1. A religion can't never be "of peace". That's a lie! By definition a religion (except if it's unique, what's not the case), link peoples. Then, like all link, it separates. By essence, a religion is something whe separate, divide people. Then, by essence it can't be "of peace".
2. There is no official authority in Islam. Ajem Choudrey say something, but he have no official authority. It's bullshit... Nobody in france know him, by example...
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.
"Perspectivism asks whether it's time to stop calling particular perspectives absolute truth and show some humility"
The perspectivism doesn't oppose scientific method, nor scientific tradition! He even don't oppose rationnalism!
If you remember, Leibniz himself promoted a perspectivist and fully rational philosophy, based on the principles of sufficient reason and fullness, and asserted the need to envisage worlds and multiple viewpoints using a higher and inclusive logic.
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.
Therefore scientists are the new high priests
The difference between scientists and a theologian in the reality field, is the same than between an investigator and a medium in a crime scene...
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 will make science obsolete?
Someone who will come with a methode more rigourous than the actual scientific method...
But ... oh...wait... It will still be a scientific method...
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 fact theologians and philosophers have been discussing consciousness long before scientific discourse even arose
Yes, you're right! And especially for theologians..
But on every subject, when scientific discourse arose, long-time theologians discourse felt...
Will be the same for consciousness
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..
