Malachite wrote:And still, I suspect if you poll most Egyptians "we should blow up the Pyramids" is just not going to turn out to be a mainstream view.
Suspicion does not a fact make. But why do you think Egyptians in particular are the ones I'm talking about. I'm specifically referring to Sunni Islam and have already demonstrated a conflict between Sunni iconoclasm and Egyptian nationalism and heritage. This would be like asking why an American Muslim doesn't want Abe Lincoln's statue demolished despite it being representative art (not to say there aren't some who would rather it not exist). What you should ask is if they feel that Islam teaches that Icons like the Sphinx should be destroyed. If you get really lucky, one of the people you poll will think it's a good idea and go do it. The Pyramids are something else that I wouldn't expect most anyone to particularly want to destroy. They aren't really worshipped and they aren't representative art of living things or really any naturally existing thing or supposed god. They're just the way to build a large structure with limited technology.
So the pyramids specifically should be safe. What I've been talking about here is the Sphinx specifically because it crosses both lines and yet still exists in part. It is basically a miracle that it's still around considering what has happened to what I consider to be more impressive Buddha statues.
dictionaries wrote:American Heritage wrote:One who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially in politics.
Merriam Webster wrote:advocacy of extreme measures or views : radicalism
And here you solidify the idea that our disagreement is based on semantics. My argument is that the reporters are using the term to indicate that these individuals deviate from the norm. The thing is, the guys destroying icons aren't necessarily the same people attacking civilians. It would be incorrect to group them as such.
I guess this is my question: Would you consider anyone who believes in iconoclasm, the destruction of representative art (particularly if it is used in worship) to be extremist? Relative to America's ideals of freedom of speech and religion, the notion is extreme. But the way the term is being used in the media is to indicate that such actions and beliefs are not typical of the Muslim tradition. But iconoclasm is. There needs to be a distinction between acts of wanton violence against civilians (something that Islam does NOT advocate) and destruction of icons (something that is found in their faith and laws which are likewise based on their faith). Do you see the contrast now?
Malachite wrote: Those were YOUR comments, not mine. You apparently also have problems understanding how quotes work, so you spent a large amount of time arguing with yourself, not me.
I figured you presented my quotes as arguments against me, my responses were elaborations of my meaning, not a rebuttal. I apologize for the confusion the misquotes caused. But if you read back over it, you can better understand why I might say something like, "The point of scale here was size". It indicates that I'm explaining what I meant in the context of that quote. You just cut out a quote and present it as evidence for some reason without any remaining context. It's how many Christians use scripture and it's dishonest without proper context. So I just provided that context to alleviate what appeared to be a misunderstanding.
Malachite wrote:See? You already answered your own question!
But, and this is important, before you spoke up I defined meanings of extremist and the way I believe reporters to be using it. People taking what we consider to be extreme actions in relation to our expectations is indeed a correct statement to be made according to the definition. But I've explained why the use of this term in the media is referring to them being extreme in contrast to other Muslims rather than just extreme in relation to us. We don't need to clarify when actions are extreme. If we needed to, then the actions wouldn't be.
Malachite wrote:I'm not an Egyptian. Are you? So it's not just in terms of OUR culture, now is it? Even within your one paragraph response to yourself, you manage to rebut your own statement.
Huh? No, I've already said that there are conflicting desires here. There is the proud and ancient history of Egyptian culture that is at stake where the destruction of these icons are considered. This is in direct conflict with the Islamic belief of iconoclasm. I'd wager that it is Egyptian culture that has protected the Sphinx all this time.
Understand, Islam is only part of Egyptian culture, it is a subset of it. It's like a hand wanting to do naughty things that the mind or the rest of the body wouldn't like. If you do not recall me making this claim before, here is one of the times I said it:
Gavin wrote:Destroying the Sphinx in particular does not appear to be mainstream because they are also Egyptian and it is part of their cultural heritage. These two things, iconoclasm and heritage are in conflict and one will win out.
So, iconoclasm is a mainstream Sunni belief, but iconoclasm where the Sphinx is concerned is not an Egyptian belief despite Sunni Islam being the mainstream religion. It's quite an interesting conflict.
Followup questions: You say you're Egyptian, cool. Have you lived in Egypt and are you also an adherrent of the Sunni expression of Islam? There is some potentially more in-depth information I could gain from you if so.
Malachite wrote:Hey, look, again you respond to yourself, and answer your own point!
Just a clarification, not a rebuttal. Again, we appear to not agree on what is meant by extreme yet despite me having defined what I thought it to mean. Being that you're not arguing with what I think they're using it to mean and just using the word accordingly, I'm responding to you based on that notion. If you are aware of it, we disagree, but it seems more like you missed that bit of semantics. Atrocity does not necessarily have anything to do with "extremeness" when the word is being used to contrast one's actions with the group they're identified with IF their group's beliefs are in line with the one's actions. If a group hold the belief that burying babies alive will save the town, then they are extreme to those of us that think that belief is atrocious and incredibly severe, but it is NOT extreme where one might say that one particular villager in that group is unlike the others when they all hold that.
Again, to thoroughly beat the horse (much more tender meat that way), reporters are not telling us that these people are doing things that are extreme. We know that, it is intrinsically true according to our culture. They are saying it to define for us that their beliefs/actions are not normal of the group. In this case, we are talking about Sunni Muslims who do hold an iconoclastic view where icons are concerned. Again, this is not to be confused with actual extremist actions like murdering innocents who aren't at war with them.
Malachite wrote:And FYI, the Sphinx and Buddha are/were both a wee bit more than 100 years old. And kinda massive. So Timmy's horsey drawing? Probably not comparable. Good try, though, I guess. I'm sure Timmy appreciates your support.
I'm just explaining that the "deplorability" of the action increases with time. Time actually gives importance to objects that would otherwise not be important. "That statue looks like crap!" "Oh, it's 500 years old? Fascinating!" So comparing a drawing that Timmy wrote yesterday with a drawing that is 100 years old is pertinent in this side discussion. Because Muslims currently destroy and punish things that would be equivalent to a drawing that Timmy made yesterday. But we don't complain about it because it's their culture and those works aren't particularly important. But when it's applied to things of historical and/or cultural significance we sure as hell find out.
Malachite wrote:Oh, and Poe's Law? It doesn't really fit this situation. It refers to actual instances of extremist or fundamentalist posts, or parodies thereof, not just online discussions of real world extremists.
Actually, the term has expanded since its creation 7 years ago despite the actual wording of the law.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Co ... he_concept" target="_blank
Wikipedia wrote:"Over time it has been extended to include not just creationist parody but any parody of extreme ideology, whether religious, secular, or totally bonkers."
"However, the usage of the law has grown, and now the term "Poe" is applied to almost any parody on the internet."
Understand that satire or sarcasm in the way you used it is parody. I assume you know that though.
The earliest cited appearance of the rule was broader and is as follows:
Wikipedia wrote:Jerry Schwarz in 1983 stated If you submit a satiric item without this (smiley) symbol, no matter how obvious the satire is to you, do not be surprised if people take it seriously.
Is there another term that also means the same thing but doesn't have the term "fundamentalism" in its original definition for no apparently necessary reason? This 1983 quote is generally the way Poe's law is used today.
Malachite wrote:Given that you spent a good amount of your post arguing with yourself, and the last three paragraphs blathering about historical issues that I clearly understood in the first place, I seriously doubt your 'conversations' will ever get easier for you. On the other hand, since you ARE so good at arguing with yourself, I can clearly bow out and let you keep at it for another half dozen posts!
It's convenient to mistake my clarifications for rebuttals but not accurate in this case as described above. I believe you to have stepped into this debate with a clear misunderstanding of my position due to missing my initial definition of how I take reporter's use of the terms extremist/radicals and also missing some likewise important comments that would have clued you in to my actual intention. Please let me know if any actual disagreement between us continues to exist.