http://www.sellingwaves.com/2005/07/16/another-winner/ A graduate student in mathematics and a modern languages major take on politics and culture with the following aspirational motto: ‘Deregulate your mind.’ Tue, 06 Jan 2009 11:22:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 http://www.sellingwaves.com/2005/07/16/another-winner/#comment-699 Dave Sun, 17 Jul 2005 03:34:23 +0000 http://www.sellingwaves.com/2005/07/16/another-winner/#comment-699 <p>Dr. Waheed exhibits a primitive level thinking that would be considered outrageous if held by an educated non-Muslim. I guess he would have understood if the British had killed some of the Germans who happened to live in Britain in WW I and II and would not be outraged at tit for tat from them now. And I guess the Jews should not be blamed if they just round up and kill a few Muslims every time a suicide bomb goes off in Israel. Since Waheed’s partys stated goal “is to rebuild the Caliphate - - to displace corrupt dictators in the Muslim world, and to instill Islamic mores and Islamicize almost every aspect of daily life.” I guess this would entail a return to medieval times, starting now. And this man is a doctor? Why does the NYT give this kind of person a platform? </p> Dr. Waheed exhibits a primitive level thinking that would be considered outrageous if held by an educated non-Muslim. I guess he would have understood if the British had killed some of the Germans who happened to live in Britain in WW I and II and would not be outraged at tit for tat from them now. And I guess the Jews should not be blamed if they just round up and kill a few Muslims every time a suicide bomb goes off in Israel. Since Waheed’s partys stated goal “is to rebuild the Caliphate - - to displace corrupt dictators in the Muslim world, and to instill Islamic mores and Islamicize almost every aspect of daily life.” I guess this would entail a return to medieval times, starting now. And this man is a doctor? Why does the NYT give this kind of person a platform?

]]> http://www.sellingwaves.com/2005/07/16/another-winner/#comment-694 Curt Sat, 16 Jul 2005 22:15:19 +0000 http://www.sellingwaves.com/2005/07/16/another-winner/#comment-694 <p>It might seem that the statement would be consistent if we assume that he means that the English are not "innocents," but in that case there really would be "two classes of blood," contradicting sentence #2. If you really wanted to take logical rigour too far, you could say that the statement is still not technically contradictory if not all British are not innocent (how's that for a double negative?), but those killed are not. But of course this is ridiculous because the nature of the crime indicates that it was directed not at anyone in particular but the population as a whole, and therefore it seems to me that one must look at society as a whole as being the (intended) victim. In any case, whether or no at this point the statement is tehnically self-contradictory in the narrowest legalistic sense, the justification at this point becomes moral casuistry of the worst sort, which is why I did not mention it in my main post, and only do so here because there are always logicians out there who will not back down for any reason or under any circumstances, and since I'm invoking logic I feel compelled to honor that commitment <i>jusqu'au bout</i>.</p> It might seem that the statement would be consistent if we assume that he means that the English are not “innocents,” but in that case there really would be “two classes of blood,” contradicting sentence #2. If you really wanted to take logical rigour too far, you could say that the statement is still not technically contradictory if not all British are not innocent (how’s that for a double negative?), but those killed are not. But of course this is ridiculous because the nature of the crime indicates that it was directed not at anyone in particular but the population as a whole, and therefore it seems to me that one must look at society as a whole as being the (intended) victim. In any case, whether or no at this point the statement is tehnically self-contradictory in the narrowest legalistic sense, the justification at this point becomes moral casuistry of the worst sort, which is why I did not mention it in my main post, and only do so here because there are always logicians out there who will not back down for any reason or under any circumstances, and since I’m invoking logic I feel compelled to honor that commitment jusqu’au bout.

]]>