I apologize for the colorful language — yes, gays are indeed killed by being thrown off of buildings by some muslims, and indeed, in some muslim countries the death penalty is prescribed for homosexuality, but I could have been more specific about how they related. Mea culpa.
As for “most” muslims, I’ll refer to the Pew poll. Now, they weren’t actually asked directly “is the death penalty appropriate for homosexuality”, but the numbers on homosexual acceptance are abhorrent. If sharia believing muslims were willing to disavow this kind of attitude, I’d be more welcoming, of course. And I’d be just as ready to exclude hard core foreign Christians or Jews or Buddhists who thought homosexuality was immoral and should be punished, but this is the kind of statement imams make without any backlash from the sharia believing community:
“God is very straightforward about this — not we Muslims, not subjective, the Sharia is very clear about it, the punishment for homosexuality, bestiality or anything like that is death,” Muslim cleric Sheikh Khalid Yasin said in a YouTube video posted online. “We don’t make any excuses about that, it’s not our law — it’s the Koran.”
It’s one thing not to believe what Sheikh Khalid Yasin believes. But backing up that lack of synchronicity with explicit condemnation is what is needed if there is going to be a credible islamic reformation.
When you paint with a broad, overtly disingenuous brush, it doesn’t help your case that a diversity of ideas is good.
I think I didn’t present myself clearly — my critique is of hypocrisy. I haven’t yet made the case that we must have a diversity of ideas, only that someone claiming they are for cultural diversity, but only leftist cultural diversity, is inconsistent.
“Just answer the simple questions: should all ideas be given equal weight and time? Should all ideas be considered by everyone in every circumstance?”
Of course the answer is no to both. Sharia should be condemned by everyone, and driven from the public square, just as black racists, and white racists should be. Anthropogenic global warming hysteria should be required to be backed up by a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement before being considered by the scientific establishment.
The trick, which I don’t think you quite see, is that when deciding what weight, time, and consideration we should give, perfectly rational people can come to completely opposite opinions (giving you the benefit of the doubt here about your own rationality). Now, perhaps you truly believe that you’ve got a firm grip on reality, and can’t be fooled, and have nothing but rational and perfect opinions…and I can at least sympathize with that :)
They are not founded on fear and hate or dubious appeals to authority.
Did I seam fearful, hateful, or appealing to an authority? Sincere question — not sure if you’re responding to me, or to something you’re merely attributing to me through some association specific to your imagination.
“Furthermore, at no point do I engage in ad hominem about this.”
Sure you did. Instead of actually stating why you thought my examples were terrible and inapposite, you stated, “this remains a standard fallacious trope that illogical people keep repeating.” Name calling me “illogical” without actually making an argument of logic (but merely a dogmatic assertion), is in fact, ad hominem.
You even posited a straw man that I was equating “right-wing voices or ideas” and human beings — although I clearly addressed racism (humans) as a separate example from cultural diversity (ideas). It was non sequitur.
If you didn’t intend the insult, and merely forgot to make the argument, I accept your apology :)
The fact is, you’re right about there being people who wrap themselves in the flag of racial equality and cultural diversity, who are as racist and bigoted as any Archie Bunker you can imagine. The problem is, you don’t realize that this applies to people whom you aren’t clearly seeing as racist and bigoted.
In regards to Mr. Weinstein, the true bigoted racists are the ones attacking him. Even though they claim to be for racial equality and cultural diversity. It’s a perfect example of your claim, but I was right — you weren’t subjecting your own biases to any sort of scrutiny when you wrote that sentence.
Now, still swimming in whatever cognitive dissonance you might have, can you be intellectually honest, and do more than just claim logic and reason, but demonstrate it?
