(23-08-2010 01:46 AM)ayyawar Wrote:
(23-08-2010 01:02 AM)Ajita Kamal Wrote: Just to show you how ridiculous this argument is, consider the same justification for something more sinister where you can clearly tell that one group of people is oppressed. Suppose we support segregation because is allows people with "same food habits and tastes" to get together. This is a silly argument now, but it was popular not so long ago in the US, when there was rampant racism and Black people were a second-class of citizenry. That mindset still lingers in the US, which is a major cause for hate. Endorsing the caste system in any form for such flimsy reasons is unacceptable.
Kamal, There is a difference between discussing and attack, if someone comes with a different view, 1st one has to remember is not to attack!
And try to understand different perceptive, you should watch this video first
I just said based on food habits n taste on my experience, I never said i support cast system, Nor i never agreed with it, I could be totally wrong.. It was my just assumption that same caste people might have some common habits,
But it is always important to convey our message in polite way.. Like i said before, if you start arguing and attacking some different view, u will be no different than any religious fanatic.
Firstly, you have not addressed anything that I said, and instead are construing my reasoned arguments that addressed your ideas
as an attack on you
. This is a common misunderstanding that is usually seen among religious apologists, and sometimes from other atheists. In essence, you are ignoring the distinction between criticism of ideas and criticism of people. Please read this thread:
Secondly, I have seen the Phil Plait video, and it's a piece of crap that begins with a personal attack and constitutes a drawn out straw-man fallacy.
Read this: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/...lusion.php
Also, read this:
Quote:During Phil Plait's talk at TAM 8, he took an informal poll:
"Let me ask you a question: how many of you here today used to believe in something — used to, past tense — whether it was flying saucers, psychic powers, religion, anything like that? You can raise your hand if you want to. [lots of hands go up] Not everyone is born a skeptic. A lot of you raised your hand. I’d even say most of you, from what I can tell.
Now let me ask you a second question: how many of you no longer believe in those things, and you became a skeptic, because somebody got in your face, screaming, and called you an idiot, brain-damaged, and a retard? [Very few hands go up]"
First of all, who is Phil talking about? This seems a bit quixotic and exaggerated to me. Where are these people who scream in your face on behalf of skepticism? Where are these people whose primary tactic is to yell at someone and call them a retard? Since Phil didn't provide any examples to support the claim, we can only guess.
Secondly, this is a prime example of a straw man argument - setting up an issue that is easily toppled instead of the actual issue. Not only has he not provided specific examples, or demonstrated that this is a significant problem, he seems to be engaging in an extremely flawed informal poll (read: emotional appeal) to get his point across. The first question is a fair skeptical inquiry (have you changed your mind about something?). The second question is about as far from it as one can possibly stray.
Of course most people don't simply abandon their beliefs because someone got in their face and called them names. Better questions would be:
- how many of you changed your position after having your beliefs challenged by someone else?
- how many of you changed your mind after having heated discussions?
- how many of you changed your minds after being offended?
- how many of you were prompted to be more skeptical of your position after seeing other people embarrassed by their attempts to defend a view you accepted?
- how many of you have only changed your mind as the result of people treating your beliefs with kid gloves?
In any case, you have just demonstrated your inability to argue without making a personal attack, because in effect, pointing me to that video is your snide way of calling me a dick. THAT is a personal attack. Plait and you call PEOPLE dicks. I and those like Dawkins do no such thing. We attack ideas, not people. Please learn the difference. Ideas deserve no respect, but people do.
Thirdly, you never said that you support the caste system, and neither did I
. I said you endorsing it in any form is unacceptable, which is certainly what you were doing when you said "I kinda like might little bit agree with caste system"
. I clearly pointed out the assumptions in your argument that are not realistic, while you are pointing to an assumption that I never mentioned. Of course people of the same caste "might have some common habits". Duh. If you think this is one of the assumptions that I was talking about, you are sadly mistaken. This is a true assumption, and in fact, it is a completely redundant point. Of course people of the same caste can have same habits. People of any group can have common habits. This has nothing to do with the assumptions that I pointed out that are not necessarily true!
In effect, you're using a true assumption to mask the fallacies in your false assumptions. This is a straw man- red herring. Please address the actual arguments, instead of putting words in my mouth.
Regarding politeness, please point to the exact words in my original post that were impolite. I will show you again why you are confusing between criticism of ideas and criticism of people. Bad ideas do not deserve respect. But since you have failed to make this distinction, you are forcing me to argue against your behavior rather than against your arguments. So now you are forcing me to get personal.
The worst thing that you said is this: "Like i said before, if you start arguing and attacking some different view, u will be no different than any religious fanatic. "
Scientists are always arguing and attacking views that they do not agree with. This is called the quest for knowledge, among people who care about the truth. It is religious moderates who are unable to see that some ideas deserve no respect.
So, lets see. You have called me a dick and "no different from a religious fanatic", both falsely, because of an inability to differentiate between people and ideas. In this post I have responded in kind to you. Instead of tussling with you again, you are getting a warning (this is temporary). Please stick to arguing about facts and ideas from now forward, and leave the attacks on people to the religious fundies. We are building a community of freethinkers here, and there are many hurdles that have to be crossed to make this work. You are here arguing against people who have put in a lot of time and energy into this community. Please respect us as people, and you will be respected and welcomed with open arms. We need all kinds of freethinkers from India to work together to build our movement. But there will always be people, both religious and not, who are more of an impediment to our goals. I hope that you will not be one of those.