frappant display of casuistry

It is indeed naive on your part to assume that this Italian fellow was making a comment without prejudice even though you witnessed yourself his presumptuous taunts towards my faith. Maybe `naivette` is not the right word to describe your flaunting allegience with such a frappant display of casuistry.

Cordially,
Ozan
----- Original Message -----
From: monz
To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 02 Kas�m 2005 �ar�amba 22:51
Subject: [metatuning] Re: another metatuning meltdown

Dear Ozan,

I am not at all naive.

Yes, i do believe that "Koran-waving pinheads" may be
bloodthirty barbarians, as are so many other people in
the world, whatever group they may place themselves into
as members.

By writing "we 'Koran-waving pinheads'", you are including
yourself in a group which by your argument seems not to
include you. Do you consider yourself to be a pinhead?

First of all, Dante's use of the word "pinhead" implies
that he is speaking about a particular subset of Bible-
and Koran-waving people. If you don't consider yourself
to be a pinhead, then neither he nor are were referring
to you or others like you, or groups to which you feel
you belong.

Secondly, Dante wrote "A Koran or bible waving pinhead
may actually want to kill you". Note that he used the word
"may", and not "will", which leaves open the possibility
that there may even be Bible- or Koran-waving pinheads
who do *not* want to kill.

The statement Dante made which i thought was really good
was actually the last part: "its not a matter of believing
stupid things or not, its a matter of wishing well or
wishing violence towards your fellow humans".

-monz

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
>
> We kill only those aggressors who attempt to take our lives
> in their hatred and persecute the poor believers. And we do
> not kill them anymore after they are subjugated by us, nor
> do we force upon them our belief. They are to pay the jizya
> (tribute) though, as a recompense for all the evils they and
> their progeny inflicted upon us.
>
> Monz, if you believed for a moment that we `Koran-waving
> pinheads` are bloodthirsty barbarians, you are more naive
> than I thought. Shame.
>
> Cordially,
> Ozan
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Ozan,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:

> It is indeed naive on your part to assume that this
> Italian fellow was making a comment without prejudice

This is the second reference i've seen you make to
"this Italian fellow", but i have no idea to whom you
are referring. Please clarify.

> even though you witnessed yourself his presumptuous
> taunts towards my faith. Maybe `naivette` is not the
> right word to describe your flaunting allegience
> with such a frappant display of casuistry.

1)
I have no idea what you mean by "frappant". It's not
in any English dictionary i've ever seen. Please clarify.

2)
"Casuistry" has two very different meanings:

1: argumentation that is specious or excessively subtle
and intended to be misleading, and

2: moral philosophy based on the application of
general ethical principles to resolve moral dilemmas.

I would not knowingly engage in casuistry by as defined
in #1. If you mean #2, then yes, i am guilty of a display
of casuistry, as i live my life by those principles.
But i still don't know what "frappant" means.

In any case, i never meant to cast any aspersions against
your faith. I was simply acknowledging that i liked what
Dante wrote about "a matter of wishing well or wishing
violence towards your fellow humans", a matter which means
a lot to me personally.

-monz

Monz,
----- Original Message -----
From: monz
To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 03 Kas�m 2005 Per�embe 8:51
Subject: [metatuning] Re: frappant display of casuistry

This is the second reference i've seen you make to
"this Italian fellow", but i have no idea to whom you
are referring. Please clarify.

They know who they are.

> even though you witnessed yourself his presumptuous
> taunts towards my faith. Maybe `naivette` is not the
> right word to describe your flaunting allegience
> with such a frappant display of casuistry.

1)
I have no idea what you mean by "frappant". It's not
in any English dictionary i've ever seen. Please clarify.

It's a French word which means `striking, affecting`.

2)
"Casuistry" has two very different meanings:

1: argumentation that is specious or excessively subtle
and intended to be misleading, and

2: moral philosophy based on the application of
general ethical principles to resolve moral dilemmas.

Care to guess which one I meant?

I would not knowingly engage in casuistry by as defined
in #1. If you mean #2, then yes, i am guilty of a display
of casuistry, as i live my life by those principles.
But i still don't know what "frappant" means.

I meant the `Italian`, not you. He is the one guilty of a frappant display of casuistry #1.

In any case, i never meant to cast any aspersions against
your faith. I was simply acknowledging that i liked what
Dante wrote about "a matter of wishing well or wishing
violence towards your fellow humans", a matter which means
a lot to me personally.

Even though it was apparent from the start that he shamelessly insinuated that a fundamentalist such as myself who `fetishizes` the Holy Quran and considers it a divine ordinance and a righteous guide cannot possibly wish well towards infidels, is inevitably `stuck in the dark ages`, remains a `denizen of the backwaters of this planet`, therefore `irreconcilably violent`, and thusly `morally inferior to agnostic disbelievers`? Do you know a better word than `naivette` which explains your predicament?

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>Even though it was apparent from the start that he shamelessly
>insinuated that a fundamentalist such as myself who `fetishizes`
>the Holy Quran and considers it a divine ordinance and a righteous
>guide cannot possibly wish well towards infidels, is inevitably
>`stuck in the dark ages`, remains a `denizen of the backwaters of
>this planet`, therefore `irreconcilably violent`, and thusly
>`morally inferior to agnostic disbelievers`?

So are you disagreeing with this characterization, or are you proud of it?

Do you instead really wish well towards "infidels", or do you still insist
they will burn in hell if they dont follow your particular fetish?

Here's a puzzler: Fundy Christians would say it is >you< who will burn in
hell if you dont accept Bonne Jesu as your personal savior. You say >they<
will burn in hell if they dont accept Islam. So are there two hells, one for
Christians, and one for youz guys? Or can you all share the same hell? Or
does the idea of fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Moslems
trapped together in the same room for all eternity prove that god has a
sense of humor after all?

One correction to your portrait above: "moral inferiority" has nothing to do
with belief or non belief- it has to do with attitude towards, and treatment
of, fellow humans . There are morally bankrupt secular humanists, and
saintly believers. How one chooses to worship god (or not) does not make one
moral or immoral. Wishing or holding that people who are different from you
will/should burn in hell makes one immoral. Blathering on about the "one
true religion" and being so mortally OFFENDED whenever anyone has the
temerity to disagree merely makes one tiresome.

What an immature cheek. Grow up and we'll talk when you are ready to listen to words of wisdom.

----- Original Message -----
From: Dante Rosati
To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 03 Kas�m 2005 Per�embe 11:03
Subject: RE: [metatuning] Re: frappant display of casuistry

>Even though it was apparent from the start that he shamelessly
>insinuated that a fundamentalist such as myself who `fetishizes`
>the Holy Quran and considers it a divine ordinance and a righteous
>guide cannot possibly wish well towards infidels, is inevitably
>`stuck in the dark ages`, remains a `denizen of the backwaters of
>this planet`, therefore `irreconcilably violent`, and thusly
>`morally inferior to agnostic disbelievers`?

So are you disagreeing with this characterization, or are you proud of it?

Do you instead really wish well towards "infidels", or do you still insist
they will burn in hell if they dont follow your particular fetish?

Here's a puzzler: Fundy Christians would say it is >you< who will burn in
hell if you dont accept Bonne Jesu as your personal savior. You say >they<
will burn in hell if they dont accept Islam. So are there two hells, one for
Christians, and one for youz guys? Or can you all share the same hell? Or
does the idea of fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Moslems
trapped together in the same room for all eternity prove that god has a
sense of humor after all?

One correction to your portrait above: "moral inferiority" has nothing to do
with belief or non belief- it has to do with attitude towards, and treatment
of, fellow humans . There are morally bankrupt secular humanists, and
saintly believers. How one chooses to worship god (or not) does not make one
moral or immoral. Wishing or holding that people who are different from you
will/should burn in hell makes one immoral. Blathering on about the "one
true religion" and being so mortally OFFENDED whenever anyone has the
temerity to disagree merely makes one tiresome.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

where the McLarens, Saults and Ozans of the world come for the spanking they
crave.

;-)

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dante Rosati" <dante@i...> wrote:

> where the McLarens, Saults and Ozans of the world come
> for the spanking they crave.
>
> ;-)

You are just *too* funny, Dante!

It sure has been an amusing week here on metatuning ...

... and so interesting that you just brought up mclaren,
because just this morning i was looking back thru my notes
on Schoenberg and i was reading the long ridiculous exchange
that mclaren and i had on the now-defunct crazy-music list.
I'm sure glad that i saved a copy of that ... someday i'll
archive it on the web somewhere.

-monz

On Thursday 03 November 2005 3:26 am, Dante Rosati wrote:
> where the McLarens, Saults and Ozans of the world come for the spanking
> they crave.
>
> ;-)

Yeah, really....