July 11

Not sure if this is a philosophy/logic question or a language one, but I'll ask here to start with. Is there a term for arguing that because something is unimportant, the person making the argument should get their way? For example, there are two people arguing over who should get the last box of candy, and one of them says: "It's only candy. Why do you care who gets it? Just let me have it." Similarly, a politician might say: "We propose that the law should say X, but the other party claims that it should say Y. However, there is no practical difference between the two, so they should stop being obstructive and support a law which says X." If this is the whole of the argument, it would seem to be poor logic — an issue may well be unimportant, but by itself, that doesn't constitute an argument for or against either of the options, does it? People are basically arguing "it doesn't matter, so I win", even though "it doesn't matter, so you win" seems to make just as much sense unless there are other factors involved. Is there a term to describe this sort of argument? -- 203.97.105.173 (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds a bit like a varient of

Ignoratio elenchi, which is mainly about drawing illogical conclusions from true, but irrelevent arguements. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Since it really doesn't matter, let's just assume it's a variant of ignoratio elenchi. -Arch dude (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I heard it was novelist Flannery O'Connor, or perhaps D.H. Lawrence, but cannot find it anywhere on the internet.

Please help, it's driving me crazy!

Thanks,

Jim Turner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.208.131.3 (talk) 07:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page says it may come from vaudeville. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it took until the 1900s for someone to be the first to say (or even write) that. It sounds more like a phrase that would have its roots as a popular saying and with a much longer history. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Variants that may be useful for searching include "If you're so smart why aren't you rich?" and "If you're so smart why ain't you rich?" I vaguely recall the latter as the last line of a Eudora Welty story, though I don't remember the title. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be "Petrified Man." Good story. Deor (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not the phrase itself, but the earliest example of this sentiment that I know is in

Thales responded by making a small fortune in olive oil. Algebraist 18:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

"If You So Smart, How Come You Ain't Rich?" is the title of a song by Louis Jordan. As Jordan was a major figure in American music, it was likely this that made the "If You So Smart, How Come You Ain't Rich?" line so well-known.

But I don't know who originated it. CBHA (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall us talking about this very song not too many months ago on here. It definitely is what popularized the phrase in US culture (there are zero newspaper references to it before the song came out, which is a decent barometer), but that of course is just a discussion about what popularized it, not originated (which is a dubious game to try and play anyway, as William Safire discussed in a recent column). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it the slogan of the

talk) 14:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Touché. CBHA (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to the building of the Beeston canal 1796, did a ford over the river Trent exist in a position below where the existing weir built with the canal is now. In August 2006 the river level was very low, so low in fact that a line of stones crossing the river appeared above the water level (I do have photographs of these stones). I have lived in Beeston for 70 years never before have i seen this "ford". can anyone help to determine if my assumption would be correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.222.111 (talk) 10:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably your local history society or municipal archives or librarian will have better access to sources than random people will be able to turn up by searching the Internet... AnonMoos (talk) 11:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Netherlands the most Islamophobic country in the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.62.86 (talk) 12:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not; however, it's the country where some political groups have currently gained electoral traction on an anti-Muslim-immigrant platform (partially based on the fact that in some cases Muslims rather conspicuously stand out in a small densely-populated country which used to be quite homogeneous in many respects). AnonMoos (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if the Netherlands as a nation actually discriminates against or persecutes Muslims as a matter of public policy, somehow I doubt it though, which is what I'd describe as an Islamophobic country. I'd say the country, the state, must be held seperate from the people who happen to live in it.

France has the no burqa in schools policy which is seen as officially anti-Muslim by many. (and the President's recent comment on banning them completely) The Netherlands had the nude sunbathers in the cultural video required viewing for immigrants that which some saw as officially anti-Muslim[1]. Rmhermen (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobic seems a bit hard to define, though I think Israel is likely to be a contender. AllanHainey (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much nonsense -- politicized Islamic ideology actually played a fairly small role in the Arab-Israeli conflict before the early 1980's, and over the last 60 years Muslims have had a lot more freedom to publicly worship in Israel than Jews have had freedom to publicly worship in Arab countries (there are a lot of mosques in Israel, but I would be surprised if the number of currently-functioning synagogues in all Arab-ruled countries other than Morocco was much beyond the single digits). AnonMoos (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can argue to great length what the criteria for measuring Islamophobia (or Antisemitism) would be, but the quantitive measuring of number of religious buildings is probably the least useful. The number of mosques in present-day Israel is primarily related to the fact that Palestine was a predominately Muslim country prior to Nakba. By similar argument, Bhutan would be far more antisemitic than Poland. If we are to measure Islamophobia (which probably will turn out to be an impossibility to find an objective set of criteria) then it ought to be more interesting to measure attitudes amongst the population towards Muslims (in terms of negative stereotypes, etc.). It's quite difficult to white-wash the fact that Islamophobic attitudes, and anti-Arab attitudes in general, are very prevalent in Israeli society today. --Soman (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is NOT the case that "By similar argument, Bhutan would be far more antisemitic than Poland"! My observation was that the number of functioning synagogues in Arab countries has undergone a dramatic and catastrophically precipitous decline over the course of the 20th century, while the number of functioning mosques in Israel has moderately increased since the early 1950's. I really doubt whether there has been a corresponding DECLINE in the number of synagogues in Bhutan, so Thimphu is off the hook. It's not perfect, of course, but the fact of a decline in the number of functioning houses of worship of a particular religion in a particular country can be a roughly-approximate yet practically-useful indicator of big problems with freedom of religion in cases where opinion surveys are not available, or would not be all that helpful...

In any case, fighting wars with enemies who happen to be majority-Muslim is not the same thing as Islamophobia, and if there has been a rise in purely-religious odium theologicum in the Arab-Israeli conflict, it is because many Muslims have made a deliberate conscious intentional choice to emphasize that aspect over the last 30 years or so. During the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's, most Arab leaders were careful to state that the Arab-Israeli conflict was not a "religious war" as such... AnonMoos (talk) 10:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a side-track, but anyway: according to the wiki article History of the Jews in Syria, Syria has a Jewish population of 200 and two running synagogues. If those estimates are in fact correct, thats a ratio of 1:100. An equal level of mosques in Israel, counting that Muslims are 16% of the Israeli population, would be 11857. Afghanistan under Taleban rule had 2 Jewish residents and one running synagogue. There are historical factors behind all of these developments. When we talk of Islamophobia in a modern context, it is not a measure of freedom of religious practice as such, but the way Muslims are perceived and stereotyped in society at large. --Soman (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice; two synagogues in Syria does nothing to disturb my skepticism that the number of functioning synagogues in all Arab-ruled countries other than Morocco is not much beyond the single digits. Meanwhile, the same article you linked to points out that "When partition was declared in 1947, Arab mobs in Aleppo devastated the 2,500-year-old Jewish community. Scores of Jews were killed and more than 200 homes, shops and synagogues were destroyed." Such ethnic cleansing is a little bit more serious than the typical attitudes and stereotypes revealed in opinion surveys. And I completely fail to see on what basis people are concluding that that Israel an alleged hotbed of virulent Islamophobia, other than their personal political dislikes. The

Kach Party has been banned and prohibited from competing in Israeli elections on a number of occasions, and has conspicuously failed to attract a mass following. Having a conflict of interest with people who are Muslims does not make you an Islamophobe, or else every war fought against a Christian-majority nation would be an incident of "anti-Christianism". Frankly, I would say that Israel is remarkably pluralistic, given the many decades of unremitting hostility and "throw the Jews into the sea" type rhetoric which it faced from all surrounding countries (and still faces from the "Jews are sons of dogs and pigs" preachers of Hezbollah and Hamas). -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

This discussion is going beyond the original query at RD, i'm replying at AnonMoos' talk page instead. --Soman (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If

the Queen of Denmark represents her country, then Denmark is likely more Islamophobic than the Netherlands. Surtsicna (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

This is not an honest question with a possible answer, but simply an attempt to provide opportunity of venting personal points-of-view. It is entirely inappropriate to the Reference desk.--Wetman (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

+1 What Wetman said. I don't usualy use discussion boards language here, but this question, although probably posted in good faith, deserves it.TomorrowTime (talk) 07:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course a country includes the people living in the country. If you were a Muslim living in the Netherlands, how much prejudice and discrimination would you face? Compare with other countries. That is what I mean by Islamophobic. So Wetman, this is a relevant question.

Here is a report on a 2006 survey of attitudes toward Muslims in 13 countries (as well as Muslims' attitudes towards the West). Of the countries surveyed, Spaniards were the most likely to agree that Muslims are "fanatical;" (non-Muslim) Nigerians were the most likely to agree that Muslims are "violent;" and Indians were most likely to agree that Muslims are "arrogant." Interestingly, Americans and Britons were less likely to hold negative views of Muslims than people in other countries did. Some of the countries mentioned in this discussion, such as the Netherlands and Denmark, were not included in the survey. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This question is based on the classic logical fallacy known as the

say no to drama 03:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Jayron32 -- the original questioner was presumably at least partially motivated by the objective factual datum of the rise of the

European Parliament election, 2009 last month. The question may have been intended to be provocative, but it was not a fact-free closed logical circle... AnonMoos (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

This is not plurium interrogationum. The questioner is clearly assuming that Holland is islamophobic, but this presupposition is not actually required to answer the question. If Holland is not in fact islamophobic, then the question can be answered with a simple 'no'. Algebraist 09:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me the question cannot be answered in any meaningful way without first answering this one.

What objective measures of "Islamophobia" are to be used?

Also, are some sort of statistics maintained that would allow comparing one country to another? Perhaps there is some agency that has such information. CBHA (talk) 13:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like an interesting site. Iblardi (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USA ? [2] Islamophobia#Islamophobic_Views —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.250.79 (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say there is not any islamaphobic countries; Countries in the modern world only seem interested in being politicaly correct right down to the foundations of society; however if you flip that on its head you do not see this happening in a Muslim dominated society Muslim is right no matter what and there is no give and take for other people living in that country especially if you are a minority. There for only people with a phobia against a religion would be islamic countries (if your not a muslim and you dont become one you should be killed i think the mantra is)214.13.64.7 (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How ironic, what 214 said is an example of Islamophobia. Like I said, how much prejudice and discrimination would a Dutch Muslim face compared to, say, a Singaporean Muslim? Prejudice and discrimination can range from negative stereotypes to hate speech to hate crimes to official discrimination. I believe there are ways to measure Islamophobia and compare the level of Islamophobia in different countries. For example, statistics on hate crimes, surveys about prejudice (I saw one above) and info on official discrimination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.64.28 (talk) 10:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that 214.13.64.7 was trying to point out (in his own rhetorically loose way) that the status of Christians in Pakistan (for example) is not an enviable one... AnonMoos (talk) 10:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt.--Radh (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about the discriminations of Muslim sects (Shia/Shiites) by one another? One could consider whether some Muslims are not discriminated the most in Muslim countries... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised no one nominated the Vatican City. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which constituency did Industry Minister Dilip Barua win? or was it that Sheikh Hasina appointed him to that portfolio? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.124 (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to New Age National, Dilip Barua ran for the Chittagong-1 constituency in 2008. According to LCG Bangladesh, Mohammad Ali Jinnah won that seat. So presumably, Barua can't have won a seat at the last election --Saalstin (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barua was selected from the 'technocrat quota'. --Soman (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is a 'technocrat quota'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.124 (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.7 (talk) [reply]

Which political allies of Awami League got cabinet portfolios from Sheikh Hasina? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.158 (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean in the current government, I believe this is a list of cabinet members (in Bengali). Algebraist 19:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that the demand for drinking water is inelastic and that for sugar is comparatively elastic, the argument put forward that it is so because there are many substitutes for sugar is faulty.If GUR, saccharine, or other substitutes are expected to replace sugar it is incorrect because no of them is cheaper than sugar.The reason why demand for sugar falls when prices go up too much is because poorer people forego its consumption.#REDIRECT [[Sharma_1932#REDIRECT Target page name]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharma1932 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you posting this here? Algebraist 19:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to ask this question, since it deals with the content of an article, is probably the article itself.. --

say no to drama 19:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Although

high fructose corn syrup are sometimes cheaper, at least in some parts of the world. Red Act (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]