[tpaine]

Kyrie:
Fundamentalism may oppose the immorality of today's world, and may appear to oppose its complexity, but how does the author expect to establish his claim that fundamentalism is an extreme reaction etc.? --- Perhaps you would be so kind...?
________________________________

I see these extreme reactions from self described 'conservative' fundamentalists virtually every day here at FR.
- They defend a states 'right' [Ca.] to prohibit 'assault weapons'.
--- They defend the federal WoDs.
They even defend the silly act of congress that we must call ourselves a nation 'under' God, and rant that we should make an amendment to that effect.
On & on, you can go through most any thread, and get such fundamentalist fervor.

Please, try to say it isn't so. - I wish it wasn't.
________________________________
What thing or things specifically do you believe that fundamentalists are "reacting" to? And what evidence can you present here that would support the claim that fundamentalism is a "reaction" to those things--or to anything else, for that matter? Kyrie

---

Read my post above. I made specific points on the over-reactions I see every day at FR.
You can't address them or understand them? Sorry bout that.

[Kyrie]

You can't address them or understand them? Sorry bout that.

Okay, I'll address your specifics if you'll address mine.

You say that the 'conservative' fundamentalists defense of a states 'right' [Ca.] to prohibit 'assault weapons'is an "extreme reaction."

This discussion can rapidly become verbose. To attempt to maintain clarity, I will use a bit of notation. If you have trouble with it, let me know and I will try again with words instead. So...

Let A stand for the proposition: States have a right to prohibit assault weapons.

I trust that you aren't expecting me to defend proposition A. My sympathies lie in the other direction, generally.

Let B stand for the event: Conservative fundamentalists make posts defending proposition A.

Nor will I defend event B. Instead, I am questioning your assertion...

You assert the following: B is an "extreme reaction" by the fundamentalists. Now if event B is in fact a reaction, it must be a reaction to some other event or phenomenon. I am asking you to specify the event or phenomenon to which B is a presumed reaction. The author of the piece you posted claimed that fundmentalists' actions--indeed, fundmentalism itself--was a reaction to the immorality and complexity of the world.

So let C stand for the event: The world is immoral and complex.

Are you then asserting that event B is a reaction to event C, as the author of this piece might claim? Or are you suggesting that B is a reaction to some other event D that you have not specified as yet?

Once you have specified the event to which you claim B is a reaction, I am also asking you to give evidence supporting your claim that event B is a reaction to it.

For example, perhaps you would claim that B is a reaction to the events of September 11. (That is the normal process of social "science": pick a likely looking suspect and convict him without a trial.) At least in this case you might have some circumstantial evidence, if posts along the lines of event B were more common after 9-11 than they were before it. But even with that, there were many events that happened on September 11, 2001 besides the NYC disaster. The hypothetical circumstantial evidence I suggested in the sentence before last--even if the numbers were statistically significant--would have no way of distinguishing between the many coincidental events of that date to choose the one that caused the reaction you claim...

Anyway, you claim that B is a reaction to some event. Specify the event. Give evidence why you think that B is a reaction to it. While you're at it, you might do the same for your other "specific points."

Perhaps you believe that it is enough to point your finger at people you label "conservative fundamentalists" and choose some behavior you don't approve of and call it an "extreme reaction." Well, if pointing fingers and calling names is enough, all of your favorite causes and leaders must have been thoroughly discredited years ago, since I'm sure that fingers have been pointed and names called. Why not rise above that level of discourse?