Religious and/or ethnic issues on ships

Brumby said:

I expected more from you.
He quoted my post in reply. The following are the contents.
"I know someone will say something like this, however that is my fault for using the word "Muslim", instead I should have used "ethic Uighur or Kazakh or Hui" etc."
Please provide the evidence I said any of the stuff. If I did not say any of the stuff, isn't it by default a mischaracterisation?

Click to expand...

Yes, he said "I know someone will say something like this" -- that is to say, he knew someone would probably pick up on the fact that he was not being sufficiently specific in regards to what he meant by "Muslim" and "halal" and "religious practices, in his original posts... which is why he clarified it by saying "I should have used "eth[n]ic Uighur, or Kazakh or Hui" etc".
I'm not sure what the problem you have with that part of his post -- if anything he is directly acknowledging your criticism in post #11, because he is clarifying what he meant in posts #8 and #9.

I'm not sure if I'm completely misreading something here, but his clarification in response to your criticism seems completely reasonable.

EDIT: he even says "that is my fault for using the word "Muslim" -- he even acknowledges that his original usage of the term could lead to confusion! I'm not sure how you see that part of his post as accusing you of saying something which you did not say, or mischaracterizing what you said?

As you said, halal "not related to religion" is a statement that was made and that is categorically not true.

Click to expand...

Yes, and Taxiya clarified what he meant by saying "not related to religion" is not in the entire global context, but within the Chinese context.

Simply because the clarification is not directly connected to the issue.

Click to expand...

It absolutely is connected to the issue, because it clarifies the fact that his "halal not related to religion" statement is meant to be in context of Halal and Muslims within China and the Chinese military and not the entire world's muslim population.

Bltizo said:

Yes, he said "I know someone will say something like this" -- that is to say, he knew someone would probably pick up on the fact that he was not being sufficiently specific in regards to what he meant by "Muslim" and "halal" and "religious practices, in his original posts... which is why he clarified it by saying "I should have used "eth[n]ic Uighur, or Kazakh or Hui" etc".
I'm not sure what the problem you have with that part of his post -- if anything he is directly acknowledging your criticism in post #11, because he is clarifying what he meant in posts #8 and #9.

I'm not sure if I'm completely misreading something here, but his clarification in response to your criticism seems completely reasonable.

Click to expand...

The problem is when you quote another poster and then go on to say a bunch of things implying such things were said is a mischaracterisation of the discussions.

Bltizo said:

Yes, and Taxiya clarified what he meant by saying "not related to religion" is not in the entire global context, but within the Chinese context.

Click to expand...

The original statement was quite explicit in its meaning. "Halal' is not religiously related. There were no qualifiers , exclusion or exception to that statement and that was what I corrected.

Bltizo said:

It absolutely is connected to the issue, because it clarifies the fact that his "halal not related to religion" statement is meant to be in context of Halal and Muslims within China and the Chinese military and not the entire world's muslim population.

Click to expand...

The original statement on "halal" is a theological issue in Islam which I pointed out was incorrect. The subsequent clarification was about policy implementation of minority religious issue but that was not the subject of contention and hence irrelevant.

Words have meaning and sentence construct is important.

Brumby said:

The problem is when you quote another poster and then go on to say a bunch of things implying such things were said is a mischaracterisation of the discussions.

Click to expand...

I'm at a loss at how you could interpret his statement as trying to mischaracterize your criticism.
He even directly acknowledged that he was not being specific enough in his original statement, before clarifying his original meaning.

If that clarification is perceived as an attempt to mischaracterize your discussion, then I really just don't know anymore.

The original statement was quite explicit in its meaning. "Halal' is not religiously related. There were no qualifiers , exclusion or exception to that statement and that was what I corrected.

Click to expand...

The original statement was explicit, but insufficiently specific. He then went on to clarify what he had meant when you called him out on it.

The original statement on "halal" is a theological issue in Islam which I pointed out was incorrect. The subsequent clarification was about policy implementation of minority religious issue but that was not the subject of contention and hence irrelevant.

Words have meaning and sentence construct is important.

Click to expand...

Yes, what you pointed out is indeed incorrect, and he went onto clarify what his original post meant in the context of Chinese discourse and social and ethnic understanding. There's nothing incompatible between what you criticized and what his response was.

Equation said:

As for me I love bacon, lamb chops, yogurt, beef and chicken, and an occasional dog or cat (both only once).

Click to expand...

you're a nut! I don't care much for squirrel because it resembles my biology books multi-layered pictures of a skinned cat, eating a feral dog or cat here in the states is socially taboo, dogs and cat are regarded as family here in the states, I wouldn't eat horse, possum, bear, gator, or coon either. Starvation could change bear, gator, or coon to edible, but NOT my Dog or Cats. Oh, and I wouldn't tell any prospective chicks about eating dog or cat?? LOL

I have Christian friends from Bangladesh who refused to eat pork in order not to offend their Muslim friends, but his wife loved my daughters Pepper/Steak! they had been married 10 years with NO children, then became pregnant while here in the states. I bet they had one of the few 9 lb baby girls ever born in Dhaka?? LOL

Beautiful Mom and Baby, just tickled me to death!

Bltizo said:

I'm at a loss at how you could interpret his statement as trying to mischaracterize your criticism.
He even directly acknowledged that he was not being specific enough in his original statement, before clarifying his original meaning.

If that clarification is perceived as an attempt to mischaracterize your discussion, then I really just don't know anymore.

Click to expand...

This will be my last and fourth attempt at this. The poster quoted my post and immediately launched the following comments and so that naturally implies that it is a direct reply and not some ancillary comments. The contents were :
"I know someone will say something like this, however that is my fault for using the word "Muslim", instead I should have used "ethic Uighur or Kazakh or Hui" etc."
The question I have for you and you need to answer it as either "yes" or "no".
Did I fault the poster for using the word "Muslim"?
Did I suggest that the poster should have used those ethnic words instead?

If those words were not said by me, isn't that mischaracterisation? Please don't answer with another you don't understand why statements. I am being very specific and to the point.

Brumby said:

This will be my last and fourth attempt at this. The poster quoted my post and immediately launched the following comments and so that naturally implies that it is a direct reply and not some ancillary comments. The contents were :
"I know someone will say something like this, however that is my fault for using the word "Muslim", instead I should have used "ethic Uighur or Kazakh or Hui" etc."

The question I have for you and you need to answer it as either "yes" or "no".
Did I fault the poster for using the word "Muslim"?
Did I suggest that the poster should have used those ethnic words instead?

If those words were not said isn't that mischaracterisation? Please don't answer with another you don't understand why statements. I am being very specific and to the point.

Click to expand...

Did you fault the poster for using the word "Muslim" -- no you did not. He voluntarily said that it was his mistake for using that word and not being more specific.
Did you suggest the poster should have used those ethnic words instead -- no you did not. He offered those words as a means of clarifying his original post and providing context to his meaning.

From my standpoint, it seems like you are interpreting his attempt of acknowledging his mistake and his attempt to clarify his original meaning, as an attempt to attack you.

He of course said those statements at the beginning of his post, because it was in direct response to the valid criticisms you stated.

Bltizo said:

From my standpoint, it seems like you are interpreting his attempt of acknowledging his mistake and his attempt to clarify his original meaning, as an attempt to attack you.

He of course said those statements at the beginning of his post, because it was in direct response to the valid criticisms you stated.

Click to expand...

In communication there is a very important principle of "first mention". Essentially it sets the tone of what follows. The poster's preamble "I know someone will say something like this" gives broad meaning to interpretation. Those statements are simply unnecessary.

My initial correction was directed at the notion that "halal" is a religious issue to Muslims rather than not. It is actually not the poster's fault for that incorrect understanding as that knowledge came from a Muslim who doesn't understand the meaning of halal.

Brumby said:

In communication there is a very important principle of "first mention". Essentially it sets the tone of what follows. The poster's preamble "I know someone will say something like this" gives broad meaning to interpretation. Those statements are simply unnecessary.

My initial correction was directed at the notion that "halal" is a religious issue to Muslims rather than not. It is actually not the poster's fault for that incorrect understanding as that knowledge came from a Muslim who doesn't understand the meaning of halal.

Click to expand...

Look, I can appreciate how you might interpret his post as a bit snarky, but I also think you should be able to recognize that his response when taken in full account is also more likely to be a straightforward acknowledgement of your criticisms.

To be honest, when he said "I know someone will say something like this, however that is my fault for using the word "Muslim"" -- I interpreted that as him saying that he probably originally considered that someone will pick up on his incorrect casual use of the word "Muslim," but he decided he would just use the word "Muslim" anyway instead of being specific because he couldn't be bothered typing out the extra words for the specific ethnic groups or something.

I certainly know I've made the same mistake before, and when someone else has called me out on it I would often also say something along the lines of "I wondered if someone would pick up on this" -- it is essentially a form of acknowledgement of saying "yes, I know the actual truth of the matter, but my original writing wasn't specific enough, my bad"

How do other militaries handle diverse religious practices? Food on naval ships in particular? There are numerous countries with a religiously diverse population and longer uninterrupted naval traditions than China. The British? French? Spanish? Italian? US? Even the USSR or Russia?

Air Force Brat said:

you're a nut! I don't care much for squirrel because it resembles my biology books multi-layered pictures of a skinned cat, eating a feral dog or cat here in the states is socially taboo, dogs and cat are regarded as family here in the states, I wouldn't eat horse, possum, bear, gator, or coon either. Starvation could change bear, gator, or coon to edible, but NOT my Dog or Cats. Oh, and I wouldn't tell any prospective chicks about eating dog or cat?? LOL

I have Christian friends from Bangladesh who refused to eat pork in order not to offend their Muslim friends, but his wife loved my daughters Pepper/Steak! they had been married 10 years with NO children, then became pregnant while here in the states. I bet they had one of the few 9 lb baby girls ever born in Dhaka?? LOL

Beautiful Mom and Baby, just tickled me to death!

Click to expand...

What is regarded as taboo in one culture could mean differently in another. I'm a bit adventurist when it comes eating animals. Heck I would even like to travel to Japan or Norway just to get a chance to eat whale meat.