred" but at Francisco. Your quote truncates the point I was making to Francisco: that you had judged him morally deficient, a holder of bad values, and so no fruitful argument was possible. Your slap-happy psychological assessment of Francisco was complete. The subsidiary point was a kind of exasperated observation that the two of you likely share bedrock opinions, about capitalism and human beings, self-governance and self-reliance, the optimum size of government, means of reducing the footprint and depredations of government. It seems to me pretentious nonsense to espy a yawning moral gulf between Francisco and yourself. No such gulf exists in reality. I mean, I would understand you taking an axe to the arguments of a non-Objectivist like me, but I don't understand why you would want to take the moral cudgel to Francisco on such feeble grounds. What justifies digging trenches or moral ditches between Greg and basically like-minded folks? That would be nice, Brant. I wonder why people who previously had zero input on a thread or on its topic would take the time and effort just to make a comment solely about me. Go figure... Greg Some of us 'people' find your preaching arrogant and presumptuous, and your valuations of OL members to be mean-spirited or unwarranted. It's not like you or Brent can mandate a no-fly-zone around your shit. By now you should be used to challenges to illogic and moralistic claptrap. If you don't like what "Frank" and "Fred" and "Helen" have to say in the free flow of discussion here, you could of course take Brad's advice and don't engage these moral sinkholes...

Lots of fine reasons to avoid a flu shot (I get jabbed because otherwise I cannot volunteer at the care home with demented elderly). It hurts. It's expensive. I don't think it works. I don't mind getting influenza. I never get influenza anyway ... I haven't been out of the house in five years. But the notion that mutating (morphing) viruses make obsolete vaccines against infection -- it's only a partial truth. Though flu viruses mutate, it's not like immunology and virology has been ignorant of this -- understanding flu virus mutations is key to each season's flu vaccinations. (the partial truth about flu vaccines needing to keep pace with mutating virus does not extend fully to other vaccines like those against measles/rubella/mumps, whooping cough, polio, smallpox, meningitis and so on ...) As for why a vaccine has not been forthcoming for Ebola, have a gander, Jules and Brant, at the Vaccines section of the Wikipedia entry on Ebola. Human vaccines are in the last stretch of the multi-year process of vaccine creation and testing. Put the attempts to invent a safe and effective vaccine against Ebola against the attempts to find a vaccine against HIV infection. Sometime even the most massively funded and directed attempts do not bear fruit in what we think is a timely manner. It's too late for this year's epidemic, but the first Ebola vaccine from big pharma GlaxoSmithKline could be out in 2015. There are several vaccine trials under way. The Public Health Agency in Canada has started human testing, and a Russian project is planning to do the same. At GSK's vaccine research laboratories outside Brussels, they are trying to compress trials that would normally take up to 10 years into just 12 months. They have already given the vaccine to volunteers taking part in the trial in Africa, the US - where they are working alongside the National Institute of Health - and the UK. A good recent Vox story on Ebola vaccine puts it plainly: "Vaccine research is unpredictable" ...

What part of your apparent alarm/surprise is real and based on fact, and which part is you funning, Adam? Can you give an example from the 'avalanche' of corroboration for "massive caches of viable WMDs"? The WMDs in question at the Muthanna complex overrun by the Islamic State comprise remnants of the Iraqi chemical warfare projects preceding the first Gulf War. But the viability of the shells, chemicals (Sarin, Mustard) is not so clear. I'd be interested indeed on corroboration of the 'massive' and the viability ... one of the subjects I follow closely is chemical weapons in the Iraq/Syria theatre. Here's an excerpt from a Telegraph article back in July, just after IS seized the base. It includes cautions from CW expert Hamish de Bretton-Gordon. More of his thoughts on the seizure at the Secure BIo site** (there is a danger of improvised 'dirty bombs' from IS seizures, but scant chance of IS creating WMDs with what's left at Muthanna, in his opinion). Regarding the yellowcake, is this is a joke? -- meaning, what to do now about the milled uranium put in Canadian hands? Yellowcake was indeed safely removed from Iraq, and the movement was kept secret during the stages of the removal from Iraq's nuclear centre. The fact of the removal hit the news around the time of the last shipment in 2008. Are you worried about what has happened to it since? ______________________ ** -- see also his and other expert views and warnings in the National Post, "ISIS capable of making dirty bombs with chemical weapons cache in Iraq, former British colonel warns":

Francisco, Greg's point is that even though you and he are subject to State and Federal Taxes, State and Federal laws, regulation of your professions, state and local fire, electric and building codes -- even though you each need a piece of government issued plastic to legally drive your vehicles ... because you 'criticize'** the machinery of government, you are a lesser being than him. (he just meekly goes with the flow and quietly pays his taxes, except for the times he joins his Tea Party colleagues in some political activism). Your activism is suspect, whereas his activism is righteous. You can't argue any reasonable point with him because he has long since assigned you to the 'indecent.' I think Greg is ignorant and bigoted enough to believe he knows you. He has assessed your heart, your motives and your politics -- your very worth as a citizen, as an American, as a man in the world. He is greater, you are lesser. He willfully distorts insignificant moral differences between you so that he can appear the greater man. The arrogance and the disdain go hand in hand -- it's driven by psychological "Otherizing." You are not going to ever be included in his categories of moral people. That case is closed and sealed. He doesn't say your arguments are flawed, but that you yourself are flawed, immoral. So, actually, Greg is not arguing with you. He is just blackening an imagined enemy. Which is fairly sad and ridiculous considering you probably share bedrock faiths in human ingenuity, human aspirations, human capabilities and human greatness. You vocally criticize Leviathan, while Greg passively accepts its hunger. The deeper oddity is that Greg styles himself a Christophile, a lover of Christliness. _____ ** -- Greg equates your 'criticism' of government and its depredations with 'complaining.'