1. Because in their doxa, muslim people are automatically oppressed people because of their religion. Then you have to be at their side (Even if they think the total contrary of what you fight for)
2. See the 1. And add the traditionnal far-left antisemitism to that...
in the discussion about race i adopted a position i am not entirely comfortable with.
i think there is a sense in which it is useful to distinguish categories of description that can be fruitfully defended (apples and bananas) and those that cannot (caucasian or other racial descriptions for example).
but there is a more fundamental sense in which i believe that everything is socially constructed, every single line you can think of.
"What about the word claim?"
It's yours...
in the discussion about race i adopted a position i am not entirely comfortable with.
i think there is a sense in which it is useful to distinguish categories of description that can be fruitfully defended (apples and bananas) and those that cannot (caucasian or other racial descriptions for example).
but there is a more fundamental sense in which i believe that everything is socially constructed, every single line you can think of.
On what basis do you claim the perspective of the spaceman or physicist is superior to the worm?
Because of the definition of the word "perspective" perhaps?
This dissonance cognitive of the far left about Islam, is the main reason why I leave them (the far-left)
In fact, the far-left is dead in France, especially because of that : in France, the far-left have historically a very strong anti-religious and anti-clerical background. Since few years appears very unnatural links between far-left and Islam. But in the same time, far-left who was at 10% at the elections 10 years ago, are now only at 2-3% , and only when the sun shine brightly for them!
Then, yes, it's clear : it's a clear dissonance cognitive here : the message, now is in short, for almost all the subject : "we condemn A, except if it's from a muslim".
But hopefully, this message doesn't work so much on french citizens..
in the discussion about race i adopted a position i am not entirely comfortable with.
i think there is a sense in which it is useful to distinguish categories of description that can be fruitfully defended (apples and bananas) and those that cannot (caucasian or other racial descriptions for example).
but there is a more fundamental sense in which i believe that everything is socially constructed, every single line you can think of.
in the discussion about race i adopted a position i am not entirely comfortable with.
i think there is a sense in which it is useful to distinguish categories of description that can be fruitfully defended (apples and bananas) and those that cannot (caucasian or other racial descriptions for example).
but there is a more fundamental sense in which i believe that everything is socially constructed, every single line you can think of.
No about the roundness of the earth, it's different than about an whole human being... There, it's exactly a question of perspective and projection.
From the ground, you see the earth flat... But it's round anyway... From the athmosphere, you see the earth bigger than the sun, but it isn't
Because at this moment you just stop at one of the properties of the earth, not at the whole earth!
in the discussion about race i adopted a position i am not entirely comfortable with.
i think there is a sense in which it is useful to distinguish categories of description that can be fruitfully defended (apples and bananas) and those that cannot (caucasian or other racial descriptions for example).
but there is a more fundamental sense in which i believe that everything is socially constructed, every single line you can think of.
truth is absolute.
there is no such thing as 2=1 or 1=2.. if one starts out with the equation 2=1, one has already failed.. truth = truth.
you cannot change whether something is truth or not.. when the organization teaches one thing as a truth (ex.
"A true thing is true"
Of course if you make the hypothesis that the thing is true, then it's true. A "true thing" is always true..
But the hard part is not so much to understand the question, but to don't forget to question the hypothesis : this thing that's called "true thing", it's really a "true thing" ?
And even it's not really the point of the talk. Your point is clearly that a true thing is true. My point is, yes, but it's never absolutely true. Your message explain very great by itself why it isn't and why it can't be!
truth is absolute.
there is no such thing as 2=1 or 1=2.. if one starts out with the equation 2=1, one has already failed.. truth = truth.
you cannot change whether something is truth or not.. when the organization teaches one thing as a truth (ex.
If someone is talking about their height and claiming to be tall "absolutely," it could easily be proven "true" or "false" by looking at statistics
Statistics about what?
No, just someone claims "i'm tall absolutely", I laugh, because it's a non-sense!
truth is absolute.
there is no such thing as 2=1 or 1=2.. if one starts out with the equation 2=1, one has already failed.. truth = truth.
you cannot change whether something is truth or not.. when the organization teaches one thing as a truth (ex.
This is the essence of critical thinking.
By the way, If truth was absolute, no need of critical thinking ;)
