Tags for this video have been changed from 'Alameda, five oh, wild west, guns' to 'Alameda, five oh, wild west, guns, Stanley Roberts, People Behaving Badly' - edited by eric3579

What "evidence" is this that you're speaking of? I've asked you to provide it before, but instead of providing any kind of empirical evidence you just link to newspaper articles of people behaving badly in the name of Islam (which I could just as easily do for Judiasm or Christianity).

As we've discussed extensively together before, you keep implying there is one "Islam" out there that is practiced uniformly by all adherents as opposed to the reality--multiple incredibly diverse groups of people who believe in one god that sent a prophet named Mohammad to write the Qua-ran in that god's name. They disagree a great deal, however, about how the Qua-ran is to be interpreted in practice, in particular about the parts that reference violence.

I have no problem with people pointing out that certain interpretations of Islam can be dangerous. I do have a problem with people painting a broad brush and equating Islam with danger.

Hi,

Here is a thread that gives some background on why Africa was chosen: http://videosift.com/poll/What-should-I-choose-as-a-channel

Basically the guidelines for this channel would be:

Africa is:

-Culture, History, Politics, Philosophy, Technology, & News of Africa and her Diaspora
-about Northern and Sub-saharan Africans of all races, and diaspora members
-Geological and Geographic Africa
-Travel within Africa, or within diaspora communities
-Individual stories that speak to the unique cultural experience of Africans & diaspora members

Africa is not:

-Insulting animations or images of black people
-People behaving badly towards black people
-Any old video with a black person in it that does not speak to larger issues of culture, history,
etc (e.g., some black dude just washing his car)
-racist or disproven theories about black people
-Black sports, movie, or music stars, unless they have made a very significant social/cultural impact
-Videos whose central theme is race or racism, and not Africa as defined above

Looks like one choice stands out. Please comment on my take on an *Africana channel:

Africana is:

-Culture, History, Politics, Philosophy, Technology, & News of Africa and her Diaspora
-about Northern and Sub-saharan Africans of all races, and diaspora members
-Geological and Geographic Africa
-Travel within Africa, or within diaspora communities
-Individual stories that speak to the unique cultural experience of Africans & diaspora members


Africana is not:

-Insulting animations or images of black people
-People behaving badly towards black people
-Any old video with a black person in it that does not speak to larger issues of culture, history,
etc (e.g., some black dude just washing his car)
-racist or disproven theories about black people
-Black sports, movie, or music stars, unless they have made a very significant social/cultural impact
-Videos whose central theme is race or racism, and not Africana as defined above

Can someone tell me what this was a part of? I'd like to see this "people behaving badly segment"

Not only is such speculation about his motives entirely ungrounded, but it is irrelevant. To claim that, simply because his motives could be questioned, his argument and conclusion must be false, is to commit a classic example of the ad hominem fallacy.

So, using this line of thought I can logically reject the various arguments that posit 'religion' and 'faith' are negative influences merely because there are some people who happen to have been part of a religion have had questionable motives. To do otherwise would be a classic example of an ad hominem logical fallacy, no?

All too often, Christian and Muslim missions and charities make participation in religious services mandatory if one is to receive the benefits those organizations distribute. Further, in outside the Americas and in the poorer areas of the Americas, the people who run Christian hospitals and charities all too frequently deny services to people who refuse to convert. Some of the workers are in fact proud to reveal this fact; they consider it their duty.

I have found no document to this date from a major religious charitable institution that states that mandatory conversion is required before assistance is distributed. I've personally assisted dozens of religious charity operations and disaster relief programs and not once have they dangled conversion as a carrot. People were given what they needed whether they were members or not. Yes, religions do routinely invite (voluntary) people to attend services. I see no problem with that.

I'm not saying there aren't a few bad apples in the barrel, but by and large what you're saying here just doesn't ring true. It sounds more like you are falling victim to the same generalized, rumor-based ad hominem bashing of 'religion' that in general demeans the atheist community. It's the same thing that bad theists do. Bad theists denigrate other belief systems in order to make thier own belief system seem more compelling, or to justify themselves. Shame on anyone that does such things. It isn't enough for them to take pleasure in their own beliefs. They feel like they have to undermine everyone else. It is very Rochefoucauldian.

This reinforces my general belief that it is not the 'religion' (theism, atheism, whatever) that produces jerky people. People will be jerks no matter what group they affiliate with. So I don't blame 'atheism' for producing jerks. I blame the jerks that are a part of the atheist movement. I don't blame 'religion' when people behave badly. I blame people for being poor practicioners of their own philosophy.