It’s a convenient little loop: you relentlessly portray terrorists as muslims and vice versa, massively publicising and exaggerating the incidents when those two overlap, and ignoring or minimising the ones when they don’t – and then you suggest that the fact that your readers’ minds immediately jump to join the two proves that the link you’ve been training them to make is actually true.
Bolt:
When the deed sounds like the faith, the faith is a problem
You need no other information than the headline to guess the cause:
Thirteen terror suspects arrested
Your readers don’t, no. Congratulations, your work is complete.
Meanwhile, I wonder what readers of Pure Poison expect whenever they see a story about a polemicist running a cynical line to smear muslims. By now, I suspect you need little other information than the headline to guess the cause. And, applying our friend’s logic above, that therefore confirms everything we’ve ever written about him – right?
201 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 » Show All
Iain, you just admitted your bias. EPIC FAIL.
Grasshoper: journey now on the path to the virtues that matter, find the Mad Monk, bond with him, but do not speak of our Islamic brethren (or homosexuality) for that will cause much discomfort.
shorter iaian: I’m not anglocentric, I just have an anglocentric view of the world.
Priceless!
A good saying I once heard was “I am not racist, I hate all races equally”
Just a minor point and not strictly on-topic, but the use of the Crusades as an example of Christian aggression towards Muslims isn’t entirely accurate — the first Crusade was launched in response to the conquering of Jerusalem and the massacre of Christians living there by the Turks, the subsequent expeditions after that were an extension of that first campaign in which some European Christian states attempted to expel Islam, (and other religions), from other territories (mostly traditional Christian ones).
Of course the Crusaders were equally happy to massacre Muslims when they had the upper hand as the Muslims were to massacre Christians — I believe it was pretty much normal practice everywhere in those times when a territory was conquered.
Gavin
Good point
Dam buster
I have an equal disdain for all sorts of god bothering no matter what brand it happens to be . However when I meet the followers of any faith I treat them with equal civility and respect.
Confessions
Where precisely have I said anything like “I’m not anglocentric,” You can’t help lying can you?
Johnny
Every one is biased and those who claim otherwise are just telling lies. If you think otherwise it is you of Fails here not I
Oh come off it Shaun, now you are hiding behind a semantic point! By conceding that some Muslims are terrorists how is that substantively different to what you think Andrew is implying? Even if I take what you claim at face value an “implication” is by definition a weaker statement than you saying that some Muslims ARE terrorists.
Rubbish followed by more rubbish.
I mean, f*ck me, it is not a semantic point.
It is self evident by reports of terrorist attacks that some Muslims are terrorists.
However, what Andrew’s theme and yours is, is that there is something particular to this religion that makes its followers more likely to become terrorists. It’s not the same thing.
So don’t try and say I am quibbling over semantics when it is you who are attempting to distort everything I say and colour it with you
No Shaun I have read what you have written and tried to work out your meanings and where it has been vague or unclear then perhaps you should try to be more clear.
Hmmmmm, shall we have a quick poll people? Am I communicating my meaning clearly or not?
I play hard and offer no quarter because I know that this is a very hostile environment where there is virtually no generosity from my interlocutors should I concede even the smallest point.
When you’re wrong you’re wrong. You offer no quarter because you’ve been wrong all throughout this post every single time you have responded. If you conceded on points, you wouldn’t look like such a fool.
You can have a belief that you are being attacked because you are a right winger and this is a left leaning blog if you want. If that makes you happy.Or you can look at your arguments and say to yourself, “yeah, i have been writing a load of crap, and if I stuck to the topic, my posts would ahve been more coherent”.
How about this for a new plan of a attack?:
1) Don’t use logical fallacies
2) Don’t imbue other people’s words with meanings that aren’t there.
3) Don’t claim things that don’t mean the same thing do mean the same.
4) Don’t bring in irrelevancies to the argument
I mean the big problem is you are trying to defend the indefensible. Making a claim against something that is clearly self evident to most people, that Andrew Bolt’s blog is antagonistic to Muslims, I guess you have to argue in such a manner.
It is why you started to make such ridiculous claims as “You people are trying to deny that Muslims commit terrorist acts”. What? Why would anyone even attempt to make such a claim. It’s a matter of record. I wouldn’t even try to argue against a proposition such as that because you simply can’t mount an argument against it.
On the subject of the Crusades, Gavin, I think that was a time in the world’s history where most religions were spread by the sword.
Hello Shaun,
Yes, and not only religion.
Iain, I reject what you’re saying. Rational thinkers who are self-aware and base their opinions and beliefs on reason and evidence are not biased.
You however, concede that you are biased and expect others to take your opinion seriously. This is what you are effectively arguing:
-Person X admits that he is biased towards Culture Y over Culture Z.
-Person X believes that Culture Y is superior to Culture Z.
-Person X doesn’t understand why others reject and ridicule his position on the issue.
ie how can you make fair and reasonable comment on an issue where you favour one side of an argument over the other? How is that possible?
Iain: you want people to think you are tolerant towards others and not prejudiced against muslims, yet by your own admission your views are anglocentric, and filtered through an anglocentric view of the world. You do understand what this means, don’t you, because your indignation suggests you don’t
“Regard the Franj! Behold with what obstinacy they fight for their religion, while we, the Muslims, show no enthusiasm for waging holy war.-Salah Al-Din.
From: Maalouf, Amin. The Crusades Through Arab Eyes. Translated by Jon Rothschild, 1984. Al Saqi Books, 26 Wetbourne Grove, London W2.
http://crusades.org/
The level of patience on display here, particularly SeanHC’s, is really something to
marvel at.
…Iain continues to skewer himself..we keep pleading ‘put the knife down Iain!’.
# 156ShaunHC
Now let me get this absolutely correct you concede that there are acts of terror carried out by Muslims but you deny that their faith has anything to do with those acts is that a fair summation of your position? I don’t want you to claim that I am misrepresenting you.
This sentence does not make sense.
What would that prove?
I concede on points when they warrant it your concession that there are Muslim terrorist suggests that I am not actually wrong about everything now doesn’t it?
But I have stuck very close to the topic Namely I have been refuting the contention that “there is a deep and dark purpose to any thing that Andrew Bolt writes about Islam or about Muslims” and as a response we have had the rather dull moral relativism stuff about nutters of other faiths, your cavort about what you think is implicit in the writing, the personal attacks.
I don’t do 1, 2 is hilarious when you consider that it is precisely what you are doing about the writing of Andrew bolt, 3 makes no sense at all , 4 what have I raised that is irrelevent?
What precisely do you think the limits of criticising a religion or those who follow it should be? Where would you draw the line and why would you draw it at that point? because that is the real bone of contention here isn’t it?
In your opinion is it OK to write about the details of that faiths holy book?
Or is it OK to write about the life of a religions prophet,
What about the words or deeds of its clergy?
I would argue that Andrew bolt is not antagonistic to Muslims but he is towards the Islamists who are among the Muslims. Surely you don’t abject to that ?
Well by objecting to any criticism of any aspect of Islam you are implicitly doing precisely that.
# 160 Johnny Come Lately
You are delusional if you think that anyone can be truly free of bias, I acknowledge that I am English and my heritage and education colours what I think and what I value. That is not some straight jacket but it is a starting point . I am willing to bet that your heritage and your education was just as influential in the way that you think and act. That is bias
Yes I do because I am a realist about the way that what we have experienced in our lives shapes the person that we become. You on the other hand are deluded enough to think that you are free from bias.
It is both possible and likely when you are aware of your own inherent bias and you know that you are not a slave to those pre conceptions. On the other hand someone (not unlike your self ) who thinks they are without bias is unable to control what they are unaware they actually have.
#161Confessions
For a start I make a point of always appropriately capitalise words like “Islam” or “Muslim” because it is a sign of respect, something that you consistently fail to do,If you really cared about the feelings of Muslims you would make more of an effort on that.
‘you deny that their faith has anything to do with those acts is that a fair summation of your position?
Wow Iain, sorry but you are hella crazy…you’ve been told over and over again to refrain from wacky assumptions, but you’re apparently far too gone.
Depressing.
I see. Nothing to address the substance of people’s criticism of your inconsistent
talking pointsarguments on this issue, just a pedro-like inanity about capitalisation?This is good news because now we know that any comment you make about people who aren’t anglos can simply be dismissed because your own prejudice has rendered your view worthless and unbiased. It only took 160-odd comments to get there, but sanity prevails in the end.
Unbiased = biased.
quantize
Talk about the evils of “selective quoting
I am asking Shaun a question and you quote part of that question as if it is a statement
Confessions
There is a distinct difference between admitting that I am no different to anyone else in that I am the product of my hermitage and education and your claim that it makes me incapable of reasonable debate.
Its not like you are a entirely unbiased yourself now is it?
The only way that any of us can compensate for our inevitable bias is to acknowledge it and be mindful of the way that it colours our opinions.
My “claim” is that your contradictions, goal-post shifting and flip-flopping show you are incapable of reasoned debate. Your implied admission that you are biased against muslims simply proves your views on this matter should be dismissed out of hand.
Confessions
Funny just a few minutes ago your claim was that I am too “Anglocentric” make up your mind and try for a consistent argument.
WTF is an “implied admission”?
The only group of people that I am “biased” against are the nutters who want to strap explosives to their bodies and detonate them among women and children oh yes and those who make excuses for them or claim that such acts of bastardy can be justified ether by a political ideology or by a religious one.
Iain: my position on your comments is very consistent – if you read back you’ll see I have maintained all along you are a flipper and a flopper, and you are now proving it by shifting the goalposts yet again.
Yes, you keep saying that iain, but your continued defence of the indefensible gives the lie to that statement.
Confessions
What indefeasible thing do you claim that I am defending?
Start here Iain, and work forward.
Now let me get this absolutely correct you concede that there are acts of terror carried out by Muslims but you deny that their faith has anything to do with those acts is that a fair summation of your position?
Er for the hundredth time on this thread You get it completely wrong. No that is not a fair summation of my position at all. Let me type slowly so that hopefully you will get it this time.
1) The people who commit these atrocities believe they are doing it in the name of their religion. So their faith in their eyes has something to do with it.
2) This is no different to Christian extremists in the US who bomb abortion clinics. They do so because they believe their faith tells them to.
3) In neither of these cases should the actions of a few reflect on the majority of the adherents to these religions.
Did you get it that time?
I don’t do 1, 2 is hilarious when you consider that it is precisely what you are doing about the writing of Andrew bolt, 3 makes no sense at all , 4 what have I raised that is irrelevent?
OK, 1 by 1.
1) Don’t use logical fallacies
If you claim when I say Andrew Bolt’s work is slanted against Muslims that this means I am mounting a defence of Islam, that a logically fallacious statement.
2) Don’t imbue other people’s words with meanings that aren’t there.
If you claim that in what I write I am denying that Muslims commit terrorist acts (you have written this) when I have said no such thing you are putting meaning to my words that is simply not there.
3) Don’t claim things that don’t mean the same thing do mean the same.
When you say that the stamements “All Muslims are terrorists” and “all Muslims are potential terrorists” mean almost precisely the same thing, that is what you are doing.
4) Don’t bring in irrelevancies to the argument.
We are discussing whether or not Andrew Bolt’s articles are slanted against Muslims. . Either his work is or it isn’t. So since you claimed his work isn’t, issues about the nature of Islam are irrelevant.
What you tried to get away with was saying, “No Andrew Bolt isn’t anti Muslim, but even if he was he is justified because Islam is….”
Ah we are back to you being unable to prove that which you claim is self evident I see.
That is right up there with you “implied admission” crap
Iain’s more concerned about having the last word…pretty typical right whinge move.
He’s lost any ability to argue anything coherently after a long thread of deliberate obfuscation and dogged assumption.
I say let him have it…he’s done for..his spell checker even stopped working.
Ian Hall last week:
Iain Hall at the weekend:
Iain Hall today:
The laughs just keep coming. We should start a tab and take bets on what ridiculous contradictory nonsense Iaian will come back with next.
Do you understand what a rhetorical question is Confessions?
I don’t think that you do
Or are you trying to suggest that opposing terrorism and those who seek to practice it is indefensible?
Or are you trying to suggest that opposing terrorism and those who seek to practice it is indefensible?
My estimation or your capacities for comprehension falls every time you get it wrong. It’s way into negative numbers right now.
In case you hadn’t noticed, the thread has never actually been about terrorism. It has been about Andrew Bolt’s anti Muslim bias. It is you who have attempted to shift the goal posts, because you can’t mount a credible argument against assertion.
What you are doing is the Stephen Conroy school of debate:
Me: “I’m opposed to having my internet filtered”
Conroy: “A ha! That means you are in favour of child porn!”
Hall, I stand by what I said. By the way, can you just clarify your position on Muslim immigration for me, just to remove any doubt?
‘Or are you trying to suggest that opposing terrorism and those who seek to practice it is indefensible?’
wow.
Do you understand what comments you post from one day to the next Iain? I don’t think you do.
Or are you trying to suggest that I’m incapable of searching back through this thread in order to re-post the many varied positions you’ve taken in respect to Jeremy’s original post?
Iain, here is the link to the story about the Jewish man attacked by footballers, his name is Menachem Vorchheimer.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/race-hate-attack/story-e6frf7kx-1111112371334
It’s not hard Iain to find news about white supremacists plotting and committing crimes, I know they don’t get much mention in the ‘left’ leaning Australian media. Here are several examples.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-03-08-UK-terrorism_N.htm
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/02/18/joseph-stack-and-right-wing-terror-isolated-incidents-or-worrying-trend.aspx
There is plenty more evidence around to back up by assertion.
Of course I meant it would be silly to blame Muslims ‘en masse’ for acts of terror, Iain. Extremism and radicalism is the real enemy, and it comes in many forms, I am yet to see Andrew Bolt critic any other form than Islamic extremism. He consistently portrays Muslims in a negative light.
That there are obscure Islamic internet forums with offensive comments on them doesn’t excuse Bolt Blog, which claims 1+ million hits a month. That the comments Bolt allows are ‘tame’ in comparison is no excuse for allowing some of the material published. I’m sure Bolt Blog is tame compared to white supremacist, neo-nazi forums.
Andrew Bolt’s analysis of most issues is not insightful, or helpful to debate in general. His high output allows him to skim across many issues quickly and he plays to the prejudices’ of his audience.
Shaun
And all of my comments have been addressing that very question despite the crap peddled by Confessions. While it is clear to me that Andrew does talk about Islam , Islamists,and the various plots and actual acts of terror the premise of the post has not been proven. namely is the writing anti-Muslim per se? I really do need you to answer the questions that I asked you earlier because they go to the heart of the issue:
What precisely do you think the limits of criticising a religion or those who follow it should be?
Where would you draw the line and why would you draw it at that point?
In your opinion is it OK to write about the details of that faiths holy book?
Or is it OK to write about the life of a religions prophet,
What about the words or deeds of its clergy?
I would argue that Andrew bolt is not antagonistic to Muslims in general but he is towards the Islamists who are among the Muslims. Surely you don’t object to that ?
It would be interesting too if confessions and Johnny et all would answer as well
Iain, I’m going to leave it at that. It hasn’t gone un-noticed by the moderators what you do. Funnily enough on another thread Tobias has written pretty much the same description of how you debate:
“…So whatever examples anyone tosses out there, you’ll explain how they don’t meet your standards. And if anyone meets your standards, those goalposts are going to shift..”
…You’re a master of creating zombie threads, Iain – once you get to a thread, it refuses to die and it eats people’s brains…
…Around here, you’re invited to keep your comments on topic, coherent, non-circular, and of a reasonable length…
I predicted as I provided evidence early on in this thread that you would demand more and I was right. Tobias has noticed this. You can’t win against incoherent, circular arguments, and since the moderators are getting sick of it too, I’ll stop. I’ll just point out one thing before I go:
While it is clear to me that Andrew does talk about Islam , Islamists,and the various plots and actual acts of terror the premise of the post has not been proven.
The evidence of this WAS provided by me, probably 150 posts ago. And as Tobias says, you just say.. “oh no, that doesn’t meet the standard of evidence I require”. You’ll play that game for ever, so best to disengage.
I await Iain’s next claim.. that Tony Abbott isn’t anti gay.
hall @ 168:
“I am the product of my hermitage…”.
iain hall’s first comment on this thread:
Keep going Iain, this is actually fun.
Can’t you answer my pertinent questions (in bold in comment #186) then Shaun?
Can You answer them confessions?
Iain Hall’s third comment on this thread.
Nearly 200 comments later and Iaian is still flipping and flopping his way through befuddlement.
Keep going Iain, this is fun.
answer my questions then Confessions
They are simple enough and pertinent to the topic
ShaunHC:
Iain Hall flipping and flopping:
iain Hall on having his inconsistency and flip-flop pointed out to him (my bold):
Flip, flop, flip, flop, flip, flop flap!
Iain, your questions have been answered repeatedly…anyone reading back through this thread can plainly see your ‘questions’ are nothing but a pathetic desperate ploy to appear to be some kind of ‘calm conservative voice’. You’re nothing of the kind…smoke and mirrors..
Oh now I get it, keep asking questions ’till you get the answers you want…?
wont work.
quantize
My questions have not been answered,
If you think that they have then please cite the comments where they have been answered.
Confessions
still avoiding I see.
C’mon Iain, i just KNOW your little red engine can get us up to 200.
You’re the only one avoiding here Iain, you’ve been answered repeatedly. Let the readers decide, we’re not here to satisfy your bizzare idea of ‘proof’.
These questions have NOT been answered quantize
Care to have a go at them rather than pretend that they ahve been answerd?
What precisely do you think the limits of criticising a religion or those who follow it should be?
Where would you draw the line and why would you draw it at that point?
In your opinion is it OK to write about the details of that faiths holy book?
Or is it OK to write about the life of a religions prophet,
What about the words or deeds of its clergy?
I would argue that Andrew bolt is not antagonistic to Muslims in general but he is towards the Islamists who are among the Muslims. Surely you don’t object to that ?
After all answering these question go to the heart of the matter.
Which is why you lot are all avoiding them
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 » Show All