You didn't explain anything beyond stating your own prejudice. LoisThat must be some new definition of prejudice that I don't know about. What I talked about are the factors that lead to scientific discovery, innovation and increased knowledge. As an aside, I alluded to how cultures tend to acknowledge their own accomplishments sometimes missing how they affect others. I think many Palestinians don't see any of this "peace" that Kissinger supposedly created. The only thing I can figure you are doing is some sort of reverse-racism claim. Wherein, if I say anything about the historical factors that led to a group of people acting in similar ways, that's racism. I'll wait for your response before I attempt to undo that any further. For now, I made a clear statement about how intelligence is not related to genetics, at least not at the level of country of origin or the religion of your ancestors. That is the opposite of prejudice. I never claimed that intelligence is related to genetics, nor did the piece I sent in, it simply noted an interestimg phenomenon--one which no one has refuted. Least of all, you. You are protesting too much. Lois Okie Dokie. Either you don't understand what you did, or you do understand and you're trying to exit gracefully. Exiting gracefully is hard to do on a discussion forum. You made a comparison. Call it an "interesting phenomenon" if you want, it was a comparison and there was a reason for doing it. It was a response to something someone else said and it had a conclusion, that original someone appeared to be stifled by the response. How could you explain all of this if not that the intention was to point out that Jews are better than Muslims? If there is some other intention, you should explain that, because that's how most people would take it. When it comes to scientific discoveries and inventions and the Nobel Prize, Jews are better than Muslims. When it comes to flying planes into buildings and other acts of terrorism, including beheading innocent people and killing their own daughters, Muslims are "better" than anyone else. Let the record and history speak for itself. Take your choice as to which actions you admire. Lois
I never claimed that intelligence is related to genetics, nor did the piece I sent in, it simply noted an interestimg phenomenon--one which no one has refuted. Least of all, you. You are protesting too much.You noted an interesting phenomenon? No, no, you just got a funny email or found a funny website, and copied it for us, because you wanted to share your schadenfreude. There are no facts to refute, of course not, Lausten and I did not deny the facts. But we are looking for the motive behind such texts. For you it might be schadenfreude (which is not such a terrible offense. I know this feeling also too well, just at other facts.), but for others the motive might be clearly racist, or if you want, discriminative. If you read my first posting again, you will see I did not accuse you of racism or of being on a hate campaign. By copying texts which were published with a racist intention, even if they only contain facts, you just take a little part in helping to distribute this meme. A fact can be very insulting depending in the context in which it is said. 1. The doctor, reading the dossier of her patient, said with a lot of empathy in her voice: "So your mother died in a psychiatric clinique?" 2. The girls of her class were always teasing her. But it became to much for her, when one of the girls said: "So your mother died in a psychiatric clinique?" Same sentence, same fact. Context and interpretation matter. It is deadly when somebody hides behind "Well, it is true, isn't it? Am I not allowed to say truths?" Schadenfreude, racism and discrimination are in the eye of the beholder. It says more about you than it does about me that you feel obligated to condemn a simple listing of facts and an interesting juxtaposition. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Lois
Fine, you didn’t ask for my advice and you don’t want it. Go ahead and spew your garbage wherever you want, see where it gets you.
Fine, you didn't ask for my advice and you don't want it. Go ahead and spew your garbage wherever you want, see where it gets you.You are apparently an expert in the finer aspects of garbage spewing. I will keep that in mind. Lois
They are welcome to their boycott. It would be a great advantage to the civilized world. A Jewish Boycott Some time ago, Iran 's Supreme Leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei urged the Muslim World to boycott anything and everything that originates with the Jewish people. In response, Meyer M. Treinkman, a pharmacist, out of the kindness of his heart, offered to assist them in their boycott as follows: "Any Muslim who has Syphilis must not be cured by Salvarsan discovered by a Jew, Dr. Ehrlich. He should not even try to find out whether he has Syphilis, because the Wasserman Test is the discovery of a Jew. If a Muslim suspects that he has Gonorrhea, he must not seek diagnosis, because he will be using the method of a Jew named Neissner. "A Muslim who has heart disease must not use Digitalis, a discovery by a Jew, Ludwig Traube. Should he suffer with a toothache, he must not use Novocaine, a discovery of the Jews, Widal and Weil. If a Muslim has Diabetes, he must not use Insulin, the result of research by Minkowsky, a Jew. If one has a headache, he must shun Pyramidon and Antypyrin, due to the Jews, Spiro and Ellege. Muslims with convulsions must put up with them because it was a Jew, Oscar Leibreich, who proposed the use of Chloral Hydrate. Arabs must do likewise with their psychic ailments because Freud, father of psychoanalysis, was a Jew. Should a Muslim child get Diphtheria, he must refrain from the “Schick" reaction which was invented by the Jew, Bella Schick. "Muslims should be ready to die in great numbers and must not permit treatment of ear and brain damage, work of Jewish Nobel Prize winner, Robert Baram. They should continue to die or remain crippled by Infantile Paralysis because the discoverer of the anti-polio vaccine is a Jew, Jonas Salk. "Muslims must refuse to use Streptomycin and continue to die of Tuberculosis because a Jew, Zalman Waxman, invented the wonder drug against this killing disease. Muslim doctors must discard all discoveries and improvements by dermatologist Judas Sehn Benedict, or the lung specialist, Frawnkel, and of many other world renowned Jewish scientists and medical experts. "In short, good and loyal Muslims properly and fittingly should remain afflicted with Syphilis, Gonorrhea, Heart Disease, Headaches, Typhus, Diabetes, Mental Disorders, Polio Convulsions and Tuberculosis and be proud to obey the Islamic boycott."Thanks for the info LoisL but I would like to know where you got this from. The media does have a tendency to overexagerate things. Here are some less known facts about the Ayatollahs Grand Ayatollah Sistani of Iraq was considered and petition for the Nobel Peace Prize (by a non-muslim organization) http://www.petitiononline.com/petitions/ocsi2005/signatures Ayatollah Bojnoordi gave some Jewish Rabbis of historical religious sites in Iran. (some of which were chrisitianiy) One rabbis met with an ArchBishop in Iran Archbishop stressed to us that there have been Armenians in Persia even before the era of Jesus. Among other things, he stressed to us that the Islamic Republic is a religiously tolerant nation, and whatever difficulties there might be to live as a Christian in a Muslim nation, they were far outweighed by the benefits. http://rabbibrant.com/2008/11/30/the-ayatollah-and-the-archbishop/ But of course, most people aren't expected to know this. http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2012/04/03/the-islamophobia-excuse/
Oh, and by the way, don't call for a doctor on your cell phone because the cell phone was invented in Israel by a Jewish engineer. Meanwhile I ask, what medical contributions to the world have the Muslims made?" The Global Islamic population is approximately 1,200,000,000; that is ONE BILLION TWO HUNDRED MILLION or 20% of the world's population. They have received the following Nobel Prizes: Literature: 1988 - Najib Mahfooz Peace: 1978 - Mohamed Anwar El-Sadat 1990 - Elias James Corey 1994 - Yaser Arafat: 1999 - Ahmed Zewai Economics: (zero) Physics: (zero) Medicine: 1960 - Peter Brian Medawar 1998 - Ferid Mourad TOTAL: 7 SEVEN The Global Jewish population is approximately 14,000,000; that is FOURTEEN MILLION or about 0.02% of the world's population. They have received the following Nobel Prizes: Literature: 1910 - Paul Heyse 1927 - Henri Bergson 1958 - Boris Pasternak 1966 - Shmuel Yosef Agnon 1966 - Nelly Sachs 1976 - Saul Bellow 1978 - Isaac Bashevis Singer 1981 - Elias Canetti 1987 - Joseph Brodsky 1991 - Nadine Gordimer World Peace: 1911 - Alfred Fried 1911 - Tobias Michael Carel Asser 1968 - Rene Cassin 1973 - Henry Kissinger 1978 - Menachem Begin 1986 - Elie Wiesel 1994 - Shimon Peres 1994 - Yitzhak Rabin Physics: 1905 - Adolph Von Baeyer 1906 - Henri Moissan 1907 - Albert Abraham Michelson 1908 - Gabriel Lippmann 1910 - Otto Wallach 1915 - Richard Willstaetter 1918 - Fritz Haber 1921 - Albert Einstein 1922 - Niels Bohr 1925 - James Franck 1925 - Gustav Hertz 1943 - Gustav Stern 1943 - George Charles de Hevesy 1944 - Isidor Issac Rabi 1952 - Felix Bloch 1954 - Max Born 1958 - Igor Tamm 1959 - Emilio Segre 1960 - Donald A. Glaser 1961 - Robert Hofstadter 1961 - Melvin Calvin 1962 - Lev Davidovich Landau 1962 - Max Ferdinand Perutz 1965 - Richard Phillips Feynman 1965 - Julian Schwinger 1969 - Murray Gell-Mann 1971 - Dennis Gabor 1972 - William Howard Stein 1973 - Brian David Josephson 1975 - Benjamin Mottleson 1976 - Burton Richter 1977 - Ilya Prigogine 1978 - Arno Allan Penzias 1978 - Peter L Kapitza 1979 - Stephen Weinberg 1979 - Sheldon Glashow 1979 - Herbert Charles Brown 1980 - Paul Berg 1980 - Walter Gilbert 1981 - Roald Hoffmann 1982 - Aaron Klug 1985 - Albert A. Hauptman 1985 - Jerome Karle 1986 - Dudley R. Herschbach 1988 - Robert Huber 1988 - Leon Lederman 1988 - Melvin Schwartz 1988 - Jack Steinberger 1989 - Sidney Altman 1990 - Jerome Friedman 1992 - Rudolph Marcus 1995 - Martin Perl 2000 - Alan J. Heeger Economics: 1970 - Paul Anthony Samuelson 1971 - Simon Kuznets 1972 - Kenneth Joseph Arrow 1975 - Leonid Kantorovich 1976 - Milton Friedman 1978 - Herbert A. Simon 1980 - Lawrence Robert Klein 1985 - Franco Modigliani 1987 - Robert M. Solow 1990 - Harry Markowitz 1990 - Merton Miller 1992 - Gary Becker 1993 - Robert Fogel Medicine: 1908 - Elie Metchnikoff 1908 - Paul Erlich 1914 - Robert Barany 1922 - Otto Meyerhof 1930 - Karl Landsteiner 1931 - Otto Warburg 1936 - Otto Loewi 1944 - Joseph Erlanger 1944 - Herbert Spencer Gasser 1945 - Ernst Boris Chain 1946 - Hermann Joseph Muller 1950 - Tadeus Reichstein 1952 - Selman Abraham Waksman 1953 - Hans Krebs 1953 - Fritz Albert Lipmann 1958 - Joshua Lederberg 1959 - Arthur Kornberg 1964 - Konrad Bloch 1965 - Francois Jacob 1965 - Andre Lwoff 1967 - George Wald 1968 - Marshall W. Nirenberg 1969 - Salvador Luria 1970 - Julius Axelrod 1970 - Sir Bernard Katz 1972 - Gerald Maurice Edelman 1975 - Howard Martin Temin 1976 - Baruch S. Blumberg 1977 - Roselyn Sussman Yalow 1978 - Daniel Nathans 1980 - Baruj Benacerraf 1984 - Cesar Milstein 1985 - Michael Stuart Brown 1985 - Joseph L. Goldstein 1986 - Stanley Cohen [& Rita Levi-Montalcini] 1988 - Gertrude Elion 1989 - Harold Varmus 1991 - Erwin Neher 1991 - Bert Sakmann 1993 - Richard J. Roberts 1993 - Phillip Sharp 1994 - Alfred Gilman 1995 - Edward B. Lewis 1996- Lu RoseIacovino I wonder what happened to the boycott. It was Steven Weinberg who said, “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." LLthat is all true ( thanks for the info :) ) But i think we should all be aware that .... ...when it is pointed out to them that if you substituted “Muslims" with “women," “Hindus," “Blacks" and “Chinese" his statement would also be a simple “statement of fact"; inconveniently for the brave New Atheists “Islam" can’t be bashed or linked to the dearth of Nobel prizes awarded to these groups. http://www.loonwatch.com/2013/10/islam-science-and-the-decline-narrative/ Also an interesting point made about this by statistics scholar (whose biography can be read here http://engineering.nyu.edu/people/nassim-nicholas-taleb ) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ8C6oN81d0
They are welcome to their boycott. It would be a great advantage to the civilized world. A Jewish Boycott Some time ago, Iran 's Supreme Leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei urged the Muslim World to boycott anything and everything that originates with the Jewish people. In response, Meyer M. Treinkman, a pharmacist, out of the kindness of his heart, offered to assist them in their boycott as follows: "Any Muslim who has Syphilis must not be cured by Salvarsan discovered by a Jew, Dr. Ehrlich. He should not even try to find out whether he has Syphilis, because the Wasserman Test is the discovery of a Jew. If a Muslim suspects that he has Gonorrhea, he must not seek diagnosis, because he will be using the method of a Jew named Neissner. "A Muslim who has heart disease must not use Digitalis, a discovery by a Jew, Ludwig Traube. Should he suffer with a toothache, he must not use Novocaine, a discovery of the Jews, Widal and Weil. If a Muslim has Diabetes, he must not use Insulin, the result of research by Minkowsky, a Jew. If one has a headache, he must shun Pyramidon and Antypyrin, due to the Jews, Spiro and Ellege. Muslims with convulsions must put up with them because it was a Jew, Oscar Leibreich, who proposed the use of Chloral Hydrate. Arabs must do likewise with their psychic ailments because Freud, father of psychoanalysis, was a Jew. Should a Muslim child get Diphtheria, he must refrain from the “Schick" reaction which was invented by the Jew, Bella Schick. "Muslims should be ready to die in great numbers and must not permit treatment of ear and brain damage, work of Jewish Nobel Prize winner, Robert Baram. They should continue to die or remain crippled by Infantile Paralysis because the discoverer of the anti-polio vaccine is a Jew, Jonas Salk. "Muslims must refuse to use Streptomycin and continue to die of Tuberculosis because a Jew, Zalman Waxman, invented the wonder drug against this killing disease. Muslim doctors must discard all discoveries and improvements by dermatologist Judas Sehn Benedict, or the lung specialist, Frawnkel, and of many other world renowned Jewish scientists and medical experts. "In short, good and loyal Muslims properly and fittingly should remain afflicted with Syphilis, Gonorrhea, Heart Disease, Headaches, Typhus, Diabetes, Mental Disorders, Polio Convulsions and Tuberculosis and be proud to obey the Islamic boycott."Thanks for the info LoisL but I would like to know where you got this from. The media does have a tendency to overexagerate things. Here are some less known facts about the Ayatollahs Grand Ayatollah Sistani of Iraq was considered and petition for the Nobel Peace Prize (by a non-muslim organization) http://www.petitiononline.com/petitions/ocsi2005/signatures Ayatollah Bojnoordi gave some Jewish Rabbis of historical religious sites in Iran. (some of which were chrisitianiy) One rabbis met with an ArchBishop in Iran Archbishop stressed to us that there have been Armenians in Persia even before the era of Jesus. Among other things, he stressed to us that the Islamic Republic is a religiously tolerant nation, and whatever difficulties there might be to live as a Christian in a Muslim nation, they were far outweighed by the benefits. http://rabbibrant.com/2008/11/30/the-ayatollah-and-the-archbishop/ But of course, most people aren't expected to know this. http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2012/04/03/the-islamophobia-excuse/ Most Nobel nominees are not remembered if they don't win a prize. In fact, I know of no list of Nobel nominees. There are hundreds of nominees who never got a prize. They tend to be forgotten. When Muslims receive as many prizes as Jews have you can then trumpet Muslim accomplishments. In fact, if they receive half as many you would be justified in trumpeting. I have no doubt that Muslims have as much intelligence as Jews. Unfortunately their culture oppresses them and keeps them from using that intelligence. It is a terrible waste. Lois
Schadenfreude, racism and discrimination are in the eye of the beholder.Yes, of course, apartheid only existed in the experience of the blacks, they were not really discriminated.
It says more about you than it does about me that you feel obligated to condemn a simple listing of facts and an interesting juxtaposition.It is not the facts. It is the reason why people make such lists. And why you posted it here. That is not in the eye of the beholder, that is in the mind of the poster. Tell us what you had in mind when you posted it. Surely not just because it is all facts.
I have no doubt that Muslims have as much intelligence as Jews. Unfortunately their culture oppresses them and keeps them from using that intelligence. It is a terrible waste.Yeah. But it is important to see that any group that has no access to the right resources for whatever reason doesn't get Nobel prices. I.J. Abdul Hakeem gave some interesting examples. BTW, I.J. Abdul Hakeem, that] is a good article you referenced.
BTW, Lois, it strikes me that often when (you think) you are accused of something, you just mirror it back. You don’t give the arguments why the accusation is false.
In this thread:
- you feel you are accused of a hate campaign - you suggest that the other one is on a hate campaign against you
- You are accused of spewing garbage - you immediately suggest that the other one is spewing garbage
In another (in)famous thread: - somebody accuses you of not really understanding the ins and outs of free will vs determinism discussion - you suggest that he (who is a seasoned philosopher) doesn’t understand it
- somebody says that you do not deliver good arguments for your viewpoint, i.e. you are just venting opinions - You say that the other one is also just venting opinions.
Don’t you think that is a bit childish? At least it does not make very rational discussions, in which we give reasons and arguments pro and contra each other viewpoints, and think over the standpoint of the other discussion partners.
Schadenfreude, racism and discrimination are in the eye of the beholder.Yes, of course, apartheid only existed in the experience of the blacks, they were not really discriminated. i never said or implied that. You are assuming that only victims can see racism.
It says more about you than it does about me that you feel obligated to condemn a simple listing of facts and an interesting juxtaposition.It is not the facts. It is the reason why people make such lists. And why you posted it here. That is not in the eye of the beholder, that is in the mind of the poster. Tell us what you had in mind when you posted it. Surely not just because it is all facts. Well,it is all facts. If you disagree, show me where my list was not factual. I sent it because I thought it was interesting and made a point. I sent it in the hopes that intelligent people would see it in the same way. Obviously, I wasn't aiming it at the likes of you.
I have no doubt that Muslims have as much intelligence as Jews. Unfortunately their culture oppresses them and keeps them from using that intelligence. It is a terrible waste.Yeah. But it is important to see that any group that has no access to the right resources for whatever reason doesn't get Nobel prices. I.J. Abdul Hakeem gave some interesting examples. Nobody ever said that everyone who deserves a Nobel Prize will get one. Unless you can show evidence that the the Nobel system is corrupt or shows favoritism, don't make wild accusations against it. Some people manage to access the right resources. One reason thaey fail to do so is beause their religion ikeeps them from advancing in intellectual pursuits, which is the case with Muslims--and many other people who are fromed and driven by their religion. BTW, I.J. Abdul Hakeem, that] is a good article you referenced.
BTW, Lois, it strikes me that often when (you think) you are accused of something, you just mirror it back. You don't give the arguments why the accusation is false. In this thread: - you feel you are accused of a hate campaign - you suggest that the other one is on a hate campaign against you - You are accused of spewing garbage - you immediately suggest that the other one is spewing garbage In another (in)famous thread: - somebody accuses you of not really understanding the ins and outs of free will vs determinism discussion - you suggest that he (who is a seasoned philosopher) doesn't understand it - somebody says that you do not deliver good arguments for your viewpoint, i.e. you are just venting opinions - You say that the other one is also just venting opinions. Don't you think that is a bit childish? At least it does not make very rational discussions, in which we give reasons and arguments pro and contra each other viewpoints, and think over the standpoint of the other discussion partners.I always know when I have produced a good argument because it elicits supercilious ad hominem attacks from you. Works every time. I always realize I'm on the right side of any argument when you do this. And judging from the fact that you do it so often, I must be right most of the time. Keep the attacks coming. They support my arguments better than anything else. Lois
Yes, of course, apartheid only existed in the experience of the blacks, they were not really discriminated.i never said or implied that. You are assuming that only victims can see racism. By saying it is in the eye of the beholder, you imply that it does not objectively exist.
Well,it is all facts. If you disagree, show me where my list was not factual. I sent it because I thought it was interesting and made a point. I sent it in the hopes that intelligent people would see it in the same way. Obviously, I wasn't aiming it at the likes of you.It seems you did not read again. I already said that (Lausten and) I do acknowledge the facts. It is the question why people publish such lists, and in which context. Why do you think this copies of this list can be found on so many fundamentalist Christian websites? Because fundamentalist Christian love facts? Or is there an intention behind it? And if there is, what then was your intention?
Nobody ever said that everyone who deserves a Nobel Prize will get one. Unless you can show evidence that the the Nobel system is corrupt or shows favoritism, don't make wild accusations against it.Again it shows you did not even understand my argument. It wasn't about people's network of relations, it is about the possibility they have to access good education, to well equipped laboratoria etc. Every country, ethnicity, race, gender that has less access to such resources has 'delivered' less Nobel price winners. How would you react when I gave you a list of all men that won Nobel prices, compared to the list of women? What should I conclude: that women are more stupid? That they are influenced by gender roles? That they are oppressed by men?
Some people manage to access the right resources. One reason thaey fail to do so is beause their religion ikeeps them from advancing in intellectual pursuits, which is the case with Muslims--and many other people who are fromed and driven by their religion.Partly true. But there are many other reasons: poverty, dictatorship (under the flag of religion or not), cultural factors, etc.
I always know when I have produced a good argument because it elicits supercilious ad hominem attacks from you. Works every time. I always realize I'm on the right side of any argument when you do this. And judging from the fact that you do it so often, I must be right most of the time. Keep the attacks coming. They support my arguments better than anything else.Well, of course I see this differently. In the first place, they are no ad hominem attacks: I critisise your reactions because they do not show that you understood what the argument was about. Very often you leave arguments unanswered. There are too many examples on this thread alone, and many more on the free will threads. Then, if I, or somebody else, notices this, you call it an ad hominem attack, and do as if I (or many other discussion partners) are not doing any better giving arguments, i.e. you accuse the other of exactly that what (s)he just said to you. What a coincidence! Because I say that the origin of this list seems to be part of a hate campaign (not of you!), I am doing a hate campaign against you. If somebody notices that you really give no arguments, you say he did not either (this is my free translation of 'spewing garbage': well I have seen arguments from Lausten, and I am still waiting how you react on them, without mirroring what he is accusing you of). By saying that your standpoint is as good as any other, you do as if every standpoint is as rationally grounded as anybody else's. I can recognise if somebody knows more about some subject than I do: George knows more about evolution than I do, Dougsmith knows more about philosophy than I do, Occam knows more about chemistry than I do, McGyver and McKenzie more about medicine than I do, Lausten more about history than I do. But this does not mean that they are always right in their standpoints about these subjects: but that shows in the exchange of arguments, not in saying that my opinion is just as good as theirs. I wish you all the best.
Yes, of course, apartheid only existed in the experience of the blacks, they were not really discriminated.i never said or implied that. You are assuming that only victims can see racism. By saying it is in the eye of the beholder, you imply that it does not objectively exist.
Well,it is all facts. If you disagree, show me where my list was not factual. I sent it because I thought it was interesting and made a point. I sent it in the hopes that intelligent people would see it in the same way. Obviously, I wasn't aiming it at the likes of you.It seems you did not read again. I already said that (Lausten and) I do acknowledge the facts. It is the question why people publish such lists, and in which context. Why do you think this copies of this list can be found on so many fundamentalist Christian websites? Because fundamentalist Christian love facts? Or is there an intention behind it? And if there is, what then was your intention?
Nobody ever said that everyone who deserves a Nobel Prize will get one. Unless you can show evidence that the the Nobel system is corrupt or shows favoritism, don't make wild accusations against it.Again it shows you did not even understand my argument. It wasn't about people's network of relations, it is about the possibility they have to access good education, to well equipped laboratoria etc. Every country, ethnicity, race, gender that has less access to such resources has 'delivered' less Nobel price winners. How would you react when I gave you a list of all men that won Nobel prices, compared to the list of women? What should I conclude: that women are more stupid? That they are influenced by gender roles? That they are oppressed by men?
Some people manage to access the right resources. One reason thaey fail to do so is beause their religion ikeeps them from advancing in intellectual pursuits, which is the case with Muslims--and many other people who are fromed and driven by their religion.Partly true. But there are many other reasons: poverty, dictatorship (under the flag of religion or not), cultural factors, etc. Their religion keeps them in poverty and creates fertile ground for dictatorship. Their religion also drives their culture. It is impossible to disentagle religion and culture. So it's all of those things working together that keeps Muslims from intellectual pursuits. It also drives them to terrorism, blood feuds, and ideas of family "honor" that require family members to imprison and kill daughters who are seen to be "dishonoring" the family (actually the patriarch) and who, as a result, have no rights. This is a result of patriarchal, primitive culture driven and supported by a patriarchal primitive religion. gdB wrote: Again it shows you did not even understand my argument. No, it shows you don't understand mine. Gdb: It wasn't about people's network of relations, it is about the possibility they have to access good education, to well equipped laboratoria etc. Every country, ethnicity, race, gender that has less access to such resources has 'delivered' less Nobel price winners. Then it's up to the people to find a way to access those things. Jews were often discriminated against when it ceme to getting a good education and access to well-equipped laboratoroes, etc. they managed to find a way. I doubt that in Muslim culture a good education or well-equipped laboratories are anything they aspire to--because their religion oppresses them and drives them away from intellectual pursuits, gdB: How would you react when I gave you a list of all men that won Nobel prices, compared to the list of women? What should I conclude: that women are more stupid? That they are influenced by gender roles? That they are oppressed by men? Indeed they were! That is an excellent argument as to why women have not won many Nobel prizes. Throughout history women have been denied education and everything that goes toward Nobel Prize qualifications. Women, too, have been oppressed by religion and the culture it created, including Christianity, which promoted patriarchy and women as the inferior sex, good only for producing and nurturing babies. It was only in the 20th century that that began to change in Western countries--but those patriarchal attitudes of female inferiority still exist and affect billions of women worldwide. Lois
I always know when I have produced a good argument because it elicits supercilious ad hominem attacks from you. Works every time. I always realize I'm on the right side of any argument when you do this. And judging from the fact that you do it so often, I must be right most of the time. Keep the attacks coming. They support my arguments better than anything else. LoisThis is a dangerous method for evaluating arguments. It leads to isolation. Even if someone else's argument is horrible and they are just ad hominem attacks, if you are going to engage them at all, engage them with patience and logic. I run out of patience now and then and use schoolyard language, but it usually is where I exit the conversation.
Their religion keeps them in poverty and creates fertile ground for dictatorship. Their religion also drives their culture. It is impossible to disentagle religion and culture. So it's all of those things working together that keeps Muslims from intellectual pursuits. It also drives them to terrorism, blood feuds, and ideas of family "honor" that require family members to imprison daughters who are seen to be "dishonoring" the family (actually the patriarch) and who, as a result, have no rights. This is a result of patriarchal, primitive culture driven and supported by a patriarchal primite religion.Only their religion? I gave a lot of other reasons here], but you did not react.
gdB wrote: Again it shows you did not even understand my argument. No, it shows you don't understand mine.Mirroring again? I gave an explanation what I really meant, so my 'Again it shows you did not even understand my argument' was argued. You reacted with something that had nothing to do with what I meant ('Unless you can show evidence that the the Nobel system is corrupt or shows favoritism, don’t make wild accusations against it.' I did not make any accusation against the Nobel committee.)
Gdb: It wasn't about people's network of relations, it is about the possibility they have to access good education, to well equipped laboratoria etc. Every country, ethnicity, race, gender that has less access to such resources has 'delivered' less Nobel price winners. Then it's up to the people to find a way to access those things. Jews were often discriminated against when it ceme to getting a good education and avvessto well-equipped laboratoroes, etc. they managed to find a way. I doubtbthat in Muslim culture a good education or well-equipped laboratoris are anythingbthey aspire to--because thei religiin oppresses them and drives them away from intellectual pursuits,Again you forget all the other historical factors. You think that Islam radicalised because of the contents of their teachings? If that was the case, how then was it possible that the western world could develop science and technology? The western world was Christian and had similar teachings. And why are there still so many moderate Moslems? No, no, a religion on its own cannot do that. There is much more needed for that. And of course it is still much easier for Jews living in the western world to have a good education, then for Arabs with a colonial past, with civil wars going on, with oppression by new absolute rulers instead of the old colonial powers etc etc. You must look at the complete picture, instead of only looking at the factor religion.
That is an excellent argument as to why women have not won many Nobel prizes. Throughout history women have been denied education and everything that goes toward Nobel Prize qualifications. Women, too, have been oppressed by religion and the culture it created, including Christianity, which promoted patriarchy and women as the inferior sex, good only for producing and nurturing babies. It was only in the 20th century that that began to change in Westen countries--but those patriarchal attitudes of female inferiority still exist and affect billions of women worldwide.So, say that I would state that women do not have the talents for science. You might feel offended, and then I give you a list of all Nobel price winners. Much more men than women. What would you do? Maybe feel offended first, but then give arguments exactly as you gave above? And I am doing nothing else in the case of Moslems. I show that, while the list is factual, it is offending, and that there are many reasons behind it, not just present day religion.
I always know when I have produced a good argument because it elicits supercilious ad hominem attacks from you. Works every time. I always realize I'm on the right side of any argument when you do this. And judging from the fact that you do it so often, I must be right most of the time. Keep the attacks coming. They support my arguments better than anything else. LoisThis is a dangerous method for evaluating arguments. It leads to isolation. Even if someone else's argument is horrible and they are just ad hominem attacks, if you are going to engage them at all, engage them with patience and logic. I run out of patience now and then and use schoolyard language, but it usually is where I exit the conversation. All arguments in opposition are not ad hominem attacks and I don't accuse anyone of making an ad hominem attack unless he is actually making one. Your responses do qualify as ad hominems, they are far from the occasional schoolyard language and they make my arguments look good. Unfortunately you seldom exit the conversation without hurling invective.
On a similar note to what GdB said, it is interesting to point out what the laws in Muslim countries are like
There are more than 50 predominantly Muslim countries in the world, and, while most have elements of Shariah in their civil and family law, only two have it as their criminal codes.
The countries that do not have Shariah as their criminal codes have modeled their laws on European and American models, some borrowing from Roman law and others from British common law.
Phillip Giraldi
Ex-CIA agent