sunknightApril 12, 2019 at 17:323900 views9 comments
My last post in this thread https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5573/philosopher-roger-scruton-has-been-sacked-for-islamophobia-and-antisemitism was deleted. Why?
It was deleted because it was incredibly inflammatory. You wrote something which could easily be read as claiming that all Muslims would be paedophiles without their religion.
If your critique of Islam boils down to referencing the Prophet Muhammed's sexual relationship with Aisha, your critique isn't worth reading. It's like claiming all Christians are stupid because their God forbade eating lobsters and was totes fine with destroying a city of arrogant scholars.
I responded to you in the original thread before I saw this, please post your responses here rather than in thread. You can contest the decision all you like here, similar posts in the previous thread will be treated the same.
Again, try to criticise Islam like Avicenna would. Respectfully and insightfully. Use that intellectual grace in your heritage to reduce the foaming spit at the corners of your mouth.
Yes, there was more nuance to his intentions, but not enough finesse or nuance in his words. If he said something like "The idolisation of a prophet whose actions in the Quran are sometimes quite immoral' and backed it up with a nice argument that links these moral failings to a criticism of practicing Muslims, the post would still be there. Alas, he did not, and he simply pivoted on expressing that the Prophet was a paedophile.
We treat Catholics with enough respect to believe they do not support the child rapists in their institutions, and criticism can be made respectfully here by linking the taboo of sex in the church to this behaviour (as Stephen Fry once did in a debate (paraphrased) 'The attitudes of upper members of the Catholic Church towards sex resemble eating disorders; the anorexic and the morbidly obese.') or with other strategies.
There simply wasn't enough expression, specifically nuanced argument, in the post to make it more than reactionary drivel.
I'll criticize islam whichever I like. Try not to misread what I write and ignore it if you don't like it.
Of course, write what you like, with the provision that you will be moderated as every other member would.
Note - I am not saying that you cannot criticise Islam, I am saying that your post was a disrespectful hatchet job and was deleted for its content and structure regardless of the pure and noble intentions you probably had. Write a more nuanced post, argue it well, argue it respectfully, and it will stick around.
Of course, write what you like, with the provision that you will be moderated as every other member would.
No, not like every other member. This thread https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5535/the-wests-moral-superiority-to-islam for example contains much harsher comments that are still there.
Note - I am not saying that you cannot criticise Islam, I am saying that your post was a disrespectful hatchet job and was deleted for its content and structure regardless of the pure and noble intentions you probably had. Write a more nuanced post, argue it well, argue it respectfully, and it will stick around.
Oh yes you do. You say that I'm not allowed to express my belief that mumammad was a pedophile and that many moslems continue to marry kids because of that.
Oh yes you do. You say that I'm not allowed to express my belief that mumammad was a pedophile and that many moslems continue to marry kids because of that.
I don't know what else to say. Write well and respectfully, and don't ruin the opportunity you have to discuss things with Mr Phil just because you can't reign in your zeal.
Oh yes you do. You say that I'm not allowed to express my belief that mumammad was a pedophile and that many moslems continue to marry kids because of that.
If you don't see why this is the kind of statement that mods have to curtail I'm afraid you probably won't be able to stick around here for long. Discuss what you like, respectfully, the more inflammatory the topic the more effort you have to put in to provide a nuanced representation and critique.
@VagabondSpectre is particularly good at doing this. Look at the discussions he creates if you would like to see a good way of dealing with highly charged material, and how Vagabond responds to interlocutors who disagree with him on the issues, even when they are ragey or suffer an aggressive misunderstanding, is a model of good conduct.
Comments (9)
If your critique of Islam boils down to referencing the Prophet Muhammed's sexual relationship with Aisha, your critique isn't worth reading. It's like claiming all Christians are stupid because their God forbade eating lobsters and was totes fine with destroying a city of arrogant scholars.
I responded to you in the original thread before I saw this, please post your responses here rather than in thread. You can contest the decision all you like here, similar posts in the previous thread will be treated the same.
Again, try to criticise Islam like Avicenna would. Respectfully and insightfully. Use that intellectual grace in your heritage to reduce the foaming spit at the corners of your mouth.
Yes, there was more nuance to his intentions, but not enough finesse or nuance in his words. If he said something like "The idolisation of a prophet whose actions in the Quran are sometimes quite immoral' and backed it up with a nice argument that links these moral failings to a criticism of practicing Muslims, the post would still be there. Alas, he did not, and he simply pivoted on expressing that the Prophet was a paedophile.
We treat Catholics with enough respect to believe they do not support the child rapists in their institutions, and criticism can be made respectfully here by linking the taboo of sex in the church to this behaviour (as Stephen Fry once did in a debate (paraphrased) 'The attitudes of upper members of the Catholic Church towards sex resemble eating disorders; the anorexic and the morbidly obese.') or with other strategies.
There simply wasn't enough expression, specifically nuanced argument, in the post to make it more than reactionary drivel.
Misread, not read.
Quoting fdrake
Then don't read it.
Quoting fdrake
I'll criticize islam whichever I like. Try not to misread what I write and ignore it if you don't like it.
Of course, write what you like, with the provision that you will be moderated as every other member would.
Note - I am not saying that you cannot criticise Islam, I am saying that your post was a disrespectful hatchet job and was deleted for its content and structure regardless of the pure and noble intentions you probably had. Write a more nuanced post, argue it well, argue it respectfully, and it will stick around.
Quoting sunknight
Edit: alas, I am a mod, and unfortunately I have to read many things I don't like.
No, not like every other member. This thread https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5535/the-wests-moral-superiority-to-islam for example contains much harsher comments that are still there.
Quoting fdrake
Oh yes you do. You say that I'm not allowed to express my belief that mumammad was a pedophile and that many moslems continue to marry kids because of that.
I don't know what else to say. Write well and respectfully, and don't ruin the opportunity you have to discuss things with Mr Phil just because you can't reign in your zeal.
I can help you with what to say. Quote me saying what you said I said.
I'd rather just close the thread.
Quoting sunknight
If you don't see why this is the kind of statement that mods have to curtail I'm afraid you probably won't be able to stick around here for long. Discuss what you like, respectfully, the more inflammatory the topic the more effort you have to put in to provide a nuanced representation and critique.
@VagabondSpectre is particularly good at doing this. Look at the discussions he creates if you would like to see a good way of dealing with highly charged material, and how Vagabond responds to interlocutors who disagree with him on the issues, even when they are ragey or suffer an aggressive misunderstanding, is a model of good conduct.