Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Jeffrey Shallit
Recurrent thoughts about mathematics, science, politics, music, religion, and
Recurrent thoughts about mathematics, science, politics, music, religion, and
Recurrent thoughts about mathematics, science, politics, music, religion, and
Recurrent thoughts about ....
-
Jeffrey Shallit
American mathematician, professor of computer science at a major Canadian university, & skeptic.
All comments are moderated to remove spam and duplication. Please be patient; your comment will usually appear within 12 hours.
Recursivity
Blog Archive
-
▼
2013
(127)
-
▼
February
(14)
- Dembski Repeats the Same Tired Nonsense
- My Review of Chaitin
- How Did This Guy Ever Get Elected?
- Woodworth: If You Didn't Support My Motion, It's ...
- New Online Journal Publishes Tripe about Gödel
- Callan Bentley is My New Hero
- God and Reason - Week 4
- Happy Darwin Day!
- Minnesota Moose Misery
- The Advantage to Living in Canada
- God and Reason 3 - After the Course
- God and Reason - Lecture 3 - John North - The Prob...
- How I Spend My Time
- More Silliness about Infinity
-
▼
February
(14)
22 comments:
This wikipedia page gives the background to Galloway's election (which was in a by-election, which tend to produce anomalous results):
What if a debate had been held in 1942 on the subject, "Germany should withdraw immediately from France", and a speaker on the for side of the debate walked out after learning that a speaker on the against side was a German speaking in favour of a continued German presence in France?
I don't wish to suggest that the two situations are equivalent, and in particular I don't want to compare Nazi Germany to early 21st century Israel.
What I mean to say is that if you can find sympathy for such behaviour in 1942 (maybe you can, maybe you can't), then it means the act is not intrinsically appalling, and one needs to analyse parallel situations carefully to see if the same points can be made in favour of Galloway right now.
Maybe someone reading would care to read my personal opinion.
I'm of the opinion that Galloway is something of a buffoon. However I'm not appalled by this action, and I am in fact far from convinced that it is in any way morally unsound. I think it characteristically unwise: the right-wing press are very happy to seize it as evidence of racism.
On balance, I think having a buffoon with occasionally thought-provoking opinions does the British government the power of good. The homogeneity of mainstream party political thought in the UK is stifling.
I don't consider that Galloway is a bigot, but in fact I would welcome a more heterogeneous Parliament even if that meant including a minority of bigots.
James, there is a movement currently underway on progressive campuses for divestiture from Israel as it is considered an apartheid regime.
While it is unfortunate that from an academic perspective the audience at that debate was denied interesting thoughts and potential for reflection, some persons nonetheless consider it obscene to conduct relations with members of the Israeli state, public officials, and even private individuals from that society.
Some people, like the blog author, wish for there to be discussion between individuals regardless of the context or the character of those involved, for the purpose of free inquiry.
Imagine if a debate could be organized between Torquemada and some enlightened fellows, or even his victims, where they can argue the merits of Torquemada's actions. Some people would find that interesting, yet others would be appalled that a figure like Torquemada could be taken seriously enough to want to reason with him and change his mind perhaps.
Whether it is Catholic persecution or Jewish apartheid, there will always be people who consider such actions beyond the pale, and will want to sanction societies and individuals who engage in such actions, to the point of ceasing all interactions with them. To persons who support free inquiry above all else, such zealotry can be considered anathema, as the blog author does apparently.
Imagine if a debate could be organized between Torquemada and some enlightened fellows, or even his victims, where they can argue the merits of Torquemada's actions.
Anyone who can compare Israel to Torquemada is evidently too deranged to be worth reasoning with.
Anyone who can compare Israel to Torquemada is evidently too deranged to be worth reasoning with.
I agree.
At least Torquemada did not harvest the organs from his victims ... truly grotesque behavior.
Jeffrey, I'm fascinated by how your response ignores the substance of the comments above, and instead zeroes in on one detail of an analogy made in one comment, which you tell us shows that the person who wrote it is "evidently too deranged to be worth reasoning with". I've read a lot of your writings against creationists, and with them I see you applying the principle of charity that is entirely missing in your response to the anonymous commenter here (let alone the other commenters, whom you ignore).
Richard Dawkins refuses to debate creationists. In the 1980s, as I recall, many international activists against South African apartheid refused to debate white South Africans. Are these examples also appalling? Or if not, what's the difference?
When I saw your original post, I thought it might be a sarcastic reference to (1) the Canadian government's refusal to allow Galloway to enter the country for a planned speaking tour four years ago, and especially (2) how in your native country, these days, nobody ever gets elected to Congress after being so critical of Israel. Can you imagine a speech like Gerald Kaufman's here being given in the U.S. Congress? By someone who was once Ranking Member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs (rough equivalent to Kaufman's former position of shadow Foreign Secretary)?
It seems that Galloway was eventually allowed into Canada, and if you had gone to one of his talks, I don't think you'd find as much objectionable material as you'd expect. (And if you did, I'd certainly like to know about it, as I enjoy reading your posts about talks given by other people you disagree with.)
Richard Dawkins refuses to debate creationists.
But he doesn't agree to debate and then walk out when he find out they are creationists. If he did, I would find that appalling, too.
In the 1980s, as I recall, many international activists against South African apartheid refused to debate white South Africans.
But did they agree to debate and then walk out when they discovered who their opponent was? It's quite different.
I do not agree with Galloway being denied entry into Canada.
nobody ever gets elected to Congress after being so critical of Israel
Bilge. Ron Paul, for example, criticized Israel but was re-elected multiple times.
I have no objections to valid criticism of Israel. For example, I have criticized their use of house demolition and not doing anything about Gaza settlers. But I find that a very large percentage of people who criticize Israel do not also criticize the other countries of the Mideast whose records are far worse on human rights. This inconsistency suggests the real reason behind much of the criticism of Israel.
When was the last time you saw American college students boycotting Syria?
Galloway is a rather obvious anti-Semite, and his behavior is reprehensible.
If only Shallit showed the same opposition to anti-Catholicism that he (justifiably) shows to anti-Semitism.
Why are bigoted slurs against the Catholic Church tolerated and even enthusiastically endorsed, while similar slurs against Jews and Israel are rightly condemned?
The stock answer-- the Catholic Church deserves it-- is merely part and parcel of the bigotry.
But I find that a very large percentage of people who criticize Israel do not also criticize the other countries of the Mideast whose records are far worse... This inconsistency suggests the real reason behind much of the criticism of Israel.
When was the last time you saw American college students boycotting Syria?
Terrible logic. Who cares what their motivation is, if what they say is accurate? If you could prove they say inaccurate things, I might care.
What you say is exactly analogous to Phillip Johnson and the Diacovernaughts saying that paleontologists say transitional fossils are real only because of their atheist motivations. Who cares what motivations are if they say accurate things?
As for Syria, that's bullshit. US government protests every action that Syria tskes. We give Syria zero $$$. By contrast we give Isreal billions so they can bulldoze Arabs' olive groves and shove white phosphorus in the mouths of Lebanese families.
Not the first time that idiots are elected.
Terrible logic.
It's not a matter of logic, it's a matter of being consistent. Israel has the best human rights record of the Middle East; yet it receives disproportionate criticism from the American left.
US government protests every action that Syria tskes
I'm not talking about the government.
Why are bigoted slurs against the Catholic Church tolerated and even enthusiastically endorsed, while similar slurs against Jews and Israel are rightly condemned?
It's apples and oranges. The Catholic church is an institution, and like all institutions it is not exempt from criticism for its misconduct, which is abundant and well-documented. By contrast, "Jews" are not an institution. As for Israel, I listed two policies of the Israeli government that I strongly disagree with.
Shallit:
A quote from you:
"This is destined to be an endless fountain of unintended amusement.
Already we have the renowned Dr. Egnor claiming that Mary is "the original Christian disciple, and a model and a mother for all of us".
Let's see: Mary
* had affair with some guy not her husband
* got pregnant by him
* lied about it
* convinces gullible husband that it was actually some god who raped her"
[http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2011/06/jeff-shallit-takes-on-blessed-mother.html]
Sounds less like a reasoned critique of the institutional Catholic Church and more like a bigoted anti-Catholic slur to me.
If someone said something like that about Jewish beliefs, I (and you) would appropriately condemn it as anti-Semitism.
You condemn anti-Semitism, as I do, yet you spew ugly anti-Catholicism.
Hypocrite.
The American left probably expend disproportionate energy criticising Israeli human rights violations since, unlike many other human rights violations in the region, their government has funded them. This does not seem mysterious to me.
And, Jeff, I think you were harsh on your anonymous commenter. You may think the comparison is misguided, but it's not clear to me why. I feel more negatively about you censuring him without a clearly stated reason than I feel about him,
(Incidentally, I'd say that Cyprus, not Israel, has the best human rights record in the Middle East, but never mind.)
I don't agree with you Jeffrey. One has only to look at our local politician, Doug Lamborn, who will NEVER show up for a debate. The guy has no personality and no ideas.
I think it was fine for him not to debate an insider. Debates in their true sense are about making arguments and producing facts. Being an Israeli would mean that he would be directly subjected to insults against himself rather than his argument. On the other hand I think it is OK for, say, Stephen Fry to debate a cleric of the Roman Catholic church on the subject of gay marriage because it was clear what the viewpoint and standing of the opposition was.
Chris P
Sounds less like a reasoned critique of the institutional Catholic Church and more like a bigoted anti-Catholic slur to me.
Egnor: you seem incapable of distinguishing between (a) slurs against Catholics and (b) making fun of ridiculous Catholic doctrine.
I'll give you a clue: if I said "Egnor is an idiot because he's Catholic" or "Catholics like Egnor are always drunk" or "Catholics should not be employed by universities", those would be anti-Catholic slurs.
If, on the other hand, I point out that Catholic dogma is utterly preposterous, then that's just criticism of your beliefs. Deal with it.
I think Jewish religious dogma is just as silly as Catholic religious dogma. I think the Jewish god of the old testament is a repulsive and immoral asshole, and deserves to be made fun of in the same way as the cult of Mary. Same for other preposterous Jewish beliefs, such as kabbala.
The American left probably expend disproportionate energy criticising Israeli human rights violations since, unlike many other human rights violations in the region, their government has funded them.
Oh, come on. You don't think many of the human rights violations in Egypt and Syria were government-sponsored?
I'll give you a clue: if I said "Egnor is an idiot because he's Catholic" or "Catholics like Egnor are always drunk" or "Catholics should not be employed by universities", those would be anti-Catholic slurs.
If, on the other hand, I point out that Catholic dogma is utterly preposterous, then that's just criticism of your beliefs. Deal with it.
Great argument. I like it. But if you (or I) said that "Catholics (or Protestants or Jews) are idiots" then that might be considered a slur, although, clearly, you (or I) might have meant that "Catholics' (or Protestants' or Jews') [religious] beliefs are idiotic". Your argument reminds me that I have to be more cautious in precisely expressing what I want to say, otherwise it might be taken as a slur. Thanks.
Yes; had I meant to say "unlike all other human rights violations in the region", I would have said so.
Jeffrey: OK, thanks for explaining what you find appalling about debaters walking out. That wasn't clear in your original post.
I wrote: "nobody ever gets elected to Congress after being so critical of Israel"
to which you responded: Bilge. Ron Paul, for example, criticized Israel but was re-elected multiple times."
That doesn't contradict what I said, which included the word "so", meaning that nobody ever gets elected to the U.S. Congress after being as critical of Israel as George Galloway has been. Galloway gave a speech last year saying "We hate Zionism, we hate Israel, we hate murder and injustice. Israel blasphemes against the Torah by calling itself a Jewish state." If Ron Paul or anyone else you know of has been elected to the U.S. Congress and said anything as critical of Israel as that, I'd certainly like to be informed.
I have no objections to valid criticism of Israel. For example, I have criticized their use of house demolition and not doing anything about Gaza settlers.
I'm mystified by what you mean by Israel's "not doing anything about Gaza settlers." Israel introduced settlers into Gaza in the 1970s and removed the last ones in 2005. Maybe you meant West Bank settlers, who have been supported by the Israeli government since 1967, and still are.
I find that a very large percentage of people who criticize Israel do not also criticize the other countries of the Mideast whose records are far worse on human rights.
Funny to mention that in a discussion about George Galloway, because when I went to a speech he gave in 2010, he spent most of his time criticizing various Arab governments. (This was in the wake of his Viva Palestina aid convoy to Gaza.)
What's worse in terms of human rights: letting you live in your own country but under brutal oppression, or not letting you live in your own country at all? In the area now controlled by the Israeli government, something over half of the non-Jewish people who lived in that area in 1947 were expelled or fled the fighting, and they and their descendants have never been permitted by the Israeli government to return to that area.
If you were a Palestinian exile in a refugee camp in Lebanon, which would you consider to be a greater violation of your human rights: the fact that you're excluded from some jobs and living in some areas in Lebanon (because you're not Lebanese, only a guest), or the fact that you're not allowed to live at all in the village where you and your ancestors have lived for centuries (because you're not Jewish)?
This inconsistency suggests the real reason behind much of the criticism of Israel.
Of course it does; James Cranch mentioned it.
Israel has the best human rights record of the Middle East; yet it receives disproportionate criticism from the American left.
"The American left" encompasses far fringes, just as "the American right" does. I'd suggest a good way to exclude fringes is to look at those who get elected to Congress. Do you think it's accurate to say that Israel receives disproportionate criticism from left-wing representatives in Congress?
Cranch writes: The American left probably expend disproportionate energy criticising Israeli human rights violations since, unlike many other human rights violations in the region, their government has funded them.
Shallit responds: Oh, come on. You don't think many of the human rights violations in Egypt and Syria were government-sponsored?
There's a problem with reading comprehension here. When Cranch writes "Their government has funded them", he means the U.S. government. I don't think you believe the U.S. government is sponsoring human rights violations in Syria. It has sponsored the Egyptian government's human rights violations, but the point of that aid has been to get Egypt to maintain the peace treaty with Israel.
I, also, am not a Galloway fan (I like Hitchens' view of him). But I first learned of him through a column of Molly Ivins (man, is *she* ever missed). Anyway here it is.
http://www.creators.com/opinion/molly-ivins/molly-ivins-may-26.html
Post a Comment