I basically agree. The point is to show would-be intimidators that we will not be intimidated. The point is to resist those would would impose an unjust law.
″ if British people politely asked this favor of them”
The problem is that the Muslims are not asking nicely. Fundamentally, this is no different from civil disobedience.
Well, “the Muslims” don’t do anything at all. Individual people do. Some of them do violence; others do peaceful protest; others write letters-to-the-editor and blog posts.
As Eliezer said way back here, and as many other advocates of the Enlightenment have said before: “Bad argument gets counterargument. Does not get bullet. Never. Never ever never for ever.”
The Enlightenment difference is not between “the Muslims” and “the West”, or any other sectarian difference. It is between those who respond to bad argument with bullet, and those who do not.
It seems to me that on the whole Islam was a lot less fully engaged with the Enlightenment than Christianity.
Put another way, Christianity got it’s balls cut off and Islam didn’t. A lot of muslims are aware of this and recognize the Enlightenment as bent on cutting the balls off their religion. And they’re right about that.
“Well, ‘the Muslims’ don’t do anything at all. Individual people do”
I disagree, sometimes people act in concert. For example, it’s reasonable to say that the US invaded Afghanistan even though at another level, it was a few hundred thousand soldiers, all wearing the same uniform, who did so.
To be sure, “Muslims” is a significantly less coherent group than the US. However, there seems to be reasonably broad consensus among Muslim leadership that their principle—that Koran burning should be seen as a crime—is more important than the Western principle that it should not be so.
In any event, your point is a bit of a side point since the original post speaks of “British People” in the same group-oriented way. Reasonable people reading the original post will understand the phrase “British people asked politely” to mean some consensus of British leadership. I was referring to “Muslims” in the same way.
And sometimes people coerce or trick other people into supporting them or identifying with them. I’m in the US, and pay taxes to the US government, but I didn’t invade Afghanistan. Joe Storeowner may pay “protection money” to the New York Mafia, but Joe didn’t have a gang war with the New Jersey Mafia. Yet from the point of view of a Mafia historian, “New York had a war with New Jersey” and Joe’s opinion is irrelevant; he is merely a citizen of the New York Mafia’s territory.
The original thought-experiment asked us to imagine that all British people suffered from salmon-phobia. This assumes a level of distinction that in real life, we would regard as a fallacy — because in the thought-experiment world, we could truly say that if someone wasn’t offended by salmon, that proved they weren’t British.
In other words, in the world of the thought-experiment, the “no true Scotsman” fallacy is not a fallacy at all, but defined to be true.
The original thought-experiment asked us to imagine that all British people suffered from salmon-phobia. This assumes a level of distinction that in real life, we would regard as a fallacy — because in the thought-experiment world, we could truly say that if someone wasn’t offended by salmon, that proved they weren’t British.
I don’t think the original thought experiment would change much if the aliens only hacked 85% of British people chosen at random rather than every single one.
“I’m in the US, and pay taxes to the US government, but I didn’t invade Afghanistan.”
I agree, that’s exactly the point. When I said that “Muslims are not asking nicely,” I was not referring to every last Muslim.
“The original thought-experiment asked us to imagine that all British people suffered from salmon-phobia. This assumes a level of distinction that in real life, we would regard as a fallacy”
Agree, the original thought experiment would be more accurate if British people had the same sort of general feeling about fish which Muslims have about Koran-burning.
I basically agree. The point is to show would-be intimidators that we will not be intimidated. The point is to resist those would would impose an unjust law.
″ if British people politely asked this favor of them”
The problem is that the Muslims are not asking nicely. Fundamentally, this is no different from civil disobedience.
Well, “the Muslims” don’t do anything at all. Individual people do. Some of them do violence; others do peaceful protest; others write letters-to-the-editor and blog posts.
As Eliezer said way back here, and as many other advocates of the Enlightenment have said before: “Bad argument gets counterargument. Does not get bullet. Never. Never ever never for ever.”
The Enlightenment difference is not between “the Muslims” and “the West”, or any other sectarian difference. It is between those who respond to bad argument with bullet, and those who do not.
It seems to me that on the whole Islam was a lot less fully engaged with the Enlightenment than Christianity.
Put another way, Christianity got it’s balls cut off and Islam didn’t. A lot of muslims are aware of this and recognize the Enlightenment as bent on cutting the balls off their religion. And they’re right about that.
“Well, ‘the Muslims’ don’t do anything at all. Individual people do”
I disagree, sometimes people act in concert. For example, it’s reasonable to say that the US invaded Afghanistan even though at another level, it was a few hundred thousand soldiers, all wearing the same uniform, who did so.
To be sure, “Muslims” is a significantly less coherent group than the US. However, there seems to be reasonably broad consensus among Muslim leadership that their principle—that Koran burning should be seen as a crime—is more important than the Western principle that it should not be so.
In any event, your point is a bit of a side point since the original post speaks of “British People” in the same group-oriented way. Reasonable people reading the original post will understand the phrase “British people asked politely” to mean some consensus of British leadership. I was referring to “Muslims” in the same way.
And sometimes people coerce or trick other people into supporting them or identifying with them. I’m in the US, and pay taxes to the US government, but I didn’t invade Afghanistan. Joe Storeowner may pay “protection money” to the New York Mafia, but Joe didn’t have a gang war with the New Jersey Mafia. Yet from the point of view of a Mafia historian, “New York had a war with New Jersey” and Joe’s opinion is irrelevant; he is merely a citizen of the New York Mafia’s territory.
The original thought-experiment asked us to imagine that all British people suffered from salmon-phobia. This assumes a level of distinction that in real life, we would regard as a fallacy — because in the thought-experiment world, we could truly say that if someone wasn’t offended by salmon, that proved they weren’t British.
In other words, in the world of the thought-experiment, the “no true Scotsman” fallacy is not a fallacy at all, but defined to be true.
I don’t think the original thought experiment would change much if the aliens only hacked 85% of British people chosen at random rather than every single one.
“I’m in the US, and pay taxes to the US government, but I didn’t invade Afghanistan.”
I agree, that’s exactly the point. When I said that “Muslims are not asking nicely,” I was not referring to every last Muslim.
“The original thought-experiment asked us to imagine that all British people suffered from salmon-phobia. This assumes a level of distinction that in real life, we would regard as a fallacy”
Agree, the original thought experiment would be more accurate if British people had the same sort of general feeling about fish which Muslims have about Koran-burning.
And in that case, my original point still stands.