tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post464890324175655409..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Dinesh D’Souza: Hate PeddlingAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-14124145334679190442007-04-25T14:17:00.000-06:002007-04-25T14:17:00.000-06:00http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/01/dsouza-dliar....http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/01/dsouza-dliar.html<BR/><BR/>I'm in a rush but I also have a link saved where Mark Noonan of Blogs for Bush approvingly reads from D'Souza's book and then decides that after the "Islamofascists" are defeated conservative Christian Republicans will have to turn their attention towards the "the left" and the Democrat "cockroaches" and force them out of power and influence. Now where does that kind of rhetoric sound familiar?Hume's Ghosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551684109760430351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-11524984118250972612007-04-25T13:57:00.000-06:002007-04-25T13:57:00.000-06:00Vincent,You truncated my statement and then argued...Vincent,<BR/><BR/>You truncated my statement and then argued against a point that I did not make. The specific problem I have with D'souza is that he both denies or downplays the things you list as being motivations for the terrorists while instead saying that human rights groups, Jimmy Carter, and Britney Spears (seriously, that's in his book) are the cause of terrorism.<BR/><BR/>He has written a book blaming "the left" for 9/11 but will not acknowledge that US military bases in Saudia Arabia are one of the primary grievances of al Qaeda. <BR/><BR/>That's why he is a despicable rotten hate-monger.<BR/><BR/>See here for more on this scoundrel.<BR/><BR/>http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/01/20/d_souza/index_np.htmlHume's Ghosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551684109760430351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-19132591514919945332007-04-24T16:33:00.000-06:002007-04-24T16:33:00.000-06:00"But the most disgusting thing about D'Souza is th..."But the most disgusting thing about D'Souza is that he says that the terrorists have a legitimate grievance against the United States..."<BR/><BR/>HG,<BR/>Well, they do have a legitimate grievance against the United States. The US invade the sovereignty of Iraq and Afghanistan. It supports Israel, which is currently illegally occupying portions of Syria and if I'm not mistaken, Egypt.<BR/><BR/>Of course, they have absolutely no right to conduct terrorist acts against the US or any ally. Their methods are not proper, but their grievance is legitimate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-46112837067823116232007-04-24T14:01:00.000-06:002007-04-24T14:01:00.000-06:00I consider D'Souza to be a hate-nonger on par with...I consider D'Souza to be a hate-nonger on par with Henry Ford when he published and promoted the Protocols of Zion.<BR/><BR/>In his latest book, Enemies at Home, he essentially says "the cultural left" (aka anyone who isn't as "conservative" as he is) are responbile for 9/11.<BR/><BR/>Among others, he says that if you're a member of the ACLU you're a member of an organization that is at least as dangerous as bin Laden's sleeper cells.<BR/><BR/>Then throughout out the book there is all kinds of historical revision to fit the blame for all kinds of American ills on the left ... you know the kind of revision that Holocaust deniers engage in to justify their hate.<BR/><BR/>But the most disgusting thing about D'Souza is that he says that the terrorists have a legitimate grievance against the United States and human rights groups like Amnesty International or Human Rights watch for trying to interfere with their conservative patriachal society's. He says that conservative Christian Americans should be reaching out to conservative Muslims to let them know they have a common enemy in the decadence of the "left". In this regard he sounds like radical Islamic theorist Qutb.<BR/><BR/>I wish I had a link handy but not long after his book came out a case in Pakistan happened where a woman was raped and then sentenced to die or some such under sharia law. That's the sort of "patriarchal" society that D'Souza claims has a right to be angry when human rights groups advocate that these nations bring themselves up to the human rights standards enshrined in the Universal declaration of human rights.<BR/><BR/>Also, I would direct everyone's attention to the blog Orcinus. Mr. Neiwert has several posts up about the VaTech shooting, including one about a Muslim hero who attempted to stop the killer. Not surprisingly the Islamophobe hate-mongering blogosphere made no mention of this hero, as they were to busy demonizing various groups.Hume's Ghosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551684109760430351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-7151093022629812452007-04-24T12:53:00.000-06:002007-04-24T12:53:00.000-06:00EneaszThat is a good question.I used the term 'hat...<B>Eneasz</B><BR/><BR/>That is a good question.<BR/><BR/>I used the term 'hate peddling' (wrongfully promoting hate) in the same moral sense that one would use the term 'murder' (wrongful killing) or theft (wrongful transfer of property).<BR/><BR/>The difference between hate-peddling and condemnation is not based on the <I>accuracy</I> of the claims. Condemnation can be inaccurate. However, if the condemner had good reason to believe that the condemnation was deserved, he is not guilty of any wrongdoing. If every piece of evidence suggests that Person A committed rape, condemning Person A for rape is not 'wrongful hate-peddling'.<BR/><BR/>Rather than 'accuracy', the difference between hate-peddling and condemnation is 'reasonable belief'. Did the agent acquire his belief that the target may be condemned through a reasonable and responsible process.<BR/><BR/>Note that even unreasonable but accurate condemnation is 'hate peddling'. For example, if you are a radio talk show host accusing me of corruption, and I am in fact corrupt, yet you had no way of knowing of my corruption, that would be hate-peddling.<BR/><BR/>The same distinctions apply to killing. Assume A kills B and claims self-defense. The test is whether A had a reasonable belief that B was about to kill him. A reasonable belief, even if wrong, is enough to avoid wrongdoing. An unreasonable belief (A had know way of knowing that B was really planning to kill him) still leaves A guilty of murder.<BR/><BR/>This standard of reasonable belief can be found all over morality. If I take your luggage at the airport, the difference between 'theft' and 'an accident' depends on whether I had a reasonable belief that the luggage I took was mine. If my luggage was black and yours was read, we would have reason to charge theft. But, if our bags look the same, then the act may be classified as an accident.<BR/><BR/>This standard of 'reasonableness' over 'accuracy' is why I spoke of unfounded generalizations, rather than false generalizations. It is also consistent with my statements about the lack of empirical evidence. Empirical evidence does not guarantee that one's conclusions were true, but it does suggest that the agent was careful and had an interest in avoiding error.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-19752156587619391162007-04-24T11:46:00.000-06:002007-04-24T11:46:00.000-06:00That's a good question.From the post I'd guess the...That's a good question.<BR/>From the post I'd guess there's a difference in the target (hatred of a group v. hatred of an individual) but that feels superficial.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-59903268626842970992007-04-24T09:40:00.000-06:002007-04-24T09:40:00.000-06:00A question from the studio audience:Where is the l...A question from the studio audience:<BR/><BR/>Where is the line between condemnation and hate-peddling drawn?<BR/><BR/>I suppose that's a badly worded question. I can't in fairness say I'm asking for a direct line that you can point to, but rather a guide for how one can normally identify such a line?<BR/><BR/>Also, I'd like to side-step the issue of accuracy for the moment. Obviously even minor condemnation is wrong if it is condemning something which should not be condemned.<BR/><BR/>But if someone were to harshly critisize and direct anger and condemnation at (for example) an individual who uses lies and deciet to build dictator-like powers for himself, and uses lies to send thousands of innocent men to their deaths.... wouldn't this sort of hate-peddling be justified? In fact, shouldn't the promotion of hatred towards such a person be considered a virtue?<BR/><BR/>So is there a distinction between condemnation and hate-peddling that goes beyond the accuracy of the claims?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-77958698416861799302007-04-23T21:59:00.000-06:002007-04-23T21:59:00.000-06:00This isn't regarding the main point of your essay,...This isn't regarding the main point of your essay, but I actually don't know if the murders were Cho's fault. He was on prozac, which has been linked with bizarre flip outs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com