# What's my name?!



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Ali, the greatest, now gone to God.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

In the late 70's my father ran into him in NYC. He got on the same elevator at the hotel he was staying at. 

My father was not a huge sports fan but like many men of his generation, especially men of middle eastern descent, was a HUGE fan of Muhammad Ali. My father scrambled for a piece of paper or something on which to ask for his autograph. 

All he found was a $100 bill. Ali graciously signed it and said $100 bill went into the safe where I believe it still remains.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Perhaps the best and most accurate measure of Muhammad Ali's true greatness is in the grace with which he lived his final years on this Earth and not just on his performance in the boxing ring. May he rest in peace.


----------



## ouinon (Jun 28, 2015)

rest in power


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

Just watched the Ali vs Forman fight in its entirely. Great fight. Great fighter. Greater man. I have a hard time believing we will see someone like Ali in our lifetime and many to follow. May Ali rest in peace.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

I understand the elegies for Muhammad Ali, and greatly respect the posters here, but I believe so much of this "greatest" praise is unwarranted. It is not my goal to be controversial, but rather to add a bit of balance to the (sometimes) obsequious praise being lavished upon the man. To wit:

1) He was a great heavyweight boxer; probably top three of all time. It is highly debatable if he was in the top five or ten of all-time boxers, regardless of weight class.
2) Truly great people have no need to dub themselves "great."
3) His second victory over Sonny Liston was highly controversial - many believe Liston took a dive (and evidence does point to this).
4) Ali joined a notorious racist, hate-filled political/theological group with insane and dangerous teachings - the Nation of Islam. A quick reading of the monstrous beliefs and pronouncements of Elijah Muhammad (and predecessors) and Louis Farrakhan, along with the fact that Ali embraced these teachings, is enough to disqualify him as being the "greatest" of anything decent.
5) His draft dodging was designed to save his own butt; the notion that he had a larger purpose is revisionist. He also used the opportunity to slander white people.
6) His disgusting (and racist) treatment of Joe Frazier was disgraceful; it's why so many of us wanted Smokin' Joe to pound Ali senseless. Ali's mean spiritedness, dishonesty, and general sleaziness went far beyond boxing promotional tactics. The fact that he never properly apologized to Frazier (that NYT article was garbage, and Ali renounced it afterward anyway) supports the point that Ali was of poor character.
7) There have been so many people who have done so much more for mankind that it is laughable to call Ali the "greatest" in this context. In truth, much of what is attributed to him - and there really isn't a lot - seems to be either exaggeration or fabrication.
8) His marriage to a 17 year-old girl doesn't exactly epitomize "greatness" either.

I understand how death seems to melt away bitterness. However, let's not canonize someone who is so undeserving of the honor...


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Oh Tiger! Whilst I am not a strict adherent to the creed 'nil nisi bonum' at least let the poor fellow be buried before starting in. :icon_pale: 

1. Greatness is a judgement call which may invoke many variables. 
2. Showbiz.
3. Liston did take a dive - but Ali appeared to be furious at this.
4. No argument here except to say: different times. 
5. Debatable.
6. Showbiz. 
7. Does anyone say it in this context?
8. Not certain of your point here?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

No one is perfect. In all, he acquitted himsself well and was hugely entertaining. 

Were I to only mourn those whose politics aligned with mine would be to deny humanity.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Shaver said:


> Oh Tiger! Whilst I am not a strict adherent to the creed 'nil nisi bonum' at least let the poor fellow be buried before starting in. :icon_pale:
> 
> 1. Greatness is a judgement call which may invoke many variables.
> 2. Showbiz.
> ...


While perhaps we should refrain from speaking ill of the dead for an undetermined period, should we not also refrain from deification of the dead as well - especially when unwarranted? (Hope AAAC members will be charitable to me upon my demise, despite that "black shoe" thread on the Fashion Forum!) _The response:_

1) Agreed, but should it not be based on the tangible, not legerdemain?
2) OK, but why should everyone else parrot the nonsense, thus lending it (superficial) credence?
3) Ali should not have been furious, as it was his Nation of Islam thugs who may have been behind the scam. Besides, how do we know he was "furious"? Did he return the purse? Donate it to charity?
4) When did Ali ever renounce NOI doctrine? When did he renounce Elijah Muhammad? Certainly not in the Playboy interview posted above by ouinon! (Even in that interview, his racism is apparent.) Without renunciation, the past is the present...
5) He _did _slander white people, and Ali wasn't exactly a spokesman for peace, liberty, and non-interventionism. A keen political thinker he wasn't. He _was _a staunch supporter of Ali, of course!
6) His behavior went far beyond "showbiz"; the fact that he continued it long after it mattered proves it was an essential element of his character, not an affectation
7) My point was that Ali's "outside-the-ring greatness" is based on exaggeration and fabrication. Calling him a "great person" or the "greatest person" is risible, if not nausea-inducing, especially knowing that there are people who really have been incredibly selfless throughout their lives, and we don't even know their names!
8) Very clever, Shaver, but there are a ton of beautiful women who happen to be 21 or older. I'm sure the NOI could've scrounged up an adult sacrificial lamb to be his mare


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Why are you tripping over him, tiger? Did you live in the deep south in the 40s, 50s and 60s? You think the whities were so perfect that they never did atrocities to the blacks? What about those white "Christian's" who wouldn't let blacks into their churches? I've been around blacks who moved up north who wouldn't even look at me much more talk to me because they were so badly trounced upon by southern whites. Upstanding blacks who will die from the hurts from white people because it will take more than a life time for those hurts to heal. Doesn't the Bible say if you don't live the Christian life don't let people know least you push people away from Christianity? Maybe that is why he walked away. If you are one of those whities that did that do you want to stand before God on your judgement day and answer up to that? Either you don't know history here. Or, what? A races who hates blacks? You don't seem to know the Bible, either. For me! I'm glad what happened to so many blacks didn't happen to me. They have to be tough people.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Tiger said:


> While perhaps we should refrain from speaking ill of the dead for an undetermined period, should we not also refrain from deification of the dead as well - especially when unwarranted? (Hope AAAC members will be charitable to me upon my demise, despite that "black shoe" thread on the Fashion Forum!) _The response:_
> 
> 1) Agreed, but should it not be based on the tangible, not legerdemain?
> 2) OK, but why should everyone else parrot the nonsense, thus lending it (superficial) credence?
> ...


Might I presume that the deification to which you refer is the usual nonsense babbled out by the media and not a few menswear forum members raising an affectionate (and metaphorical) glass to a man who provided them with enormous joy over the course of their lives?

If it is the former then you have my full agreement, the media is for idiots who cannot think for themselves, though, and this style of behaviour is only to be expected.

If it is the latter (and I strongly suspect that it is not) then get a grip man! 

1) It is tangible to me and to many others. The combination of qualities (including but not limited to) prowess, personality and performance allow for Ali's ranking as my favourite boxer amongst stiff competition from the likes of Duran et al.
2) Because they agree. 
3) Ali's reaction when Liston hit the canvas seems adequate illustration of his fury.
4) Celebrities' hand wringing apologies for their errors are hideously boring. 
5) Ali's IQ as recorded by the American military supposedly revealed that he was intellectually sub-normal. Don't pick on the afflicted. 
6) The best showbiz reflects the essential element of one's character. 
7) You are welcome to advise us of their names and deeds. 
8) Clever? Again I am unable to grasp your meaning....

.
.
.
.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

WA said:


> Why are you tripping over him, tiger? Did you live in the deep south in the 40s, 50s and 60s? You think the whities were so perfect that they never did atrocities to the blacks? What about those white "Christian's" who wouldn't let blacks into their churches? I've been around blacks who moved up north who wouldn't even look at me much more talk to me because they were so badly trounced upon by southern whites. Upstanding blacks who will die from the hurts from white people because it will take more than a life time for those hurts to heal. Doesn't the Bible say if you don't live the Christian life don't let people know least you push people away from Christianity? Maybe that is why he walked away. If you are one of those whities that did that do you want to stand before God on your judgement day and answer up to that? Either you don't know history here. Or, what? A races who hates blacks? You don't seem to know the Bible, either. For me! I'm glad what happened to so many blacks didn't happen to me. They have to be tough people.


Perhaps you ate too many rum cookies in your kindergarten cafeteria?

Every presupposition you made about me is wrong - every one. In addition, your post has nothing to do with what I wrote. Despite the urge, I believe the best course of action is to refrain from responding further...


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

I must agree, in that I found the paeans on the BBC rather nauseating. Being old enough to remember him myself, I thought the revisionism rather extreme.
Unfortunate that his family's wrangling over his fortune is less than dignified. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/04/muhammad-alis-tangled-love-life-leaves-troubled-legacy/ Sorry to be using the Torygraph.....


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Chouan said:


> I must agree, in that I found the paeans on the BBC rather nauseating. Being old enough to remember him myself, I thought the revisionism rather extreme.
> Unfortunate that his family's wrangling over his fortune is less than dignified. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/04/muhammad-alis-tangled-love-life-leaves-troubled-legacy/ Sorry to be using the Torygraph.....


Indeed. My blood pressure rises dangerously when the reading out of tweets from minor celebrities becomes the content of the news.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^My friend, 
if I may be so bold as to borrow a few of your words, "my blood pressure rises dangerously" when one of our members with only good intentions initiates one of these memorial threads to commemorate someone's passing and other representatives from our supposedly "well mannered" membership proceed to disparage the memory of the deceased. Whether the criticisms are well deserved or not is not the issue, but rather a thread of this sort is not the place to piss on the deceased memory. If ever there was a time to show some good manners and reserve our criticisms of the deceased for sharing in a more appropriate venue, this is it. As my late sainted Mom used to tell me, "there are times when if you have nothing good to say, you should say nothing at all!" It's called grace gentlemen...and it's a significant component of being a true gentleman in the larger sense of the word! These threads are an excellent opportunity to show that aspect or your good character. That's it, I'm off my soap box.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^My friend,
> if I may be so bold as to borrow a few of your words, "my blood pressure rises dangerously" when one of our members with only good intentions initiates one of these memorial threads to commemorate someone's passing and other representatives from our supposedly "well mannered" membership proceed to disparage the memory of the deceased. Whether the criticisms are well deserved or not is not the issue, but rather a thread of this sort is not the place to piss on the deceased memory. If ever there was a time to show some good manners and reserve our criticisms of the deceased for sharing in a more appropriate venue, this is it. As my late sainted Mom used to tell me, "there are times when if you have nothing good to say, you should say nothing at all!" It's called grace gentlemen...and it's a significant component of being a true gentleman in the larger sense of the word! These threads are an excellent opportunity to show that aspect or your good character. That's it, I'm off my soap box.


Dear Eagle,
please note that I posted no criticism of the man himself, just the inappropriate way in which he has been eulogised, which was nearly hagiographic.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Why would it be inappropriate to attempt to add balance and perspective to an issue, especially when some have chosen to write obsequious and inaccurate remarks on the topic, or post other material that serves as mere self-glorification? Had posters simply offered condolences and various forms of "R.I.P." prose, not a word would've emanated from me.

The attempts at deification are unsightly; they called for a response. I think we all know that if some odious figure - let's say a Charles Manson, David Duke, Louis Farrakhan, or Martin Bormann - passed away, and members posted various hagiographical praises of that odious person, moderators would be quick to censor and punish; they wouldn't be asking for "grace" and implore us to be "well-mannered." They would halt the praise of those odious people immediately! 

You're a good man, Eagle, but I think you're not being fair here...


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Perhaps the dissenting opinion(s) should be offered in a separate thread, rather than in the memorial thread (this applies to any such memorial threads). In doing so, you could have even quoted the post from this present thread that you wished to address. It just strikes me as bad form to offer our criticisms in a thread initiated to honor the deceased's memory. In the spirit of complete candor, there was nothing you, or Chouan (I hold you both in high regard!), or others shared about the deceased that I disagreed with on a factual basis. I didn't agree with the man's politics; I was volunteer in the very same military (different service) in which the deceased refused to serve; compared to the deceased, pretty much every one of us is pretty modest and reserved in how we express ourselves. Yes the differences are legion, but I tried to find something positive or perhaps nice to remember of Ali on his passing. In closing I will simply restate, IMHO, it would have been better to incorporate the criticisms under a different thread. Also my thoughts were offered in my capacity as a member, not as a moderator. Hope this clarifies the point I was trying to make and eliminates any confusion as to my intent.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Perhaps the dissenting opinion(s) should be offered in a separate thread, rather than in the memorial thread (this applies to any such memorial threads). In doing so, you could have even quoted the post from this present thread that you wished to address. It just strikes me as bad form to offer our criticisms in a thread initiated to honor the deceased's memory. In the spirit of complete candor, there was nothing you, or Chouan (I hold you both in high regard!), or others shared about the deceased that I disagreed with on a factual basis. I didn't agree with the man's politics; I was volunteer in the very same military (different service) in which the deceased refused to serve; compared to the deceased, pretty much every one of us is pretty modest and reserved in how we express ourselves. Yes the differences are legion, but I tried to find something positive or perhaps nice to remember of Ali on his passing. In closing I will simply restate, IMHO, it would have been better to incorporate the criticisms under a different thread. Also my thoughts were offered in my capacity as a member, not as a moderator. Hope this clarifies the point I was trying to make and eliminates any confusion as to my intent.


Thank you for your thoughtful and explicative response, Eagle. It is appreciated!

From my perspective, I felt as if I wasn't reading so much as a tip of the cap to the deceased, but a full bow of obeisance that was disproportionate under the circumstances. To wit:

1) The Playboy excerpt where we are reminded of his allegiance to Elijah Muhammad, "his people" and himself
2) A poster stating that the deceased was a "Great fighter. Greater man. I have a hard time believing we will see someone like Ali in our lifetime and many to follow."
3) A reference to the deceased's "true greatness" and "grace"
4) The poster who was so infatuated/blinded by the deceased that he questioned my religion, if I've ever heard of the bible, if I know anything about history, essentially accused me of being racist, called me "one of those whities", and seems to think that my soul will be in jeopardy on judgment day. (Not sure if a moderator contacted him about this, and I certainly don't wish for that to happen - I can handle myself just fine - but it is surprising that my retorts re: the deceased were the ones that became controversial!)

I hold just about everyone in this thread in high regard (excepting, of course, the person who has me condemned to hell), and I think Shaver and I were on to something, in that we were fleshing out conflicting views of the person and the related facts - and subjectivities - involved. Chouan's brief commentary was welcome and elucidating as well. I thought we were within the parameters of propriety, and still do.

A thought experiment: Let's pretend a Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan just died, who happened to be an exceptional golfer. (Sorry, WA, I don't know any names or phone numbers!) Soon thereafter, posters were writing glowing things about the man on an AAAC Interchange thread. Imagine quoting from a magazine where the wizard talks of his concern for "his people", his social concerns and accomplishments, and cites his allegiance to some other lofty Grand Wizard from the 1920s. Next, a poster writes that the deceased klansman was a "Great golfer. Greater man. I have a hard time believing we will see someone like this person in our lifetime and many to follow." Someone else mentions the klansman's "true greatness" and "grace." Tiger then posts a brief point-by-point refutation of the klansman, as he is incredulous over the obsequious treatment accorded this man. Someone else then provides a response/explanation to Tiger's points, while another points out the disturbing hagiographical media coverage supporting the klansman, and away we go.

Is there any doubt that long before Tiger's post, moderators would've swooped in to stop the servile platitudes to the klansman? Would not the thread have been shut? Perhaps a poster would have been suspended. Would any moderators seek to (gently) chastise Tiger for taking issue with the fawning treatment of the klansman? Assuredly, no!

Ideally, the thread would've contained respectful remembrances of Ali as a boxer, with perhaps some interesting anecdotes (I think SG_67's initial post could be the prototype for what I'm describing). The over-the-top praise brought the thread into a different realm, and thus my response(s).

Thank you, everyone, for your patience with this protracted message!


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

Personally, I think you could have let the body cool before jumping on the man. You don't have to hold him in high regard as I do, but allow for some time before you speak ill of the man. Especially in a thread about him just passing away. Correct me if I'm wrong but I didn't see anyone else talking ill of a deceased individual in a thread about his/her recent passing. If you fill so inclined, start another thread about the facts and myths regarding Muhammed Ali.

I will say one thing about your comments that did bother me. A Klansmen and Ali are not one in the same. They are not interchangeable in this situation. Your "experiment" fails in every way.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

immanuelrx said:


> Personally, I think you could have let the body cool before jumping on the man. You don't have to hold him in high regard as I do, but allow for some time before you speak ill of the man. Especially in a thread about him just passing away. Correct me if I'm wrong but I didn't see anyone else talking ill of a deceased individual in a thread about his/her recent passing. If you fill so inclined, start another thread about the facts and myths regarding Muhammed Ali.
> 
> I will say one thing about your comments that did bother me. A Klansmen and Ali are not one in the same. They are not interchangeable in this situation. Your "experiment" fails in every way.


The thread was young; no doubt others would have joined me, especially after reading more about Ali and the Nation of Islam. In addition, when some posters begin politicizing the memorials, it opens the door to disparate opinions. If we don't want the latter, we should avoid doing the former.

The comparison between Ali and the hypothetical klansman did not need to be perfectly analogous - are any comparisons? - but it certainly was apropos. The Nation of Islam is a hate group, uses violence, and espouses warped ideologies - targeting white people (including Jews). They're not the Salvation Army! Either you are unaware of this, and such ignorance is forgivable, or you're an apologist for an odious organization, which is far harder to understand or rationalize.

The "experiment" was spot on; your inability to counter it actually serves to enhance its veracity...


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tiger said:


> The thread was young; no doubt others would have joined me, especially after reading more about Ali and the Nation of Islam. In addition, when some posters begin politicizing the memorials, it opens the door to disparate opinions. If we don't want the latter, we should avoid doing the former.
> 
> The comparison between Ali and the hypothetical klansman did not need to be perfectly analogous - are any comparisons? - but it certainly was apropos. The Nation of Islam is a hate group, uses violence, and espouses warped ideologies - targeting white people (including Jews). They're not the Salvation Army! Either you are unaware of this, and such ignorance is forgivable, or you're an apologist for an odious organization, which is far harder to understand or rationalize.
> 
> The "experiment" was spot on; your inability to counter it actually serves to enhance its veracity...


Quite.
It is curious, in many ways, the way that people's views appear to change on the same issue. We've had many posts in recent months absolutely condemning Islam, associating it with violence, intolerance and terrorism, yet in this thread we have an example of a home grown American version of Islam that is racist and violent, and which is, somehow, seen as not an issue because a sporting hero espoused it.
The supporters of an intolerant, racist and violent faith can't be seen as somehow good because of their sporting prowess or their looks or personality.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Quite.
> It is curious, in many ways, the way that people's views appear to change on the same issue. We've had many posts in recent months absolutely condemning Islam, associating it with violence, intolerance and terrorism, yet in this thread we have an example of a home grown American version of Islam that is racist and violent, and which is, somehow, seen as not an issue because a sporting hero espoused it.
> *The supporters of an intolerant, racist and violent faith can't be seen as somehow good because of their sporting prowess or their looks or personality*.


For my part, and perhaps to my shame, it would seem that they absolutely can. :cool2:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

immanuelrx said:


> Personally, I think you could have let the body cool before jumping on the man. You don't have to hold him in high regard as I do, but allow for some time before you speak ill of the man. Especially in a thread about him just passing away. Correct me if I'm wrong but I didn't see anyone else talking ill of a deceased individual in a thread about his/her recent passing. If you fill so inclined, start another thread about the facts and myths regarding Muhammed Ali.
> 
> I will say one thing about your comments that did bother me. A Klansmen and Ali are not one in the same. They are not interchangeable in this situation. Your "experiment" fails in every way.


I will disagree with just one comment in your post, quoted above. The negatively critical posts in this present thread are not unusual or unique to this thread. Looking back, such comments are offered in many of our past memorial threads. For a more recent example, take a look at Supreme Court Justice Scalia's memorial thread. Frankly, while a pretty common occurrence, these derogatory comments are, IMHO, in bad taste whenever they occur in a thread commemorating a person's passing. It's just not the time or the place for such comments!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Chouan said:


> Quite.
> It is curious, in many ways, the way that people's views appear to change on the same issue. We've had many posts in recent months absolutely condemning Islam, associating it with violence, intolerance and terrorism, yet in this thread we have an example of a home grown American version of Islam that is racist and violent, and which is, somehow, seen as not an issue because a sporting hero espoused it.
> The supporters of an intolerant, racist and violent faith can't be seen as somehow good because of their sporting prowess or their looks or personality.





Shaver said:


> For my part, and perhaps to my shame, it would seem that they absolutely can. :cool2:


With such comments, you gentlemen seem to be overlooking or ignoring the fact that in his later years Ali distanced himself from the influences to which you refer. Some would argue that Ali was in fact as much a victim of the nation Malcolm X and his nation of Islam cronies, as he was a supporter. They pretty much bled him close to bankruptcy financially, while using his face and youthfully inappropriate outbursts to support their cause. It has been said on at least two recent evening newscasts that the last six fights he fought (four of which he lost) were fought to provide the finances he and his family would need to live on for the rest of his life. While distancing himself from the foolish decisions of his youth, Ali continued to support various community and youth causes.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> With such comments, you gentlemen seem to be overlooking or ignoring the fact that in his later years Ali distanced himself from the influences to which you refer. Some would argue that Ali was in fact as much a victim of the nation Malcolm X and his nation of Islam cronies, as he was a supporter. They pretty much bled him close to bankruptcy financially, while using his face and youthfully inappropriate outbursts to support their cause. It has been said on at least two recent evening newscasts that the last six fights he fought (four of which he lost) were fought to provide the finances he and his family would need to live on for the rest of his life. While distancing himself from the foolish decisions of his youth, Ali continued to support various community and youth causes.


Dear Eagle, I was attempting to convey that I don't really care either way. The chap who distills my favourite Scotch could be a wholly vile man but as long as the Scotch is tasty then I can live with that. I prefer my heroes to be flawed, Ollie Reed is my patron saint.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

I have less than zero interest in pugilism, but Cassius Clay has said many things in interviews that show he was very astute. They were not politically correct views, so I can't really provide further discourse here.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

eagle2250 said:


> I will disagree with just one comment in your post, quoted above. The negatively critical posts in this present thread are not unusual or unique to this thread. Looking back, such comments are offered in many of our past memorial threads. For a more recent example, take a look at Supreme Court Justice Scalia's memorial thread. Frankly, while a pretty common occurrence, these derogatory comments are, IMHO, in bad taste whenever they occur in a thread commemorating a person's passing. It's just not the time or the place for such comments!


I must have only stuck around during the initial comments because I didn't recall such comments. That is disappointing just as this is disappointing.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I've always taken issue with criticism after one has passed away and unable to defend himself. 

I make an exception for true human monsters, but Ali is not someone who would warrant such a distinction.

I would say this; instead of judging him on his religious and political views, judge him by his actions. He surrounded himself with both white and black people. He made his home here. Later in life he helped those with Parkinson's irrespective of race or religion.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

I disagree with the stance that assuming room temperature means one stops being held accountable for what they have done, but I still find no fault with the late pugilist.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

I'm a bit confused here. I'd been given to understand, by some of the people posting here, that Muslims were dangerous people, belonging to faith which espoused a violent intolerance of non-Muslims, and who favoured terrorism, who wanted to destroy the American way of life, and, who Trump wants to keep out of the US. 
Yet now these same people seem to be arguing that there is, in fact, nothing wrong with a person being a Muslim. 
How can this paradox be resolved?


----------



## 215339 (Nov 20, 2012)

Tempest said:


> I disagree with the stance that assuming room temperature means one stops being held accountable for what they have done, but I still find no fault with the late pugilist.


Yeah this.

His passing is the hot topic of the week, so of course people will comment on what he did in his life. Death shouldn't be a deterrent for criticism.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> I'm a bit confused here. I'd been given to understand, by some of the people posting here, that Muslims were dangerous people, belonging to faith which espoused a violent intolerance of non-Muslims, and who favoured terrorism, who wanted to destroy the American way of life, and, who Trump wants to keep out of the US.
> Yet now these same people seem to be arguing that there is, in fact, nothing wrong with a person being a Muslim.
> How can this paradox be resolved?


It can be resolved by not resorting to straw man arguments.

See...that was easy, no?


----------



## ouinon (Jun 28, 2015)

I don't see a problem in critiquing the political views or actions of someone who has passed away. I used to find it in poor taste, but changed my mind after the recent passing of David Bowie. Amid the adoration for his musical creativity and culture-shifting gender presentation, a broader discussion was had about statutory rape and the power dynamics of men in the entertainment business & their young female fans. It sparked a conversation about whether it's inappropriate to mention the misdeeds of the dead. I came to the understanding that it's especially important to highlight the flaws of those we admire and realise that celebrities are still people & people are complex & complexity includes doing great things and terrible things in the same lifetime.


I think if Muhammad Ali's passing sparked in Tiger a desire to discuss the Nation of Islam or draft-dodging, that's perfectly fine. (Although -- Are either of those issues relevant anymore? Genuine question, I only ever hear about either one in the context of the '60s/'70s.) However, the negative posts here seem to have simply come from a place of disgust at seeing "disproportional obeisance" which I think is a little petty.

I also think that there is a much stronger reaction to people of colour being acknowledged / acknowledging themselves as "great". People are quick to try to cut them down with accusations of arrogance, and that seems to come from an ugly place as well.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> It can be resolved by not resorting to *straw man arguments*.
> 
> See...that was easy, no?


Like what?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Tiger said:


> Why would it be inappropriate to attempt to add balance and perspective to an issue, especially when some have chosen to write obsequious and inaccurate remarks on the topic, or post other material that serves as mere self-glorification? Had posters simply offered condolences and various forms of "R.I.P." prose, not a word would've emanated from me.
> 
> The attempts at deification are unsightly; they called for a response. I think we all know that if some odious figure - let's say a *Charles Manson*, David Duke, Louis Farrakhan, or Martin Bormann - passed away, and members posted various hagiographical praises of that odious person, moderators would be quick to censor and punish; they wouldn't be asking for "grace" and implore us to be "well-mannered." They would halt the praise of those odious people immediately!
> 
> You're a good man, Eagle, but I think you're not being fair here...


I shall leave you guessing as to whether or not I will eulogise ol' Charlie boy once he is obliged to *ahem* Cease to Exist.

He's 81 now so you probably won't have that long to wait.

Meanwhile, here's some jolly music from the Beach Boys:


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Like what?


re-read your post, the one referenced, and if you don't see it for yourself, it's no use for me to point it out.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> re-read your post, the one referenced, and if you don't see it for yourself, it's no use for me to point it out.


Indeed, but as there is no "straw man" your argument here is rather specious. Could it be that you are being deliberately obtuse? Or could it be that you _*really*_ don't understand what I was referring to? Surely not!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> I'm a bit confused here.* I'd been given to understand, by some of the people posting here, that Muslims were dangerous people, belonging to faith which espoused a violent intolerance of non-Muslims, and who favoured terrorism, who wanted to destroy the American way of life, and, who Trump wants to keep out of the US.
> Yet now these same people seem to be arguing that there is, in fact, nothing wrong with a person being a Muslim. *
> How can this paradox be resolved?





Chouan said:


> Indeed, but as there is no "straw man" your argument here is rather specious. Could it be that you are being deliberately obtuse? Or could it be that you _*really*_ don't understand what I was referring to? Surely not!


I'm not sure anyone here is suggesting that there is anything wrong with being a Muslim. To my knowledge, the only violence committed by Ali was in the ring.

So to answer your question, surely I do not understand what you are referring to


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Is somebody actually conflating Nation of Islam with the Islamic State? :laughing:


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

I've retired from this thread; I think I've clearly expressed why I posted my initial (and subsequent) remarks. 

It is unfortunate, however, that some cannot have a discussion/disagreement without resorting to absurd charges of racism. When Justice Scalia died, some decided to attack him personally because they did not agree with his judicial philosophy and politics (and he never claimed to be the greatest Supreme Court Justice of all-time nor did his supporters intimate this); one even called him "odious." Yet, none of the attackers were called anti-Italian or anti-white or anti-some other label.

Please save the invective for the people who have earned it...


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I'm not sure anyone here is suggesting that there is anything wrong with being a Muslim. To my knowledge, the only violence committed by Ali was in the ring.
> 
> So to answer your question, surely I do not understand what you are referring to


Not here, as you well know, but in another thread. I can quote you from it if you like?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tempest said:


> Is somebody actually conflating Nation of Islam with the Islamic State? :laughing:


No, they're conflating Nation of Islam with Islam. It's others who seem to think that all Muslims are the same, unless they happen to like an individual Muslim, of course.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> No, they're conflating Nation of Islam with Islam. It's others who seem to think that all Muslims are the same, unless they happen to like an individual Muslim, of course.


Again, a straw man argument.


----------



## Joseph Peter (Mar 26, 2012)

A terrific boxer - greatest? I think not - who managed to do extremely well even though his legal misadventures robbed him of his prime years. Seems to have been a fine man at least publicly despite his treatment of Joe Frazier. Can you imagine the gnashing of teeth if at a press conference some one referred to the opposition as a gorilla or Uncle Tom in our enlightened times?

The thing that continues to amaze is even after he fell victim to the throes of Parkinson's or dementia pugilista, his muscle memory never forgot how to move in the ring. There are several clips on the web of him goofing in the ring even after his symptoms were very obvious where it was almost impossible to discern he was afflicted. 

RIP Mr. Ali.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Full Definition of obeisance
1
:* a movement of the body made in token of respect or submission :* bow
2
:* acknowledgment of another's superiority or importance :* homage <makes obeisance to her mentors>

superiority- hard to beat him in boxing. 
importance- for a black man, he stood up against racism, as only a few could in those days, and be heard.
Islam- a bad choice. And, not all are violent. And Christian history shows violence. Doesn't mean all Christians approve of violence. 
Showmanship will always be showmanship. 
In the end, all he is, is a person, like everybody else, making good choices, okay choices and poor choices. 
He died famous, I'll die a nobody, who cares?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

It was only a joke. Nothing more.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Dear Eagle, I was attempting to convey that I don't really care either way. The chap who distills my favourite Scotch could be a wholly vile man but as long as the Scotch is tasty then I can live with that. I prefer my heroes to be flawed, Ollie Reed is my patron saint.


Indeed. I've been led to understand that Wagner was rather a sh1t in his private life, but that doesn't detract from his music.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Again, a straw man argument.


In what way?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

WA said:


> Chouan, the sooner you hand your brain over to science the better.


Meanwhile in Goldstadt University.......


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> In what way?


You're right. My apologies. Another cogent and well formed argument based on indisputable fact. Your conclusions are wholly accurate.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

WA said:


> importance- for a black man, he stood up against racism, as only a few could in those days, and be heard.


I quibble to say that it is less than accurate to portray him as against racism altogether, a nuance that one might infer from the wording. He certainly made statements that could be considered racist.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Tempest said:


> I quibble to say that it is less than accurate to portray him as against racism altogether, a nuance that one might infer from the wording. He certainly made statements that could be considered racist.


Sure, there was on both sides. But one side was getting creamed. When one side owns the government and enforces it- this has gone beyond words.


----------



## maltimad (Sep 30, 2011)

Regarding Mr. Ali's involvement with the Nation of Islam, not only did he distance himself from the NOI later in life (as has been rightly pointed out), he actually actively joined a different religion. There can be no clearer demonstration of his disagreement with the NOI.

The NOI compared to mainstream Sunni Islam (the faith Mr. Ali chose to follow later in life) is somewhat akin to the Westboro Baptist Church compared to the mainstream Baptist denominations, or the Fundamentalist LDS (Warren Jeffs' ilk) to the actual Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Incidentally, Malcolm X also abandoned (and by most accounts, regretted his involvement with) the NOI in favor of Sunni Islam later in life. To focus solely on either man's earlier religious affiliation while ignoring each one's eventual abadonment of that movement is to ignore each one's personal choice - which IMO is the greatest indication of how each man came to feel about the NOI.

Best wishes.


----------

