Most of the attacks were in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Nigeria, Libya, Somalia, and Turkey.

That's a lot. It's not surprising, and not altogether illogical, to connect a pressure cooker bomb by a Kyrgyzstani in Boston, or a truck attack by an Uzbek in Stockholm to the larger number of bombings elsewhere, especially if there are some commonalities.

If there were a similar number of attacks, killed, and injured in Europe and the United States and sponsored by reactionary Catholics, I think it would be quite likely that Catholics in general would become suspect, at least to a substantial degree. Further, it would be difficult for progressive Catholics to completely distinguish themselves from reactionaries, because the basic shared faith (sans politics) is the same.

No doubt the kind of classification and study of Islamic Terrorists has been done. Security services around the world have been characterizing terrorism and terrorists. There are patterns which people don't overlook. — Bitter Crank

That's a lot of war torn regions too - except for Turkey. But that country is quickly deteriorating into a fullblown dictatorship. They all have in common that whatever happens there has exactly zero effect on the perception of Islam-inspired violence as it ends up on page 12, if it's mentioned at all.

Of course it's understandable that people will paint others guilty by association (I'm looking at you Tom, it's a fallacy, look it up) but it doesn't work and backfires.

From the perception of the average North-African and Middle-Easterner the West is a belligerent affiliation of States. Westerners in general became suspect, at least to a substantial degree. Further, it would be difficult for progressive Westerners to completely distinguish themselves from hawks, because thebasic shared values (sans politics) are the same.

He advocates for special anti-islamic speech laws (essentially); what could possibly go wrong? Christian doctrine can reasonably advocate genocide and child slavery too, so shouldn't we censor the offending bits of both religious texts? — VagabondSpectre

Answering repression with state-sponsored repression to make people free. Great plan!

There were nothing like what we know of as law schools at the time of birth of our Great Republic. Harvard and William and Mary claim to have the oldest law schools (Litchfield does too), starting around the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century, but those claims seem to be based on something like the fact they had a person who was called a professor of some kind of law. — Ciceronianus the White

Amateurs. Leiden University had its first university course in 1575 and Leuven probably before that. Tssk. Tssk. No wonder US law is such a morass, it's still 200 years behind continental Europe. :P

To add to my lists of dislikes: authority based on hierarchy or tradition. The basis for authority, other than merit, is one of respect and that has to be earned by offering respect to others. Mullahs, imams, priest, cardinals, rabbis or any one else seeking divine dispensation to promote being a dick to others do not offer the appropriate respect to others and therefore lack all authority. All subject to my personal, but enlightened, judgment. Of course.

When I'm a dick I'm 100% responsible myself. No hiding behind a book or a pontificating patsy.

I can appreciate the explanation of the distinction and saw that in any case you understood my intended meaning. As long as understanding is reached we shouldn't care overly much how. (Y)

Without Christianity's institutionalization in Western society, Western civilization would never have gotten off of its feet. — Heister Eggcart

Aside from the impossibility to check this, there was A Roman and Greek empire before that, which did well without Christianity. In fact, it could be argued Christianity was the cancer that destroyed The Roman empire from within, causing its fall along with other issues (economics, overstretched, invasions).

There are lots of good reasons (and no reasons needed at all, of course) for you to dislike religion, but the rest of this statement isn't sound. Individuals might have private "spiritual experiences", whatever those might be, in isolation from any recognizable belief system. But they can not have "religious experiences" without the institutions of religion, which defines what spiritual, god, holy, prayer, and so forth are. — Bitter Crank

Semantics. You can replace religious experiences with spiritual if that reads more comfortable for you. I'm using the term as William James did in his variety of religious experiences.

You said it was unequivocal. It isn't. Hence it's only unequivocal to some. In this case you in order to reinforce a point some people don't share.

only for people with an agenda.

Obviously no Muslim could say there is no accurate representation of Islam. You're treating it like a cute little exhibit in a museum. It's a living worldview that's been through mangling and future shock. The father of your Muslim friends feels sadness when he looks at his daughters because he knows he's watching his heritage die. Loss and defeat. — Mongrel

I'm treating it as any other text : generic words superimposed over a world so complex it defies comprehensive understanding. The idea a book can be the answer or guide to every eventuality we may encounter only illustrates a lack of imagination.

Even if interpretation was complete in Muhammad and collectively with his Companions then everything after that is just more fallible humans. Assuming the veracity of the Qur'an, its true meaning was lost and shall remain lost.

Edit: I don't like any religion by the way and think the institutionalisation of religious experiences is the worst social construct invented so far. It is and should always have been a personal experience of the divine.

Neither do most Muslims. You just referenced the founder of the Ahmadiyya sect. Most Muslims do not consider the Ahmadis to be true Muslims, and it is illegal to be one in many Islamic countries. — Thorongil

I'm sure it is but that's neither here nor there. Even in the more mainstream interpretation of "to hit" for daraba there's a ton of discussion how, ranging from a metaphorical hit with a "scarf" to an actual hit. Then there's another ton on when that's supposed to happen and a third ton about in reply to what.

EDIT: Personally I think it's such a contentious verse for Muslims because like any other person their moral instincts already balk at the idea of hitting another person. Much as how Christianity struggles with violence the most contested and discussed passages in the Bible are those on violence.

Nobody is making a huge study :, yeah but how should I love my neighbours? I suspect the Muslim equivalents are hardly discussed either.

I appreciate your good intentions, but you aren't accurately representing Islam. — Mongrel

That's fine. I think that's a bit the point that there isn't an accurate representation to be had just like it isn't possible for the Bible.

My friend doesn't belong to a particular sect but like (many?) other progressive Muslims believes the historical, patriarchal interpretations controlled by male clergy are not necessarily correct and the Qur'an can be interpreted individually.

I'm not Muslim by the way but have been visiting an Arabic-Dutch family for over 20 years now. I know a bit from spending time with them. The father obviously doesn't agree with his daughters. :D

You need to get your information from a Muslim scholar. Otherwise you're dealing in horseshit. — Mongrel

That's not what Muslim friends tell me and seems a bit weird a claim from a non-Muslim to begin with. Can we not read and think for ourselves? Don't scholars make mistakes? Can't scholars disagree? The interpretation I favour is of edip yuksel who is a reformist and the Al Islam interpretation is based on the teachings of mirza ghulam ahmad. I'm sure jihadists don't think highly of either.

eh... They're groups not persons? Al Islam in this case, or am I missing something?

Seems kind of arrogant for you present your opinion as superior to that of a Muslim scholar. There is a mass of knowledge that's required to give a legit commentary on the Koran. And even that doesn't make one a religious leader. — Mongrel

I'm merely representing other existing interpretations and then I do have an opinion on which I think is better from a normative viewpoint (which is personal and subjective) and logical consistency. I don't see how arrogance comes into it, as I've merely compared two different scholarly interpretations and translations. See here for instance as well a collection of translations:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-Nisa,_34

@tom you can find the transliteration there as well but slightly different as aḍribūhunna. It's root is "daraba". Have fun doing some work yourself. Apart from whether there are 10 (just in the Qur'an) or 52 different meanings (in a dictionary), the point remains the interpretation I've shown exists and is a valid one disproving yours that Islam approves of beating wives. Even on the basis of the actual text this isn't necessarily supported unless you opt for a specific interpretation.

@Baden I do think it's important to discuss falsehoods otherwise they are left standing but agree it's tangential to the main point that there's no true Scotchman and religion is what people make of it and not the books.

Perhaps you could list those 52 meanings, and show exactly where the word "idribuhunna" appears in the famous wife-beating verse? — tom

You can read the Quran(4:34) in whatever language or translation you like. — tom

>:O

I just gave you a translation in English that already compares three distinct meanings.

Edit: in any case, you're missing the point as I've continually repeated: there's not one interpretation of Islam and I showed you another that is better in many ways. That was never to argue your argument doesn't exist and probably still a dominant one.

I think that Atheism and secularism is a bigger threat to the Christianity of Europe than all the Worlds Muslims. — ssu

Am I to interpret that as an argument for a Christian Europe in favour of a secular and atheist Europe?

"Islam is not the number one paradigm explaining Arab society, hypocrisy is."

Once accepted that Islam itself is broadly the problem, the political ramifications are somewhat chilling. in the words of Hirsi Ali :
I think that we are at war with Islam. And there’s no middle ground in wars. Islam can be defeated in many ways. For starters, you stop the spread of the ideology itself; at present, there are native Westerners converting to Islam, and they’re the most fanatical sometimes. There is infiltration of Islam in the schools and universities of the West. You stop that. You stop the symbol burning and the effigy burning, and you look them in the eye and flex your muscles and you say, “This is a warning. We won’t accept this anymore.” There comes a moment when you crush your enemy... In all forms [militarily], and if you don’t do that, then you have to live with the consequence of being crushed

It's interesting that someone so steeped in the harm that religion can cause so carelessly advocates revoking religious freedom to convert to Islam, which might as well be an apostasy law, and goes on to suggest that there should or could be military force used against Islam itself (how I know not). For Ayaan there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim, only lazy ones who don't obey the religion and the radicals which represent true Islam. I'm totally with her that religion in schools is a dumb thing, but it's not as if over-sensitive pro-Islamic curriculum elements have much to do with any violence. — VagabondSpectre

Actually she has mellowed out since then and sees a struggle between the jihadist (Medina Muslims) and Reformists to win the hearts and minds of the average, religious and peace loving Muslim (Mecca Muslims in her book Heretic). Which seems to be the sensible approach but still she intersperses such sensible things with misrepresentations of facts.

You can read the Quran(4:34) in whatever language or translation you like. — tom

Let's take the original then. "idribuhunna" has about 52 distinct meanings and you're sticking to the one meaning "beat women". Whereas one of the meanings is "to separate", which fits in much better with the subsequent verse:

And if you fear dissension between the two, send an arbitrator from his people and an arbitrator from her people. If they both desire reconciliation, Allah will cause it between them. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Acquainted [with all things].

and compare that to 2:231:

And when you divorce women and they have [nearly] fulfilled their term, either retain them according to acceptable terms or release them according to acceptable terms, and do not keep them, intending harm, to transgress [against them].

and 4:19:

O you who have believed, it is not lawful for you to inherit women by compulsion. And do not make difficulties for them in order to take [back] part of what you gave them unless they commit a clear immorality. And live with them in kindness. For if you dislike them - perhaps you dislike a thing and Allah makes therein much good.

and 3:134:

Who spend [in the cause of Allah ] during ease and hardship and who restrain anger and who pardon the people - and Allah loves the doers of good;

So we see there is a much more consistent interpretation possible as is pursued by Muslim feminists and Reformist interpretations of the Qur'an. There is an existing movement against the historically patriarchal interpretation of the Qur'an and then there is the simple reality that many Muslim men (at least in the Netherlands, for which I have the statistics at hand) don't hit their women.

There is therefore not one interpretation of Islam and your suggestions otherwise are misleading.

As an example of Reformist interpretation: http://www.justislam.co.uk/product.php?products_id=198

Perfectly acceptable to beat your wife in Islam. — tom

According to whom? You? How's your Arabic? Or, which translation are you using?

You are painting a caricature (again). There's exactly one verse in the Qur'an that could be read to say you should beat your wife but the word "idribuhunna" means about 10 different things and there are other interpretations more consistent with the rest of the text and solves the contradiction with at least four other verses being quite clear there should be no harm done to women.

So if you want Muslims to change and want to be effective should you either a) claim a radical reading of the text should be followed (as you seem to do) or b) point out to the alternative, more sensible (fair and just) meaning?

EDIT: Ephesians was/is "abused" by Christian men to defend beating wives. These interpretation debates on the true meaning of a Holy Book are not new and evolve over time as well.

and more of the same. What is wrong with you? You used to be a nice person not someone who apparently takes pleasure in mocking others and calling them names.

I know all about it, Benkei. And the word I used is not "thrashing", but "trashing", and it's all you are doing, once again. — jamalrob

That almost amounts to an argument. Thank you for pointing out a typo. How's your Dutch by the way? You've seen her on television all those years and heard what she said? Do you check what she says? You know all about it, yet seem to disagree with my post that sets Ayaan up as a habitual liar?

Presumably you're trying to cast aspersions on me because you actually don't know what you're talking about and this works as a diversion.

Whatever valid criticism we can have about Islamism and how we should cope with that in our countries is not helped by having charlatans paint caricatures of all Muslims which alienates the very people we need to engage for change. Whether that's Tom here or Ayaan in the US, they're not helping. The idea that the "mushy-mushy" leftism is to blame in light of a relatively successful multicultural society in the Netherlands (and mostly centre-right governments at that) is just too simplistic.

Nice to see though that holding her accountable is taboo here too...

Do you think it is fair that vociferous criticism of Islam and Islamism coming from people from a Muslim background is repeatedly trashed, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been trashed by (especially Dutch) Leftists and liberals? — jamalrob

Ayaan. Sigh. Ayaan has repeatedly misrepresented a lot of facts and from what I last heard continues to do so, to meet her agenda, which I suspect is just making money repeating the same shit all the time. She's rabidly anti-Muslim and will lie to make a point and as such needs to be double checked or, preferably, ignored.

And if a discussion where people say and show she's wrong is "thrashing" then everything in this site is a thrashing as happened in the Netherlands. It appears to me that merely because people who agree with what she says think that those disagreeing with her are being unfair and therefore the value-laden term "thrashing" is bandied about. Nicely ties in with her image as a victim I suppose and of course victims cannot be nasty.

It wasn't the left, by the way, that dropped her like a brick when her lies about her immigration story came to light but her own vvd-party minister Rita Verdonk, who was minister for foreign aliens and integration at the time and threatened to take her Dutch nationality.

But don't take my word for it, you can find all this on the Internet! :-*

This Imam has the answers: — tom

And he's like the Pope so every Muslim should think this. Oh wait...

I didn't even watch the video because it's obvious it will state whatever your narrow views can take in without getting an epileptic seizure.

Some nice examples but you fail to causally link this to Islam. Just as the USA claims to be the best county in the world, when we know it isn't, the Caliphate can claim true Islam, when we know it isn't. There isn't one interpretation, there isn't one Sharia. Abhorrent legally sanctified practices (water boarding, war crimes) do not make the US constitution a violent legal system. Abhorrent legally sanctified practices (marriage of minors, stoning of adulterous women) do not make Islam a violent religion.

You're basically cherry picking and don't seem to even take the time to verify facts. First of, a sura is a chapter, not a verse. There are 114 sura and 6,236 verses. If I search for your 109 violent suras, the first I come across is 2:191. If I read the one preceding that:

Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.

And then the "violent" verse:

And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

And then:

And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

What terrible violence to defend yourself and to expel them and even kill them, which in the eyes of a Muslim is not as bad as being a disbeliever. But if they cease attacking, you must be forgiving and merciful (because Allah is).

Then there's the numbers themselves even without weighing whether the violence is contextually justified. Even accepting there are 109 violent verses that adds up to less than 1.75% in the Quran. It adds up to a religion of violence because people have been repeating it often enough. Probably originated on Breitbart or something similar.

Also, I have no clue about the number of verses in the Bible but Deuteronomy calls for the wholesale slaughter of infidels as well. I suspect the Bible has about the same percentage of violent passages.

All the Abrahamic religions are equally shite in my opinion.

Beats quoting yourself verbatim or repeating yourself.

Along with everyone else,

1. Their children are required to go to public school and receive 12 years of training in the secular, liberal language, history, science, and civic institutions of the society.
2. Their young adults are liable for military service (unless physically unable)
3. Children, youth and adults may not impose their dietary restrictions on public kitchens
4. Children, youth, and adults may not engage in group religious rituals or wear specific religious clothing in public places (like schools, public institutions, public transit, etc.)
5. Standards accepted by the larger society in the area of dress or undress may not be challenged on a religious or specific basis. Don't like 95% of a body's skin exposed at beaches? Don't go there, then. Don't accept men and women sitting in the same whirlpool at the Y? Don't sit in the whirlpool, then.
6. Religious institutions (of all denominations) must fit into the surrounding community with respect to architectural styles, noise, outdoor events, and so on. Can the Holy Rollers open the windows and doors for their all night soul jam with highly amplified music and associated screaming? No. Can mosques broadcast the call to prayer 5 times a day hearable beyond 500 feet? No. Can a 4-spired big-domed box be built in an area with colonial era architecture? No.
7. Employees of private firms can not claim exemption from contact with unclean or holy meat. We eat pork and we kill sacred cows. Don't like it? Tough.
8. Apply anti-discrimination law (on the basis of gender) where applicable.
9. Expose everyone to non-stop commercial messaging about products, consumerism, pornography, etc. — Bitter Crank

Point 4, ok when it concerns religious rituals in a group. I don't agree where it concerns clothing in public places unless they are acting in an official capacity where the image of independence and secularity is important.
Point 7, I'm not sure what you're saying. Can you elaborate? What does it mean to "claim exemption"?

Personally I can do without 9 myself. I want more graffiti and other 'cave-man' art on the streets than commercials.

They are tools. Not participants.

Nor should they be allowed to be a means to convert and amplify individual economic power into political power. — Frederick KOH

Preaching to the choir in my case. I expounded a bit here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/61466#Post_61466

You will find nothing equivalent to the Sermon on the Mount in the Quran. — tom

http://al-quran.info/?x=y#6:151

Starting from there the Qu'ran states:

Avoid idolatry
Honor your parents
Reject infanticide
Live a pure life in every way
Refuse to take a life unless it is necessary (which calls into question some popular depictions)
Treat orphans justly, especially when money is involved
Say only what is truthful and fair
Keep your promises

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%205-7&version=NIV

The Sermon on the Mount (loose interpretation):

idolatry = Matthew 6:24
parents (metaphorical for God) = Matthew 5:45; 6:8-9; 7:11
infanticide = Matthew 6:21-22; 7:9-10
purity (especially sexual) = Matthew 5:27-32; 7:12
murder = Matthew 6:21-22; 38-39
justice (especially financial) = Matthew 5:23-24; 6:2-3; 12; 19-21
truthfulness = Matthew 5:36-37
reliability = Matthew 5:33-37

You shouldn't forget either that Jesus is considered an Islamic prophet and what he said, according to the Bible, does carry some weight with Muslims as hearsay. Muslims will sooner turn to Hadith as a verifiable source of what Jesus said or didn't say as part of the sermon on the mount (apparently such a Hadith exists) but I have no idea what it says. In general though, most Muslims will agree that the sermon does not conflict with the teachings of the Qu'ran and as such is likely to be the word of God as well.

It might be required, Tom, that you open yourself up to a reading of the Qu'ran without preconceptions.

George W. Bush is a Christian and started wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama escalated into Pakistan (and Yemen?). John F. Kennedy escalated in Vietnam with an official approval for military engagement by a (christian) Congress in 1964. Hitler supported christianity (at least in his speeches). Yeah... if it concerns people who say they are Christian then it seems pretty clear cut that after Stalin, who was an atheist madman, Christians are best at starting wars and killing people.

According to UNICEF 200,000,000 girls and women alive today have suffered FGM. — tom

In order of highest percentage of FGM from the UNICEF document, here's a couple of statistics that show that it isn't a practise informed by Islam but by culture with the notable exception of Indonesia. Indonesia imported the practise when it imported Islam.

Togo, 20% Muslim, 29% Christian, 51% indigenuous.
Kenya, 83% Christian, 11% Muslim
Ghana, 71% Christian, 17% Muslim
Tanzania, est. 30-40% both Christian and Muslim each
Burkina Faso, 60% Muslim, 29% Christian
Iraq, 95% Muslim
Benin, 43% Christian, 24% Muslim

Well, you get the picture. FMG is a cultural practise and doesn't really care about what religion you believe in. Local Muslim leaders will sometimes issue edicts that require Islam but in a lovely twist of fate in Niger 55 percent of Christian women and girls had experienced it, compared with two percent of their Muslim counterparts.

Also, FGM is banned in Egypt following the conclusion from important imams that it does not find any basis in the Qu'Ran (since 2007). That people continue to do it, is the same stupidity that has born again Christians blowing up abortion clinics with people in them even though the Pope is quite clear on the "thou shalt not kill" edict in the Bible.

Accidental? Maybe 'accident' isn't quite the right term. The state created the template of corporations and upon formal application and payment of fees, grants them a license to do business--as a stock-issuing corporation, for instance.
1d — Bitter Crank

I'm pretty sure I'm saying what I intend to say but might be a translation thing, so let my try to explain. It's the underlying relationships between people that gives the corporation its identity and structure, without them there would be no corporation. As such we should be concerned with the actual relations and not the abstraction. The political power of the corporation is vested in the corporate leadership, whereas it derives that power from the economic efforts of all the people in its structure. It's a predominantly undemocratic system in that the shareholders decide on the corporate leadership who in turn have a vested interest in maximising shareholder value, that is, short term profit, whereas the power is derived from an unheard mass of people.

Now, if we then look into the history of the corporation, it becomes even more interesting. The corporation originally was awarded a charter "by the people" to build or pursue something of social value and in return they were granted limited liability. There was no right to profit for the shareholders as the shareholders invested because of the secondary effects of what the corporation did. For instance, a bridge might reward people on both sides with increased commerce, the increased commerce could be the effective return and as such a reason for them to in vest in Bridge inc.

Well, I would totally disagree that corporations are accidental. They consist of humans after all, and are therefore the result of human endevour and human decisions. — Ralph Luther

See above.

Explain, why you cannot assume, that this is actually the case? Many of friends are entrepeneurs in IT and finance. And over the last couple of years our discussion base shifted, from idealists, who wanted to make the world a better place, to more practical points of interests.

Anything that has any relation to you alters you. Your perception and your deliberation are in constant change, even of you do not notice it. So why should the relation between corporation-employees and corporation-goverment be any different? — Ralph Luther

This seems quite obvious. The interests of shareholders (who elect corporate leadership) are not aligned with wage-income employees. The directors will pursue policies that benefit the bottom line (or they'll get sacked) and short-term profitability to ensure shareholder value. An employee, especially a dependent one, is not benefitted from short-term profitability but long term stability. Profits are important, and lower wages a good way of increasing them. Not for the benefit of the employee. The same for health and safety standards. And that's just internal examples.

If we look externally, then we see that profits are increased if corporate taxes are lowered and dividend taxes are lowered. But taxes are used to sustain a public infrastructure that corporations use as much, if not more, than citizens in their private time. That public infrastructure will therefore necessarily deteriorate or regular people will have to pay the difference in other taxes (VAT and income tax). Again, the employee is worse off.

The few times that interests do align it's usually for the wrong reason: e.g. not because it's the right thing to do but because it would increase profits.

So yes, socially it is unacceptable that corporations have acquired many rights that have translated into impressive political influence and we should be dismantling that. Precisely because the corporation is accidental, e.g. there's no reason the workers couldn't be working for a totally different company making totally different things, we shouldn't accord it with so much power where that power is by and large wielded for a very limited goal with basically no ethical dimension whatsoever. It is no surprise that politics often degenerates into "what is good for the economy?" instead of "what is good for society?" So a particular measure will increase wages, or increase GDP, or increase purchasing power parity for people or increase the employment rate but these are economic results of a decision that is far more politically intricate.

GDP growth as a result of military spending, is that what we want? Yes or no? Why?
A higher minimum wage to guarantee a minimum living standard? Or should we provide benefits to guarantee a minimum living standards? Or something else? Why?
PPP is an average, who should really benefit from the increase in purchasing power? The rich, the poor or the middle class? Everybody equally? Proportionally? Why?

These are all non-economic questions and are about what type of society people want to live in. Pursuing economic abstractions undermines the necessary political discourse needed. Economic theory enables us to weigh economic outcomes of our choices but, "whatever makes the most money" is not a sensible answer to an ethical question but precisely the one corporations will give you.

Corporations are accidental relational structures between people and whether people work in structure Apple or structure IBM is irrelevant. That corporations, as opposed to small business, has become so important is a result of granting them to many rights. The solution, if you have any historic sense of the development of the corporate body, is most definitely not providing them more access to the political process.

That a person is dependent on a corporation should not be confused with an alignment of interests. In general they are not.

Requiring public businesses to cater to all comers is something that arose out of necessity in the old South, where African Americans literally could not find places to lodge, to eat, or to repair their vehicles if they broke down along the way. While I recognize that improper discrimination is a wrong regardless of who it is committed against on a theoretical level, I see the situation between not being able to find lodging very different than a gay couple who insists that a resistant baker bake them a cake. The gay couple could easily find someone more receptive and get their cake (and from someone who's not going to half bake it). — Hanover

It sets a norm of you would allow the discrimination and as such could result in old-South discrimination against blacks but then against gays. So pretty trivial on the specific level but if you abstract away from it and consider the possibility that gays could be discriminated everywhere all the time, it's clear why you need to nip this in the butt as quickly as possible.

As to the law. It fails the universality (pace H. L. A. Hart) test in that it clearly singles out a specific group. It's bad law in that respect even if procedures were followed.

Scientifically speaking, the world is without color or smell, except for creatures who see color and smell odors. Color is a secondary property, not a primary one, qua Locke. — Marchesk

Fair enough. How does the fact that we've imported primary qualities into the definition of secondary qualities affect this distinction? E.g., wavelengths reflected by an object has in a sense been incorporated into this, which is why we are even capable of this discussion. If we had no way of knowing the pixels in dispute are really gray there would be no disagreement here.

Since it seems we're pretty much reiterating positions here, let me at least finish with a few questions that people might want to answer so that I can at least understand their position better.

1. Why must the perception of an object's colour and the [actual] object's colour be the same? Or, why can't I say the grey in that picture appears red to me? By insisting I cannot say this, are you saying I'm lying?
2. Why shouldn't I incorporate what we scientifically know about "red" into the definition of "red"?
3. Why shouldn't I apply a descriptive definition to "red" to my experience?
4. Is this just a matter of definition/semantics? If I define red as what I experience as red unless it turns out that a spectrometer tells me it isn't because it does not have an emphasis of wavelengths between x and y, then by definition the strawberries aren't red.
5. What is red? (e.g. what's your definition).

Writing down these questions I think we can conclude we all use red with the assumption we have a shared meaning of the word and it's starting to appear that we actually might not.

Yep. It seems that some people want to include our perception in the object that we're talking about, but under scrutiny that makes no sense, and that kind of talk is misleading. What makes sense is the distinction between perception and object, and between what it is to appear and to be. — Sapientia

Well, happy someone agrees but it certainly appears to be the minority position!

My problem with this approach is that the spectrometer doesn't see red. The spectrometer absorbs photons and spits out some data based upon this measurement. But the ruler doesn't feel length, even though it does basically the same thing at a much better accuracy and precision than our visual intuitions are able to pinpoint.

Defining 'red' as between this and that wavelength implicitly relies upon what we already call and see red. We just happened to draw a line somewhere based upon the colors we already perceive. We could just as easily say that the strawberries don't look red because they don't have this very particular wavelength of light which we happen to associate with red -- but that misses the point entirely.

When you look at the picture what you see is red. When you pull a pixel out what you see is grey-green. But since the picture is not the pixel it doesn't make much sense to say that the picture is really grey-green. — Moliere

Indeed the spectrometer doesn't see red, it measures wavelengths. I don't see this as a problem. What's the problem that this implicitly relies on what we call red? A standard meter didn't become a standard meter by taking that from somewhere outside ourselves either. We told a meter what it should be (a meridional definition) by convention but the 1870 meter bar was actually 0.02% shorter than that. Then we calculated back from wavelengths to the meridional meter and recently from the speed of light as to what a meter should be. Quite similarly, we told "red" what it should be in terms of wavelength as well (although less accurately). We don't have a problem trusting a ruler over our own sense of distance but somehow colour is an issue for some.

To get back to my example of the banana. The yellow of the banana does not change from one second to the next and I know this when I put it on the dark blue blanket. I will still experience the yellow as more vibrant and bright. Following your line of thinking the banana got more vibrant and bright yellow. But we know nothing about the banana changed.

Here grey is included as part of a picture that causes us to white balance it causing the grey to appear red. Nothing happened to the grey that it all of a sudden became red. It's the surrounding teal that causes us to perceive it as red.

Ok. I'm just confused as to why I should forgive a sinner and God doesn't.