Tuesday, April 7, 2009

Youtube arguments.

This is liable to be my most boring post in a long time, as it revolves around a personal and petty squabble on youtube. It's not (really) philosophical, it's not about DnD, it's not all that clever, and there is generally speaking, nothing you can learn from either of us. this is why I usually don't take part in Youtube arguments.... ok, that's just a lie. I do and I actually get a kick out of them, but I'm aware that they devolve quite quickly. 

Usually they're fairly limited, Youtube only gives you a set amount of space in which to operate, and quite frankly I find it too restricting. I usually don't take debates further than a couple of posts, however I (mistakenly) made an exception in this particular case. 

This all started when a poster called Monibuhai made a comment on this video, and the author of the video responded with what I felt was a mistaken opinion of the original poster. I responded (my first mistake), and he asked questions I viewed as genuine so I took the time to answer them, even if it took multiple posts. 

That was my second mistake. He then responded to all of them.... which is fine. Except he did so also separately branching them off into different directions. I responded to all of them, and later to another response of his to someone trying to make the same point as me (albeit with far more patience and eloquence after my 10th attempt at explaining my position).

It has now turned into such a tangled web of posts that it's nigh impossible for the readers to discern where any of it is going or what the responses relate to.

I am sure Proudfootz's version of events will be different to mine, and I will invite him to comment once I am done writing this. I will also be inviting the two other posters involved. 

I will also include in the comments section a complete, ordered, transcript of what is on the youtube forums. I have not changed any words, though I have moved posts around, and removed headers. This is likely to be what you should read first before hearing either side to this story. 
***********************

So what happened?

He ended his video with "If you're not familiar with the Quran, I think this (Ibn Warraq's book) is a very good place to start". Me and many other people, felt that surely, if you're unfamiliar with the Quran, maybe a good place to start would be reading it. I felt that your opinion on the Quran would be least biased if you had read nothing about it beforehand.

That is all. I felt first that proudfoot merely misspoke, but later I felt he genuinely does not want you to read it without first being primed by his (and Warraq's) opinion. I find that exceedingly intellectually dishonest. I find it to effectively be "Please don't read this with an open mind, please read it only after a 200 page criticism of it".

When I tried to point this, and only this, out. Well.... that's where the fun began. 

The original poster mentions: 
Warraq's position. 
Warraq's background. 
Warraq's education. 
Warraq's personal history. 

First: Does that sound like someone who has not considered Warraq's position? I would suggest not. I may be mistaken.

Proud:
"Why not consider [his] opinion?"
Me:
"I don't think it's fair you're accusing him of not considering his opinion"
Proud:
"Why is it 'not fair' that I point out that a different point of view is worth consideration"

Interesting... seems Proud misunderstood my comment. Notice my bold is something unfair, whereas his bold is not. Surely an honest mistake. 

Lets carry on:

I say pretty much what I say above: 
"If you're unfamiliar with the Quran, maybe a good place to start would be reading it"
Proud:
"I never suggested that anyone NOT read the koran"

Did I say he did? I merely suggested the order should be Quran-> Warraq, rather than his suggestion of Warraq -> Quran. Nevermind, another honest mistake... I'm sure we can sort this out. 

I repeat:
"You are accusing him of not considering Warraq's opinion, when he may have. That is unfair. You are therefore, at best, angry at him for disagreeing. That is also unfair."

Now maybe I shouldn't have described him as angry. However...

Proud:
"Why do you think it is 'angry' to have a different POV? Why is it 'unfair' of me to point out the obvious implications of the original post?"

While I suggested he seemed angry at Mo for disagreeing with him, he seems to have taken it as me thinking all disagreements are angry. Well, I guess another honest mistake... hmm...that's 3 by now. Also, notice his bold has yet to match mine. Well I guess..wait 4? Well... I guess online people can easily misinterpret stuff. 

Well, I'm sure we can sort this out... maybe...

As I said above the "obvious" implication to me was that he had considered Warraq's work. I've considered it, and I'm perfectly capable of writing a post identical to his. 

Me:
"I don't think they're obvious implications. 

I expect people to read the source, make up their own minds. Not have their opinion coloured on the matter prior."

Proud:
"You are mistaken if you think I have recommended (as the original post did about Warraq) that anything *not* be consulted."



Did I say that somewhere? At this point I reread my entire list of posts. I certainly didn't intend to. All I want is the order changed. Read it with an open mind then consult whatever additional material you want. Turns out I didn't. Well...I guess another hone... ok, you know what, at this point I doubt his sincerity. Is he doing this on purpose to make a point? I specifically said "Not have their opinion coloured on the matter prior". In other words an order of events is suggested. 



What follows is a series of verbal barbs and repetition, followed by:
Me:
"So you do believe in consulting the source before consulting material about a source"
Proud:
"You continue to make the false claim that I have told anyone to not read the koran."


What the hell? Is someone writing things on my account waiting for him to reply then deleting them? Obviously he is honestly mistak... oh for f*** sake, he's lying. This is some cheap debate tactic he's employing... no.. no.. stay calm, maybe he has some condition. Natural human psychology. Confirmation bias. I dunno something that makes this guy not reprehensible. 


Ok, how about this, lets see if he answers any of my questions. 

Proud:
"The original poster claimed the only 'proper way' to understand islam is to accept it"
Me:
"Please, once, demonstrate where the poster makes that claim."

No response... maybe he missed it... could be an honest mistake. (Anyone keeping track at home?)


****************

You know what... maybe it's me. Maybe I was too rude initially that he just wanted to get back at me for that and therefore didn't see the points I was making. Well, I suppose that's... wait what is he saying over here...


Proud: 
"Many people seem to be offended by the suggestion that mental growth is possible".


I proceed to read the entire 2 years of posts to try to find one person who has made such a claim. It seems he thinks anyone who disagrees with him is now disagreeing with "mental growth". 


I offer this:
"I will take back every word I have written to you on the topic if you can find someone who you claim is "offended by the suggestion that mental growth is possible" who will say so themselves, without you inserting words in their mouth."

Isn't that fair?


Hey, a new player:

VoyageIslam:
"If you subtract Ibn Warrik's book it would not effet Islam at all but if you subtract the Quran there is no Islam as we know it. Explain to me why we should read his book before we read the book that launched the faith?"


Hey look, it seems he agrees with me on the topic. That was pretty straightforward. 


Proud:
"I am not trying to 'subtract' the koran - never said such a thing! So long as folks like you float such false accusations it is hard to take you seriously at all."


What a surprise. Another honest mistake from proud.


So! In the interest of fair play, I'm fascinated by what Proud's take on the series of events was and have invited him to comment. It could very well be that over the course of 3 days and with... 42 posts, he has yet to address my initial concern at all. (Nor incidentally, any other concern). 


I have questioned the other two posters regarding his assumptions about them, and if they respond I will post them. 


If you've read this far I applaud you!

2 comments:

Keeper said...

Monibuhai
Hmm if one would want to know more about Islam, why read a book by someone who went out of the religon and went on to write a book that basically bashes it? Seems you just don't want to even give it a chance to be explained by someone who is actually knowledgable in the religon in a more proper way. Although Ibn Warraq had some Islamic Studies background it's is personal dillemas in his life that he has faced that are speaking. I'd suggest looking up info about Islam by an Islamic Scholar.

proudfootz
Why not consider the opinion of someone who has studied it and finds it wanting?
Do you only look at advertisements from merchants when making a decision?

Baalthazaq
It isn't that simple.
I'd suggest for example, that the Quran would be a reasonable place to start learning about the Quran before installing a filter.

I also don't think it's fair you're accusing him of not considering someone's opinion. I have read Warraq's book and spent years debating theology with those of differing views, yet I back his comments 100%.

You should at the very least begin with the source before moving on to someone with obvious bias.

proudfootz
I'm not sure why it's 'not fair' that I point out that a different point of view is worth consideration?

Why read the book? Maybe he's right!

Why is Warraq's book 'biased' and Mohammed's book not biased? It's an easy accusation to make, but how can I be sure the 'scholar' I'm directed to doesn't have bias of his own?

I never suggested that anyone NOT read the koran if one finds it interesting.

Baalthazaq
Well isn't that an interesting can of words.

You are accusing him of not considering Warraq's opinion. That is an unfair accusation as he may have considered it.
You are therefore, at best, angry at him for disagreeing. That is also unfair.
I have read Warraq's book. I disagree. Stop throwing accusations around.

Are you seriously suggesting that reading the source material first hand is equally biased to reading someone else's filtered version? Harry Potter vs a HP protest paper?

proudfootz
Why do you think it is 'angry' to have a different POV?
Why is it 'unfair' of me to point out the obvious implications of the original post?
I haven't 'accused' anyone of anything.
You may disagree with Warraq - that is your privilege. At least you had the intellectual honesty to read the book first.
Harry Potter is a good example: many post here that *critical* reviews must NOT be read, that ONLY *positive* reviews or the original book are allowed.

Bias cuts both ways.

Baalthazaq
These are only "obvious" implications because you have deemed them to be so.

As I said, I agree completely with the original post, yet you would have made the same "obvious" implications to me and would have been entirely wrong.

As such, they can hardly be considered obvious now can they?

I'm not suggesting reading only positive reviews. I'm suggesting the source material.

I expect people to read the source, make up their own minds. Not have their opinion coloured on the matter prior.

proudfootz
You are mistaken if you think I have recommended (as the original post did about Warraq) that anything *not* be consulted.

People are only likely to read the source material if it is recommended to them - i.e. a positive (biased) review which colors their opinion prior to reading.

Baalthazaq
Indeed, I'm sure if you were to suggest reading the Quran and making up their own minds that would have been a "positive review"?

Obviously not, yet that seems to be what you'd have us believe.

So in summary: It's not obvious. It's therefore unfair. You have applied prejudice to your comments.

You certainly did accuse someone of something. You accused him of dismissing Warraq rather than disagreeing with him.

I did not say:
It was unfair to point out a different POV
It is angry to have a different POV.

Why are you forcing imaginary arguments? Please don't invent ridiculous strawmen or I'm forced to make 2 posts defending comments you've made on my behalf.

It's a cheap trick.

If anything in fact, it is you who is being dismissive of an alternative point of view.

The poster obviously knows Warraq's history, background, and therefore likely his work, you immediately dismissed him as ignorant of the topic.

I therefore am in full agreement with his statement: "Seems you just don't want to even give it a chance".

proudfootz
It is the original post which is dismissive:

"...why read a book by someone who went out of the religon and went on to write a book that basically bashes it?"

Mohammed left *his* religion and bashes it, and he bashes Judaism and Christianity as well.

Therefore it is perfectly reasonable of me to respond to the original post:

"Why not consider the opinion of someone who has studied [Islam] and finds it wanting?"

Baalthazaq
Simple answer: He already has.

For example, if I said "Why don't you learn to read?"

I'll bet you'd find it rude and dismissive. Then what if when you respond I condescendingly ask you why you're against reading and tell you that I'm just trying to be some grand proponent of free thought and knowledge.

That has been your modus operandi so far, and quite frankly I find it ludicrously childish for someone of your age.

proudfootz
The original post did not say anything about having read Warraq's book and consequently disagreeing.

Therefore you haven't got much to hang your arguments about my alleged 'anger' and 'unfairness' upon.

If anyone is attacking strawmen, I suggest you consult a mirror.

Baalthazaq
How can I consult a mirror before I hear your opinion on the matter? Surely I need a guide to interpreting what I see?

Ah so it seems you do believe in consulting the source before consulting material about a source... with one notable exception.

I'm still waiting on an adequate response to why you assumed he was unfamiliar with Warraq despite the only evidence pointing to the contrary.

proudfootz
You continue to make the false claim that I have told anyone to not read the koran.

Making this false claim can only be on purpose because I have corrected you several times on this very point.

Baalthazaq
"You continue to make the false claim that..."

I have *never* made that claim. You interjected it into this conversation.

You told people to read Warraq as a starting point if Unfamiliar with Quran. I.e. PRIOR to the Quran. Not instead.

Quotes from me:
"Not have their opinion coloured on the matter prior."

Prior to what if not reading the Quran? So congratulations, you have corrected me "multiple times" on something I never said.

Strawman after strawman after strawman.

proudfootz
The original poster suggested that Warraq be ignored in favor of a pro-muslim 'scholar' who is ' knowledgable in the religon in a more proper way.'

You seemed to be in agreement with this ignorant stance - you said you back him "100%".

Sorry if I took you at your word! My mistake.

The original poster *never* claimed to have read the book, but merely dismisses it.

The original poster claimed the only 'proper way' to understand islam is to accept it (the poster's bias is showing!).

Your silly misrepresentations of this issue are indicative of an intellectually dishonest agenda.

I simply say 'read a book' and you falsely accuse me of all kinds of absurd things.

Baalthazaq
Yet, another, strawman.

Please, once, demonstrate where the poster makes that claim. From his mouth not yours.

"The original poster claimed the only 'proper way' to understand islam is to accept it"

Where? Did he say that or are you putting words in his mouth? I certainly don't see it.

A more proper way could easily be the complete lack of education he received on the subject.

Peers such as Donner seem to agree.

proudfootz
"A more proper way could easily be the complete lack of education he received on the subject. "?

What kind of education does one need? Many posters here seem to think the only source of information on the history, varieties and practices of islam is to be found in the koran.

At least I didn't accuse the original poster of being uneducated - I merely recommended a book with a different POV.

Your strawman arguments are tiresome.

Baalthazaq
I invite anyone reading these to go through them and decide for themselves if anything I have said is indeed a strawman and if anything proudfoot has said is a strawman.

Proudfoot, your ignorance is of a standard I am utterly depressed to have experienced. There is nothing more to add to the 15 odd posts I have already made and you have failed to answer.

Read them again, if you ever decide to respond instead of sidelining the issue, I shall bother responding, until then, good day.

proudfootz
Baal -

Thanks for promising that this insulting post will be your last.

Goodbye!

Here is the debate with VoyageIslam

VoyageIslam
If you are not familiar with a thing you should investigate the thing itself not a book about it.

proudfootz
There is no reason anyone has to read every every book ever written in order to function.

If we are being asked to read the koran in the original language, then we must also read the Baghavad Gita in Sanskrit, the Torah in Hebrew, the New Testament in Greek, the Dao De Jing & Analects in Chinese, etc. etc. etc.?

We can all learn from consulting the scholarship of others.

VoyageIslam
Yes, to fully understand anything in a opposite language you must understand that language. There are many things in Sanskrit, Hebrew, Greek, and Chinese that simply do not have an English equivalent. In the English version of the Fatihah they use two words to try to explain one word: Raheem, then they use the same two words to describe the single word Rahman. Rahman and Raheem do not have the same meaning. How do you as a person unschooled in Arabic resolve this dilemma?

proudfootz
I think that is a good argument which places doubt on claims that any 'holy book' is actually written by any 'god' - the limitations of language.

It's a pity these gods must work through men and their limited vocabularies in order to communicate: it makes it nearly impossible to tell a 'holy book' from any other book.

You'd think a god could find a better and more fool-proof method of communicating its wants and needs.

VoyageIslam
Muslims believe that man is greater than any other creation of God even the angels. The thing that separates man from beast is the ability to use intellect over instinct. Why should access to paradise be made easy? You should have to work for it just like you have to work for anything else. God gave you the brain so put it to use. I have seen many people teach themselves languages from other lands. Man has the abilty to intellectually grow or we can be mentally lazy and complain.

proudfootz
It is to combat intellectual laziness that I recommended this book. Many people seem to be offended by the suggestion that mental growth is possible or desirable.

As it is I have no reason to believe the koran is any different than the Baghavad Gita or Harry Potter.

That's what happens when one puts their brain to use - they discover that things are not always what they advertise themselves to be.

Baalthazaq
You, sir, are becoming preposterous. "Many people seem to be offended by the suggestion that mental growth is possible"

Why do you frame any disagreement with you as an assault on an ideal? People are offended by your attempt to shape their knowledge RATHER than further it.

No doubt if your video contained naught but a "F*ck you", anyone offended would be asked "Why are you against human procreation/love/sex?"

You have universally taken the last 15 posts out of context.

proudfootz
Nothing preposterous about my position - though your strawman versions of it are becoming increasingly bizarre.

Baalthazaq
I am merely copying your style of debate because I find it contemptible and deceptive, and was wondering how you would react if it was done to you in kind.

Not well.

I will take back every word I have written to you on the topic if you can find someone who you claim is "offended by the suggestion that mental growth is possible" who will say so themselves, without you inserting words in their mouth.

It is a contemptible accusation made on any who disagree with you.
VoyageIslam
I think my logic is clearer than you would like. You are telling us if we want to understand the Quran do not read it but buy Ibn Warriks book about it. Maybe we should stop watching the evening news and just buy a book about it.

proudfootz
voyage -

I have never said that one should not read the quran.

There is more to islam than just the one book - otherwise one could not understand the difference between shiite and sunni and sufis and bahais etc.

VoyageIslam
The Quran is the key book to defining Islam. If you subtract Ibn Warrik's book it would not effet Islam at all but if you subtract the Quran there is no Islam as we know it. So, explain to me again why we should read his book before we read the book that launched the faith?

proudfootz
I am not trying to 'subtract' the koran - never said such a thing!

So long as folks like you float such false accusations it is hard to take you seriously at all.

Baalthazaq
And he never made that accusation.
No-one has but you.

Nobody I've seen has argued that you "have never said that one should not read the quran".

He said: "So, explain to me again why we should read his book BEFORE we read the book that launched the faith?"

BEFORE is the key word.

proudfootz
I guess you don't quite grasp the meaning of the word 'subtract' - I am not trying to take the koran away from anyone.

Please try to keep the false accusations to a minimum.

VoyageIslam
Why read a book that tells you about another book? Ibn Warraq is relaying either one of two messages:

A: You are not intelligent enough to understand the Quran first hand so he is spoon feeding you.

B.: He wants you to see the Quran through his eyes I.E propaganda.

Tell me one thing that can be learnt from his book that can not be learned from independant study?

proudfootz
If you look on around on YouTube you'll see hundreds of videos by Muslims purporting to tell us what the koran means, or what Islam teaches.

Do you tell them: "You are spreading propaganda! You treat people as if they cannot decide for themselves!"?

When you have gone to all the imams and scholars and interpreters of the koran and hold them to the same standards as you hold Warraq then we will see you are being 'fair' to all want to tell you about a book.

Baalthazaq
So you won't be answering his questions on the matter?

How about *one* of mine:
Why assume he has not read Warraq?
Why do you frame any disagreement with you as an assault on an ideal?
Are you suggesting that reading the source material first hand is equally biased to reading someone else's filtered version?
Where did I say:
It was unfair to point out a different POV.
It is angry to have a different POV.
You said "Don't read the Quran".

proudfootz
Voyage accuses me of 'spreading propaganda' or treating people as if they 'can't think for themselves'.

The original poster (who you back '100%') only accepts the expertise of pro-muslim 'scholars'.

I merely recommend a book, and you accuse me of 'unfairness' and being 'angry'.

Get over yourselves: reading a book from a different POV won't kill you!

Baalthazaq
1) You are putting words in his mouth.
2) You are putting words in his mouth.
3) You are putting words in my mouth.
4) I have read the book.

Why are you incapable of addressing the points raised instead of the points you raise yourself?

proudfootz
The original poster *never* said he read the book.

He questioned why one should even read it in the 1st place.

If I ask why I should give you $100 it implies I haven't done so.

Every time I add 2 + 2 it comes up 4.

No need to put words in anyone's mouth when simple inference shows the way.

You claim to have read the book.

I never denied that you did.

What is the 'point' of your "I have read the book"? Working up another false accusation?

proudfootz said...

Thanks for setting out your view of this YouTube tempest in a teapot.

I am also grateful to Keeper who includes the 'original post' from Monibuhai which was the bone of contention - no understanding of this contretemps is likely without actually quoting that post.

I still think my response to that initial post is a perfectly reasonable one.

I do not oppose the study of the koran or of any scholars who attempt to elucidate islam.