Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Student interrogated and suspend for wearing Halloween costume (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Student interrogated and suspend for wearing Halloween costume
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seriati, a person doesn't make a claim about their own actions, as a claim implies that facts are in doubt. He stated the facts as he lived and acted on them. To dispute what he says is a claim by you, but it's weird given that you have no facts to contradict him, only speculative suspicions that amount to what I would call unreasonable doubt.

Really, this is like a 10th grade argument, not even a debate.

[ October 15, 2015, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
I'm not trying to marginalize him on any point Pyrtolin, I said earlier on that he could be proud of it even it was just a rehoming. My objection, to which you responded, was to Al Wessex's statement of "facts," about the situation, nothing more or less.

Seriati, you are going to hit a wall here, of the following variety:

Poster: Ahmed cobbled together a clock and was punished for it because of Islamophobia.

Seriati: He didn't cobble it together.

Poster: So you're trying to vilify him just like the Islamophobes!

Seriati:...

I feel your pain.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ha. I'm glad I'm not the only one seeing this.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Seriati, you are going to hit a wall here, of the following variety:

Poster: Ahmed cobbled together a clock and was punished for it because of Islamophobia.

Seriati: He didn't cobble it together.

Of course hes going to hit a wall, for the reason that you illustrate- he's trying to pedantically nitpick on particular turn of phrase, even to the point of shifting goalposts and implicitly denigrating the actions of the person in question instead of addressing a substantive point.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Seriati, a person doesn't make a claim about their own actions, as a claim implies that facts are in doubt.

You've never heard the expression, "he claims this is what happened"? People make claims about their own actions ALL the time, in fact that's what virtually all statements about motivations are. How can you not understand that people lie, misrepresent or even misremember things? What he said is completely self interested, if you were to say he deliberately did it to freak people out with a fake bomb, he'd be facing criminal charges and universal condemnation is that not enough reason to lie if that was his actual motivation? Only he knows why he did it, that doesn't make what he says into facts.
quote:
He stated the facts as he lived and acted on them.
Maybe, maybe not, it says a lot about you that you'd uncritically accept that.
quote:
To dispute what he says is a claim by you, but it's weird given that you have no facts to contradict him, only speculative suspicions that amount to what I would call unreasonable doubt.
I didn't say he lied (ie dispute), I said his story is weak and self interested and there are other stories that are far more plausible. If you believed he was dumb, I could see buying his story as the most likely, but you rejected that idea too, which doesn't leave much wiggle room.
quote:
Really, this is like a 10th grade argument, not even a debate.
It's not a debate, can't be, when you don't understand what a fact is.
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
Seriati, you are going to hit a wall here, of the following variety:

I understand that, I still try to begin each debate honestly with an attempt to explain and confront. It drives me a bit batty listening to people making illogical or unfounded arguments and then patting themselves on the back about how correct they are.
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Of course hes going to hit a wall, for the reason that you illustrate- he's trying to pedantically nitpick on particular turn of phrase, even to the point of shifting goalposts and implicitly denigrating the actions of the person in question instead of addressing a substantive point.

Lol, way to play right into the criticism.

Out of curiosity what substantive point do you believe I'm refusing to address? I asked the question in good-faith not as a gotcha, so far the response has been your snarky avoiding the question answer and no response that's on point. Were the parts from a single clock (and pencil case) or not?

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
there are other stories that are far more plausible
Except that this is not the case, unless you first presume ill intent.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I said his story is weak and self interested and there are other stories that are far more plausible.
Would be more plausible if there were any evidence to support them. Lacking that evidence the only fact we have is that he said that. You can certainly _sepculate_ that it's weak and self interested, but that description is a claim not a fact.

HE asserted that it was a clock. That is a fact. Not the truth of the statement itself, but the he made that assertion. That's what Al is trying to get across here. We have what he said as a fact. There may be other facts in play as well, but any claim about it being deceptive or misleading requires facts to back it up, or its just speculation.

As yet, there is no a non-speculative evidence to dispute what he said. You can certainly take it critically- which means that you can look for actual evidence to suggest that he was being misleading, but that means being on the look out for additional facts, not grabbing onto any likely excuse to cast doubt on him and presenting it as a fact that applies here.

quote:
Out of curiosity what substantive point do you believe I'm refusing to address?
In this case, a lack of any factual evidence to support the notion that he was being deceptive.

quote:
I asked the question in good-faith not as a gotcha,
In good faith? What substantiatve point is relevant to the number of different objects needed to qualify to use the expression "cobbled together"?

quote:
so far the response has been your snarky avoiding the question answer and no response that's on point. Were the parts from a single clock (and pencil case) or not?
Absolutely it was. In fact, that's exactly what I pointed out above when you started the irrelevant digression about whether the clock could be considered to be cobbled together, which you , in turn replied to by, effectively asserting that you now need more than two different things to be assembled into one thing to grace that turn of phrase with your approval.

And none of that actually serves any purpose in the larger conversation except to manufacture a cheap win on the accuracy of describing the clock as "cobbled together"

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
there are other stories that are far more plausible
Except that this is not the case, unless you first presume ill intent.
I think you're using too much binary logic here. It would be more fair to say that some of us are declining to presume good intent, which is not at all the same thing as presuming ill intent. I even offered a third option, which was to put intent aside altogether and to just say he did something dumb.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have no problem with people here presuming good intent or even suggesting those of us here should try it some time. My issue was that the President of the United States cannot afford to "presume good intent".

Maybe his staff vetted this story out faster and far more thoroughly than the info we have to date. It gave the impression, to me, of taking a gamble on a story because, if correct, it was a good PR opportunity.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It would be more fair to say that some of us are declining to presume good intent...
No, not at all.
In order for the ridiculous "alternative" stories to be "more likely" than the far more straightforward actual story, we have to presume either incompetence or malevolence. They simply don't hold up to even casual scrutiny otherwise.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
I said his story is weak and self interested and there are other stories that are far more plausible.
Would be more plausible if there were any evidence to support them. Lacking that evidence the only fact we have is that he said that. You can certainly _sepculate_ that it's weak and self interested, but that description is a claim not a fact
You don't think its a fact that his statements are self interested? That would be the case even if they are true, would it not?

Weak is a conclusion, and not an unfair one.
quote:
HE asserted that it was a clock. That is a fact. Not the truth of the statement itself, but the he made that assertion.
Both of those are facts, that it's a clock and that he asserted it (presuming that's what he actually said).
quote:
That's what Al is trying to get across here.
I disagree, what Al was trying to get across was not just the simple facts, it was a gloss and interpretation on those facts, which is what I criticized.
quote:
We have what he said as a fact.
Not really, we have some of what he said as facts, some of it not.
quote:
There may be other facts in play as well, but any claim about it being deceptive or misleading requires facts to back it up, or its just speculation.
Any claim that he is being deceptive or misleading OR THAT HE'S NOT being deceptive or misleading requires facts to back it up, or its just speculation.

Most of what you wrote is pretending that I made an assertion of fact as a strawman argument so you can assert I need to prove it. Show me the factual claim I made.
quote:
quote:
Out of curiosity what substantive point do you believe I'm refusing to address?
In this case, a lack of any factual evidence to support the notion that he was being deceptive.
You call that a substantive point? Lol. I think that explains a heck of lot.
quote:
quote:
I asked the question in good-faith not as a gotcha,
In good faith? What substantiatve point is relevant to the number of different objects needed to qualify to use the expression "cobbled together"?
Al was telling a story, it's certainly relevant to whether the characterization in it was false.

I don't care one way or the other, it's a side issue with no real bearing on any of the pertinent facts. I think its totally absurd how far you're willing to argue about a claim that could easily be proven/disproven rather than just demonstrate it.
quote:
quote:
so far the response has been your snarky avoiding the question answer and no response that's on point. Were the parts from a single clock (and pencil case) or not?
Absolutely it was. In fact, that's exactly what I pointed out above when you started the irrelevant digression about whether the clock could be considered to be cobbled together, which you , in turn replied to by, effectively asserting that you now need more than two different things to be assembled into one thing to grace that turn of phrase with your approval.
It's not me, no one says they cobbled together a clock from a single functioning clock. I didn't cobble together a homemade cake from a store bought cake, or even from a packaged box of cake mix. I don't cobble together a model from a model kit. That's not what the words mean and you know it.

This is a patently ridiculous argument that you're prosecuting.
quote:
And none of that actually serves any purpose in the larger conversation except to manufacture a cheap win on the accuracy of describing the clock as "cobbled together"
It serves only one purpose, and that has nothing to do with a cheap win. The purpose is to demonstrate the hypocrisy in claiming that the other side is doing nothing but speculating and distorting while your own side is wedded to the facts, when you're making just as many assumptions and speculating just as much (or actually in this case speculating more, since you're asserting these things as facts).
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
there are other stories that are far more plausible
Except that this is not the case, unless you first presume ill intent.
They are more plausible either way. Like I said, for the reverse to be true you have to assume either naiveté or stupidity.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Like I said, for the reverse to be true you have to assume either naiveté or stupidity.
Only if you grant that it takes naivete to not think your clock is likely to be taken for a bomb, especially after you tell people it isn't. I don't think that's a requirement.

The kid wasn't being embittered or suspicious or defensive. That doesn't translate to being naive.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think the assertion is that it does take naiveté to believe it wouldn't be taken for a bomb. A particular brand of it quite common in this discussion.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Even if this were the case (and, again, it wasn't actually taken for a bomb)I think that 14 year-olds should be allowed a little naivete before they are considered criminals.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Even if this were the case (and, again, it wasn't actually taken for a bomb)I think that 14 year-olds should be allowed a little naivete before they are considered criminals.

I agree, and I think this should include both naivete about what looks like a bomb, as well as naivete about what sort of joke might actually be criminal. When I say this I am personally discounting the scenario where it was a deliberate PR stunt organized by his family, which although possible is purely circumstantial speculation and is no better as a theory than saying Islamophobia was at work here.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You've never heard the expression, "he claims this is what happened"? People make claims about their own actions ALL the time, in fact that's what virtually all statements about motivations are. How can you not understand that people lie, misrepresent or even misremember things? What he said is completely self interested, if you were to say he deliberately did it to freak people out with a fake bomb, he'd be facing criminal charges and universal condemnation is that not enough reason to lie if that was his actual motivation? Only he knows why he did it, that doesn't make what he says into facts.
Interesting that I'm spending time teaching basics of word definitions to members of this elite forum, but here's the definition of "claim" that you are using:
quote:
state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
Notice that Ahmed provided evidence, as in the clock itself, and proof in the form of his consistent statements about his own motivations. Therefore, his statements about his actions are not claims.

You would probably be ok if I said that you only claim to be posting what you really think. It wouldn't be ok with me, however, since there are no facts to dispute what you say. I simply have to trust that your obstinacy and unwillingness to take what he says about himself as honest is somehow sincere.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Even if this were the case (and, again, it wasn't actually taken for a bomb)I think that 14 year-olds should be allowed a little naivete before they are considered criminals.

The thing is, his father is an activist. (Ahmed and his father just had a photo op with a genocidal Sudanese dictator.) His sister was suspended a few years back for threatening to blow up the school. (Allegedly.)

There are certain things you expect someone of his race and upbringing to not be naive about. One of them is what kinds of things and jokes can be made and brought into things like airports and schools.

This story has already been enshrined in the media as a case of Islamophobia. To the people who accept that at face value, it's okay to look at the kid's appearance and decide why what happened that day happened.

Anyone who looks into the kid's family and personality are being ridiculous, though. The fact that he had been suspended more then once in middle school for being overly disruptive in class could not have any possible relevance, right?

Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The thing is, his father is an activist.
And...? Would that increase the likelihood his son would (allegedly) bring a fake bomb to school?
quote:
(Ahmed and his father just had a photo op with a genocidal Sudanese dictator.)
Does this relate to the clock incident in his school? I mean, does it increase the likelihood that anything Ahmed has said is false? If it's false, would he get props from a Sudanese dictator for pranking his teachers? What does this mean to you?
quote:
His sister was suspended a few years back for threatening to blow up the school. (Allegedly.)
Even though it's only alleged, and that a 3-day suspension for a possible plot to blow up the school is absurd, you think repeating that story has some value?
quote:
This story has already been enshrined in the media as a case of Islamophobia. To the people who accept that at face value, it's okay to look at the kid's appearance and decide why what happened that day happened.
It's also a textbook case of targeting. To reiterate briefly, the Mayor of the town is a high-profile figure who alleges that Muslims in Irving are bypassing the legal system and implementing Sharia law, and that until recently Irving had no Hispanics on the town council despite having over 30% Hispanic population.
quote:
Anyone who looks into the kid's family and personality are being ridiculous, though. The fact that he had been suspended more then once in middle school for being overly disruptive in class could not have any possible relevance, right?
Do the town's kneejerk actions have any relevance?

This has clearly become a "FOX debate" where if someone speculates that the first-hand accounts of the victim might not be true that the real truth must lie somewhere between what he says and whatever anybody wants to speculate might have actually happened.

[ October 18, 2015, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
It's also a textbook case of targeting. To reiterate briefly, the Mayor of the town is a high-profile figure who alleges that Muslims in Irving are bypassing the legal system and implementing Sharia law, and that until recently Irving had no Hispanics on the town council despite having over 30% Hispanic population.

In what town does the mayor personally appoint the city council members at his own whim? If he does not appoint them, what's the purpose in mentioning this in the same sentence as discussing the mayor's character?
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In what town does the mayor personally appoint the city council members at his own whim? If he does not appoint them, what's the purpose in mentioning this in the same sentence as discussing the mayor's character?
Uh, the people who elect the Mayor also elect the city Council. You don't see a pattern? I wasn't talking about the Mayor's character, but about her xenophobia. The population of the city is only about 55% white, but until 2010 had no non-white members on the Council. The city was sued successfully to correct the imbalance in the Council demographics and paid a lawsuit settlement of $200,000 and changed the voting process.

If you're willing to consider facts not in evidence to paint Ahmed is an unflattering light, why are you not also willing to consider how the town's attitudes might affect their handling of the clock incident?

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So you're saying the town itself is racist and that the mayor's views merely reflect those who voted in a mayor that accurately represented them? If this is so then the suggestion of Islamophobia in this claim rises above merely the suggestion that the mayor or a particular police officer were bigots, but now amounts to saying the whole town are bigots. Would you call this a fair assessment of your comment?
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You'll have to draw your own conclusions about that. I'm pointing out some things you may not be aware of, but I'm not saying anything as strong as "the whole town are bigots". If it will help, don't rely on my comments and do your own research about the points I raised. Let's see if that colors or illuminates your thinking.

I don't have enough information that would suggest that this town in any way is an analog to Ferguson, MO. But, remember how many people refused to consider the history of the town's mistreatment of the black population and instead would only consider the Michael Brown killing as an isolated event. The more we learned about Ferguson, the more untenable that view became. I doubt Irving will turn out to be anything like that, but I can't see how learning more about the town can hurt.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why do I have to draw my own conclusions? You brought it up. You said it was a "textbook case of targeting." And to justify that comment you mentioned the mayor's views, which you later explained by saying the mayor was voted in by a town with those same views. I am investigating the comments you made so I want to know whether "the entire town are bigots" is your view on the matter. My interpretation, for the time being, is immaterial to your comments.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Was my response unclear?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Was my response unclear?

Your response was to summon the image of Ferguson to paint Irving as more of the same, and then to go on to say you doubt it's the same; a mixed message at best. But you seem to be giving very little currency to your own claim that it was "textbook targeting." By whom? By the mayor? The townsfolk? The police? All of the above? Since you're willing to make definitive statements about this I'm just taking the opportunity to ask you to explain.

So yes, your response was unclear. Or more precisely, it seemed like a bit of a dodge. Do you, personally, think the town is a bunch of bigots? Tom would have no fear to admit if this was his hunch - is it yours?

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring, do you see a difference between "there is a pattern of bigotry in this town" and "the whole town are bigots"?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring, I explicitly answered that question. Read my response again.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Fenring, do you see a difference between "there is a pattern of bigotry in this town" and "the whole town are bigots"?

There is a difference, but the difference isn't relevant to Al's point. Obviously it's not every single person in the town, if true, so the difference between "everyone in town" and "lots of people in town" isn't germane. The point is the same - that evidence is being put forward linking the event to bigotry.

quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Fenring, I explicitly answered that question. Read my response again.

Your reply consisted of saying you didn't want me to rely on your opinion, followed by using Ferguson as an example where learning more revealed the real truth about the town, and finally you said that Irving might not be anything like Ferguson and that you don't see how learning more could hurt.

As I mentioned your educating me is immaterial to my examination of comments you've made. As for Ferguson, learning about bigotry in town certainly shaded the case, but not the result. We know no more now than we did initially about whether a pattern of bigotry impacted the particulars of the Brown shooting. So maybe this was a bad example on your part, since the particulars of that shooting, which we never learned for sure, were the only really relevant data in the case. And finally, you're absolutely right that learning more about the town couldn't hurt. So how does this open-minded admission square with mentioning that it was "textbook targeting", which you backed up by mentioning the bigotry of the mayor/town?

Where I'm going with this is clear. I'm trying to get you to own up to the fact that you believed from the start Ahmed was targeted by local bigotry and that you still believe this, even though you don't know for sure what the people in the town are like. It's a preconception that you are looking for ways to demonstrate. Heck, I'm not even suggesting you're wrong, we all have our preconceptions. But I think this is where you're coming from, which is cool and all but it would be helpful to refer to such preconceptions as "my hunch" rather than "these are facts."

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring,

there is evidence of the mayor and city council pandering to anti-Muslim sentiment.

http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/2015/03/20/anti-muslim-sentiment-bubbles-up-in-irving-and-the-imam-who-has-to-tolerate-it/

So it isn't an assumption about the town, simply an inference from evidence.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LR, I just read that link and I don't see a clear line from its contents to 'anti-Muslim sentiment'. The mayor's statement that seems to be at the heart of the article's content was that if there was a Muslim tribunal in effect that was enforcing Sharia law (IF such a finding was determined) then she would do everything in her power to stop it. This is the big inflammatory thing the article covers, and although I agree it scores more than a zero on the "Islamophibia" scale it doesn't score that high either. Her message is basically one most Americans would agree with - that the kinds of private community enforcement that go on in other countries with Muslim populations won't be allowed in America. The anti-Muslim part is presumably the mayor making a statement about this at all, and to that I'll say that like it or not concern about Sharia law is something that has been carefully educated into the population by certain parties. A mayor has to respond to popular concerns rather than pretend they don't exist.

I guess you could blame her for bothering to respond to something appearing in Breitbart's, but that's sort of a different matter more to do with media in general than one town's beliefs. I do have to say that the word "tribunal" doesn't sound too cheerful, and that technically it would be true to say that there is a Muslim tribunal process in operation there. It's just a matter of realizing this means they give advice on small-time stuff like house work and family matters, rather than enforcing religious fundamentalist law. But then again I'd need to attend the tribunal to see whether this is really true, because it's really quite easy to subjugate people quietly and without much ado in an 'informal' setting like a family tribunal.

All this to say, this case (much like the one in Ferguson) has a mixed bag of evidence, some of which seems to suggest Ahmed may have been an innocent victim, and other evidence which suggests maybe it's not quite as clear as that. In the Ferguson case what initially looked like a slam-dunk racism case went south when everyone saw the footage of Brown robbing the store. The scenario became gray enough that it would all boil down to the fine details of his altercation with Wilson. Similarly here, the general background details of both the town and of Ahmed's family looks to be something of a wash. The details of the event (which we'll probably never learn more of) are the only real determining factor.

So this is why I have chosen to pursue the definitive claim by Al that this was "a textbook case of targeting." Al has already decided this is what happened. I submit it's possible he's right, but I don't see how it's possible he can know he's right.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If the mayor has to respond to popular concerns wouldn't it make sense to assume that her constituency has those concerns?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring, I said:
quote:
I'm not saying anything as strong as "the whole town are bigots".
What the hell more do you need? BTW, your words included everyone in the town. I never would have said anything as preposterous as that. Take a deep breath and read my meaning without exaggerating to transform my words into a straw man argument.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
If the mayor has to respond to popular concerns wouldn't it make sense to assume that her constituency has those concerns?

Yes, although a mayor can also grandstand hoping to make broader headlines as well. The mayor's statement is a clear line to indicate concern about Sharia law, but I don't see a clear line to indicate anti-Muslim sentiment. One might infer that, but that would be an interpretation not directly in evidence.

Recall that concern over terrorism and Sharia law are all over the country, and yet this isn't leading to any wave of discrimination against Muslims that I've heard about. The suggestion that a particular town or mayor has it out for Muslims and will harass them for trivialities needs to be backed up by more than a mayor's grandstanding, I think. I'm not saying it's false, but tell me honestly that you had done all kinds of research about Irving, the mayor and the townsfolk there when the initial imputation of racism in Irving came out.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sharia law is a dog whistle issue to stir up anti-Muslim sentiment. It's only an issue at all because politicians wanting to play on Islamophobia have been using it to exploit biases.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
The claim that the mayor's xenophobic attitude toward sharia influences the school's administration and police is reasonable, given her wide support in the community and her repeated election to the Mayor's office. I don't have evidence to prove that claim, but have enough to present it into the discussion as a potential influence and reflection on the community.

I have to apologize, I should never have trusted you to accurately report the position of the local mayor and her hostility towards Islam, which you've placed as "evidence" that the result in this case could be a result of Islamophobia, but I did. However, I've now taken the time to actually dig into the details of Irving, which is by no means a small isolated community. It's part of the FortWorth/Dallas metro area with almost 250,000 people living inside it's border. It is run by a mayor-city manager arrangement, which means the mayor's power is far too limited to be particularly relevant.

But more key, the mayor doesn't appear to be an anti-Sharia crusader at all. Texas, as a state, passed a law prohibiting the application of foreign law within its borders, and she just happened to be the mayor of the town where the first Sharia court tried to operate. Her comments were no dog whistle as some distractors were like to imply, they were no evidence of an anti-Islamic local movement.

The idea that this mayor is somehow more relevant to what occurred, than the fact that it was a 14 year old boy (with all the issues of young teenage boys) is patently absurd. And it looks like the AP is now attributing the issue to overzealous application of a zero tolerance policy as well, so you're really out on an island at this point with this absurd claim.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As one example, I assume you read this article, which highlights her anti-Muslim leanings (bold mine):
quote:
Van Duyne first made headlines for challenging Islam in February, when she wrote a Facebook post vowing to look into a "Shariah law court" that was said to have been set up by an Irving mosque.

"While I am working to better understand how this 'court' will function and whom will be subject to its decisions, please know that if it is determined that there are violations of basic rights occurring, I will not stand idle and will fight with every fiber of my being against this action," she wrote.

But the "Shariah law court" wasn't actually headquartered in Irving, which abuts Dallas, nor did it have anything to do with the Islamic Center of Irving. A note on the homepage of Dallas' Islamic Tribunal, which settle civil disputes between Muslims for a fee, aimed to disambiguate the two.

"Media speculation has led members of the local community to wonder if the Islamic Center of Irving is facilitating 'Shariah Courts' at the Mosque," the Islamic Tribunal's website read. "The management of the Islamic Center of Irving categorically declares that no such court operates on the center’s premises. No other mosque in the area operates such courts. However, the Islamic Tribunal that operates in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, independent of the mosques, to address a genuine need within our faith community for intra-community arbitration."

Then in March, Van Duyne threw her support behind a bill that would forbid Texas judges from using foreign law in their rulings. The bill's author, state Rep. Jeff Leach (R), had said the bill would solve the "problem" of the Islamic Tribunal in Dallas, according to the Dallas Morning News.

Van Duyne made the conservative media rounds to talk about the "American laws for American courts" effort, giving interviews to Dana Loesch and Glenn Beck. She spoke with Frank Gaffney, the founder of the anti-Muslim think tank Center for Security Policy, on his radio show. Conspiracy theory site WND ran a piece on Van Duyne under the headline "Mayor Takes Stand Against Muslim Shariah Courts."

She also capitalized on the newfound attention with a Facebook fundraising plea.

"Recent events have put me under attack and I need your help now! Stand with me to help me fight for conservative values and the Constitution," she wrote on March 25.

Amid criticism of her support for Leach's bill, Van Duyne turned to the editorial pages of The Dallas Morning News to further propagate what she saw as a non-controversial message.

"To me, this is about making sure people, especially women, understand our nation guarantees certain rights and liberties, and those should not be surrendered," she wrote in The Dallas Morning News. "It is baffling to comprehend the amount of controversy generated by my support as mayor of Irving for a state law that simply asks family law judges to uphold American fundamental constitutional rights when deciding a case that involves a conflicting foreign law."

By July, it was The Dallas Morning News' editorial board that chastised Van Duyne for traveling to speak to tea party activists instead of focusing on the needs of the community she represents.

"Van Duyne’s focus on the city’s growth earned her our recommendation in 2014. But we also urged her to build 'cooperation and unity,'" the editorial read. "She’s failed at that part of the job. An important part of Irving’s population is Muslim, and the city is home to a major mosque."

"Van Duyne could spend her time more productively by reaching out the local Muslim community instead of catering to tea party voters who feed on fear about Islam and relish shots at the press," the editorial continued.


While Van Duyne had spent the better part of the past eight months speaking out against Sharia law, she did not mention Mohamed's background in a Wednesday Facebook post reacting to his arrest.

"I do not fault the school or the police for looking into what they saw as a potential threat," she wrote. "They have procedures to run when a possible threat or criminal act is discovered. They follow these procedures in the sole interest of protecting our children and school personnel...I hope this incident does not serve as a deterrent against our police and school personnel from maintaining the safety and security of our schools."

She went on to write that she hoped the incident wouldn't discourage Mohamed or other students from pursuing their passion for engineering.

Feel free to argue that she's doing nothing more than upholding the principles of the Constitution, which we all should applaud. That would help me understand your mindset if you do.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al I read multiple accounts of what she said, not to mention what she actually said on her Facebook page. What you cited is, without question, one of the most one sided interpretations possible. I have zero confidence in your ability to provide reasonable analysis on this, and I'd recommend that people check this out for themselves before they continue to rely on what you're asserting.

In particular, I challenge anyone who purports to care about women's rights to read what she actually wrote and assert you believe Al's assessment is correct.

And you haven't remotely come up with a plausible mechanism to get the mayor's comments into the school teachers', school administration and local police actions (and the town structure makes it incredibly unlikely that the mayor has any influence or ability to influence any of those people). Pretty much you just threw crap at the wall, and hoped it stuck while attacking other people around you for your own crimes.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sources?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I read what Al read, and I consider his interpretation of the mayor's comments to be on the extremist side. The comments, by themselves, are reasonable enough, although one could argue that by treating the investigation as potentially serious the mayor was not giving enough benefit of doubt to the Muslim community. That being said, I think it would be seen as irresponsible if she didn't treat the matter seriously, so a few ruffled feathers are inevitable either way.

I don't see a case so far to depict the mayor as being anti-Muslim, and barely even anything to say for sure that she's an Islamophobe (the latter of which is more forgiveable).

This feels to me like the SJW's who feel at liberty to tell strangers they've never met "you're a racist whether you admit it or not." Guilty until proven...nah, just guilty. It seems the mayor here is guilty of being a bigot too...just because. It's ok these days to say things like this about strangers because it feels moral to call others out for being immoral. And if you're wrong - well then it was in the name of morality, so no harm no foul, and move on to the next story.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But more key, the mayor doesn't appear to be an anti-Sharia crusader at all. Texas, as a state, passed a law prohibiting the application of foreign law within its borders, and she just happened to be the mayor of the town where the first Sharia court tried to operate. Her comments were no dog whistle as some distractors were like to imply, they were no evidence of an anti-Islamic local movement.
Ah, so since she was playing to state sanctioned Islamophobia, she's got cover for playing her part in advancing the bigotry that drives such legislation? People looking for religious guidance when resolving disputes, are free to do so, just as long as they don't happen to be Muslims. Then, their religion magically becomes "foreign law" so that a state law passed to target them can be freely used to disrupt their freedom to choose such.

I do agree that it has nothing to do with what happened at the school. that association doesn't have any evidence to back it up.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1