ian

Which country/region is this happening in? (and origin of those involved) There will possibly be different answers depending on this.

@GeoffreyBrent “There is actually quite a strong racial dimension to Islamophobia” - I'd qualify that differently, there can sometimes be a racial dimension to Islamophobia. To be opposed to Islam is a perfectly valid (as least in as much as being against any other idea), rational and defensible position. Anti-Muslim bigotry or animus, however, is not. Be careful not to conflate the two, nor to pretend they never overlap, but don't overegg that pudding.

“no other country has made such a thing work. Ever.” What exactly have they never made work? According to evidence given by a customs broker it already happens in the EU all the time. To quote: “Mr Campbell: That is where the problem emerges in Northern Ireland. Hans Maessen: It is a fictitious problem.” If you're going to make a claim in an answer, link to evidence to support it, please. data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/…

@RutherRendommeleigh Did I make a distinction between validity and soundness or not?

@DanRomik Whether there is actual discrimination of non-Jews by Jews doesn't invalidate the comparison in its logical form. Additionally, whether there is widespread discrimination or instances of discrimination happening elsewhere between the groups mentioned doesn't excuse a reversal of that discrimination against people that, in all likelihood and without any evidence against them, are innocent of such a charge anyway. Even if every other man were a misogynist it would still be wrong to treat this individual as one based on that. Put simply, two wrongs don't make a right.

@DanRomik “discriminate | dɪˈskrɪmɪneɪt | 2 make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age” - the dictionary definition, and it fits the description given by the OP, addressed specifically in the 4 point list. Key term unjust or prejudicial distinction.

@only_pro I live in Japan, not only have I never seen basmati here outside of an Indian curry house, even if it was easy enough to find I challenge you to pick it out from amongst the myriad bags of rice available which all have a) no English on them b) only highly stylised kanji on them. Shopping is a challenge for non-natives. (Tokyo may be different, but still)

I gave a downvote because I agree with @JesseSteele. The answer needs to give consideration to what the question actually asked. The dropping of the dismissive statements about the side not given would be good too.

My difficulty in taking it seriously is not the same as dismissing it out of hand based on the absurd opening. Indeed, we are done.

"Because of that statement, I reject your reasoning as a whole without any further argument" - as I did not write that, nor would I, we can be sure that you've misunderstood what I wrote as thoroughly as you've misunderstood Peterson's statement on common law.

@MichaelK If you made an absurd point about physics that indicated you are one of a) biased b) misinformed c) irrational or d) all of three, then I would hardly be surprised if your treatise on a more specific area of physics was poor. One simply highlights the other. Sorry for the damning assessment but really, I cannot believe that anyone who knows anything about common law would be confused by that statement.

Honestly, I found it difficult to take the rest of your answer seriously after splitting hairs over what he meant by English common law. The various English common law systems (America, Canada, Australia etc) still provide precedents to each other… I could go on but it's just absurd, and I found the rest of the answer poorly reasoned but perhaps that was down to the beginning. It's a downvote from me.

@ErikE Emptiness of inherent existence, dependent origination etc are just tools, not the truth, they're only true while they're observable as facts. If they work as part of the training, that's enough, I'm not going back to the start of the universe ;) Enjoy the read!

@ErikE If David Hume couldn't solve the problem of induction, I doubt I am. On a practical note, what is the alternative? It could stop. What would happen? No idea because I've absolutely nothing to base it on as all known experience has been with induction just working. If it changes, let me know. I don't know how you'll let me know as causation will be completely different! :D

I suggest Chapter 2 of the FWotMW and this section of the dependent origination article on Wikipedia that leads to a much longer article on Madhyamaka

If, however, we are just placing conceptual labels on things and change is a label given to the tranformation that comes about because things have no essence and therefore end, then we have no problem.

Is there also an essence of non-change that visits whenever change is given a holiday? Why doesn't change change? Does it have the essence of non-change? How does change have non-change as part of its nature and yet causes change in others?…

An essence (or svabhava) is essential to existence (hence essence). If it's there, then the thing exists, and is distinguishable by its essence, its nature. If change is an essence then if I take one moment in time and point at any object there is no change, and yet apparently change is the essence of that object. And yet an object that does not change has the essence of change?

@ErikE If you wish to examine this further, you can do no better than to get hold of a copy of the Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way by Nagarjuna. A good commentary will be essential.

@ErikE or else we're down to change being a cause. So what gave it this causal power? It will end up in infinite regress.

@ErikE Transformation is a description, not an essence. A chair is such (getting this back to where it has meaning) that it has chairness, some sort of essence. Change is something that occurs because it has no essence, not because it has an essence.

@ErikE look, I don't have time to quibble with someone that knows the limits of respect and that they've passed them. If you wish to continue, settle down, otherwise, I can go. No problem for me either way.

@ErikE just settle down.

@ErikE I think some of your language is inappropriate.

@ErikE ok, ok, settle down.

@ErikE your definition of essence is meaningless. It doesn't not differentiate one thing from another.

@ErikE It's certainly not sloppy to conclude something based on the available information. It would be sloppy to assume something that is not supported at all by evidence.

@ErikE "then you've created an essence" definitely not. Change is an observation over time, not a property of a thing. It's a relative description of different events.

@ErikE but sometimes buddhists use the word "causes" or "causes and conditions" in the more usual way, as a shorthand for different types of condition.

@ErikE technically, there are no causes, as a cause would mean a power to cause, which would mean an essence. There are no causes, only conditions.

@ErikE by "observed history" I mean either the last 10 minutes, or my life, or the history of humanity. Whichever is chosen, the only creation I've seen is actually that of transformation. If I were to speculate, then without being given a good reason why something would change in the past or future about transformation, then I must conclude that there is an infinite chain of conditions leading to conditions.

@ErikE that's my excuse too. Food is essential :) Don't apologise. Laters.

@ErikE it's my turn to take a pause.

@ErikE it is evident when I'm talking about observed history, which I was, not the distant past.

@ErikE infinite caused causes follows from what is already evident. Why should the process that is happening now be so different in the distant past? That's special pleading.

@ErikE If you give reality a reality-ness, you've just created God by another name. Which is a nice touch, you creating the creator :)

@ErikE "There has to be a first uncaused cause" I don't see why. More to the point, how could a uncaused cause cause anything? It would have to change to cause, but it can't change because it relies on nothing. It doesn't change.

@ErikE no problem.

@ErikE I wish to know your view ;-)

@ErikE you asked a lot of questions that I was good enough to answer. Please, do me the same courtesy

@ErikE so there is a fixed truth to all reality?

@ErikE Tell me, if a statement is true, that's the essence of the statement?

@ErikE The compulsion is to find a way to be happy and not suffer. Suffering is a view. I hold views. Even "I" is a view.

@ErikE it is less useful… given a set of definitions to measure it by.

@ErikE if you wish, you may hold that view. I doubt it will be very useful though :)

@ErikE if you think so, but you are making the same mistake. My comments are all relative. That doesn't deny their existence or their use, it just doesn't add anything in.

@ErikE you keep looking for a truth, I didn't give a truth, there is only method.

@ErikE true and false are views.

@ErikE the concept of validity relies on a mind to conceive of it. That it can be shown repeatedly is like saying 2+2 = 4 over and over. It doesn't stop 2 relying on 1 and zero, or a number system, or someone to think up a number system, or a way of discriminating objects to make them countable…

@ErikE neither does the logic of a particular statement.