Westerners can't criticize the veil? Since when have we stopped citicizing veil? It seems to be farily common practice these days. Also, let's put this another notion to bed as well.

Namely, that Muslim immigrants who wear veils in the West should somehow feel "lucky" they can wear them in societies where veil wearing is not the cultural norm. No, they shouldn't. They are just participating in the same freedoms that everyone else has in those societies. They are part of those societies and shouldn't feel grateful for the same liberties that everybody else in those societies enjoy.

As far as the Jack Straw thing, as others have expressed here, the "complaint" against him seems silly.

"This has been the case for a long while. Given there are so many philosophers--people with incredibly large brains, used to assessing problems with the utmost vigour--I wonder if Richard Dawkins (a non-philosopher) is simplifying a debate that is far more complex. There is anecdotal evidence of Dawkins debating with religious philosophers and finding himself way out of his depth: I think there is a lot more to be said here."

Yes, because I said so.

I suspect this "anecdotal evidence" is something else that Dawkins does well, beside being, even if you disagree with him, refreshingly frank and straightforward. He also seem to have a talent for recognizing the futility of debating bad premises - hence his "it's doesn't deserve an answer" line. I imagine that trait served him well during his supposed debate with religious philosphers.

"Sure they can - and then they're called racists. Or were you unaware?"

No, racists are called racists. You, otoh, seem to like playing the marytr.

You fought them from the trenches of internet with you last dying type. Bravo! Anyway, I haven't defended the veil or the oppression of some Muslim women, but, you knew that already and are just headed down a well worn path.

Do you REALLY believe that you are fighting them? Seriously? And, that anybody who might disagree with you is selling out to them? Nah, that can't be the case. You can't possibly be that delusional. You're just posing, right?

"But in a larger sense I think it's positively ridiculous to judge the worth of all beliefs by this criterion."

That's not what the LW was doing. He/she was judging one particular belief by the criterion.

Damn, that was good. Ride on!

The funny thing about "political incorrectness" is the myriad of silly ways they define their politically correct bogeymen while trying to play the "cool impartial observer".

You're not a misogynist if you don't believe a woman's story nor or you a racist if you don't believe a "darker" person's story. Stop playing the "I'm a victim of political correctness card". Whaaaa....Boo hoo.

Btw, Islam is a minority religion? Go figure.

Also, the notion that the guys charged in the dubious Duke case are "working class" is really pushing the definition of "working class" into absurdity.

While it certainly appears that the Duke case against them is garbage, let's not jump too hard on the "innocent angels who are being victimized because of their race/class" bandwagon. While there's nothing else on the other two defendants so far, I believe Collin Finnerty was recently convicted of simple assualt in an anti-gay attack in DC.

What part of the "Duke case is garbage" doesn't your little mind grasp?

"Journalists have caused this rush to judgement. The stories about the Duke rapce case were uniformly slanted to suggest guilt by association - association of white, male, privelege, and stripper-hiring. Balance is a joke - journalists don't seek objectivity, they seek ad sales and lives are ruined."

The stories were uniformly slanted because the media relied on information/leaks from prosecutors and the police as the basis for their stories. Unfortunately, this routinely happens in "big" cases. Defendants of any stripe rarely get fair shake. It just usually doesn't happen to such well situated defendants.

"In his video, "Tough Guise," Jackson looks at the rash of school shootings in the late 90's and notices that the media coverage conspicuously leaves out the fact that it's not just kids shooting kids, but that it's BOYS shooting kids."

BOYS aren't kids? What are they - a separate species? That doesn't make any sense. In most of the cases the kids are minors. As such, the media tends to limit the information they release about them. Also, when they do release information, they often identify the perp by name and sometimes they will publish a photograph of the kid. So, instead of saying "15 year old Jason Jackson shot up his school today", they "should say a 15 year old BOY named Jason Jackson shot up his school today" just to satisfy the demands of gender politics?

The use of the "widely reported" tactic here, which was originally inspired as a way for the RW to repeat Drudge's gossip into the mainstream, is as shady as the "it's only a blog" dodge is weak.

Well said.

"Cosmetic companies are selling an illusion"

Yes, even Dove!