Weasel...
-
This was one man who believed in fighting back :-D
Is that LA's dad?
-
farmer giles wrote:
Are you seriously frightened of your country becoming culturaly colonised by Islam?
Depends on what you mean by seriously frightened. I also don't think my country is the one in most danger. I think the danger is certainly real that there will be a loss of freedom of speech on religious matters because of the fear of violent reaction from Muslims. I think that has already happened to some extent. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
John Carson wrote:
I think the danger is certainly real that there will be a loss of freedom of speech on religious matters because of the fear of violent reaction from Muslims. I think that has already happened to some extent.
Yes, so the question is if we try to provoke them are we really going to safeguard our freedoms?
-
John Carson wrote:
I think that, over a generation or two, Muslims living in the West will tend to embrace Western liberal values provided they are treated reasonably, since freedom and democracy are intrinsically attractive.
But why should they? The notion that you have created a set of cultural principles that are just so intrinsically superior to all others tht all of humanity will just naturally wish to adopt them is ludicrous. That all you have to do is be nice to people and you win is silly. The lesson that the left is teaching the world is not the inherent superiority of liberalism, it is that liberalism leads inevitably to cultural, racial extinction. Guess what, most people are going to reject that kind of lunacy out of hand. They are going to adopt our principles for only so long as it takes for us to die off to the point that they can just sweep us into the dustbin of history along with all of our tolerance and goodwill.
John Carson wrote:
I don't see any real indication that the Republican right has any constructive ideas on this of either the soft-line or hard-line variety.
I don't disagree with that, however. "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself"
Stan Shannon wrote:
But why should they? The notion that you have created a set of cultural principles that are just so intrinsically superior to all others tht all of humanity will just naturally wish to adopt them is ludicrous.
I don't think it is ludicrous. I think it is something for which there is considerable empirical and psychological support. Note that it is based on an assumption that illiberal Muslims form a small percentage of the population at any given time, so they get to be born and grow up in a liberal society. The mere fact that a liberal society is something they grow up in is perhaps the most important influence. I doubt that your local football team is instrinsically superior to all others, but most people who are born and grow up in the area will support it. Further, the temptations of freedom are very hard to resist, especially for those who are most denied it in Muslim society, namely women. The behavioural norms characteristic of any strict religion can only be sustained by oppressive social pressure. Such pressure is hard to maintain for a group surrounded by a liberal society --- especially if that liberal society treats them well and thus reduces the viability of a siege mentality. John Carson <Edit> Incidentally, I read recently that one of the probable reasons for the absence of attacks on US soil since September 11 2001 has been the difficulty that Al Qaeda has had in recruiting local Muslims to its cause. Seems their loyalty to the good ole USA has trumped the appeal of their Muslim brothers. </Edit> "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine -- modified at 21:38 Thursday 2nd February, 2006
-
John Carson wrote:
I think the danger is certainly real that there will be a loss of freedom of speech on religious matters because of the fear of violent reaction from Muslims. I think that has already happened to some extent.
Yes, so the question is if we try to provoke them are we really going to safeguard our freedoms?
farmer giles wrote:
Yes, so the question is if we try to provoke them are we really going to safeguard our freedoms?
There are real and significant disagreements within society about many matters: religious, political, social, cultural. Accordingly, acting in a way that some will find provocative is a necessary implication of having freedom. If we don't act in a way that some will find provocative, we have already lost our freedom. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
Is that LA's dad?
farmer giles wrote:
Is that LA's dad?
Nah! Thats Paul Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Propaganda Minister. Was Chancellor for one day after Hitler's death.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
But why should they? The notion that you have created a set of cultural principles that are just so intrinsically superior to all others tht all of humanity will just naturally wish to adopt them is ludicrous.
I don't think it is ludicrous. I think it is something for which there is considerable empirical and psychological support. Note that it is based on an assumption that illiberal Muslims form a small percentage of the population at any given time, so they get to be born and grow up in a liberal society. The mere fact that a liberal society is something they grow up in is perhaps the most important influence. I doubt that your local football team is instrinsically superior to all others, but most people who are born and grow up in the area will support it. Further, the temptations of freedom are very hard to resist, especially for those who are most denied it in Muslim society, namely women. The behavioural norms characteristic of any strict religion can only be sustained by oppressive social pressure. Such pressure is hard to maintain for a group surrounded by a liberal society --- especially if that liberal society treats them well and thus reduces the viability of a siege mentality. John Carson <Edit> Incidentally, I read recently that one of the probable reasons for the absence of attacks on US soil since September 11 2001 has been the difficulty that Al Qaeda has had in recruiting local Muslims to its cause. Seems their loyalty to the good ole USA has trumped the appeal of their Muslim brothers. </Edit> "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine -- modified at 21:38 Thursday 2nd February, 2006
I wonder whether enlightened liberalism is a natural cultural endpoint for societies.
-
I wonder whether enlightened liberalism is a natural cultural endpoint for societies.
farmer giles wrote:
I wonder whether enlightened liberalism is a natural cultural endpoint for societies.
Societies with a well-educated population with economic and physical security, yes. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
farmer giles wrote:
Is that LA's dad?
Nah! Thats Paul Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Propaganda Minister. Was Chancellor for one day after Hitler's death.
I know who it is, I just thought it might be LA's dad! In was thinking that was him on the left. -- modified at 18:59 Thursday 2nd February, 2006
-
farmer giles wrote:
Yes, so the question is if we try to provoke them are we really going to safeguard our freedoms?
There are real and significant disagreements within society about many matters: religious, political, social, cultural. Accordingly, acting in a way that some will find provocative is a necessary implication of having freedom. If we don't act in a way that some will find provocative, we have already lost our freedom. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
mmm yes but deliberately provoking people as a political tactic isn't always that sensible.
-
SteveKing wrote:
if you know that these cartoons will offense many islamic people, then why print them
Because we are free to do so and that right should not be allowed to be subjugated or diluted by a vociferous minority that profess to find it offensive. I find many things in papers, books, etc highly offensiver either personally, racially or culturally and yet I defend the right of the perpetrator to say those things as I am strong enough in my beliefs to withstand attacks from any quarter and to either retort in kind or laugh. It is entirely disingenuous to throw the 'Fire' argument in: this is not the same thing: this creates an entirely artificial panic that is whipped up by the same mullahs that woul dhave ou killed as soon a slook at you. Have we become such cowards in the west that we'll let them walk over us and destroy us without a fight?
turning the other cheek just gets you slapped twice
legalAlien wrote:
Have we become such cowards in the west that we'll let them walk over us and destroy us without a fight?
I haven't heard that they're walking over us. And I also haven't heard that they're desroying us. You're mixing here terrorists with islamic people. Those are not the same. Or do you think all christians are the same as the pope? If that were true, I'd leave church immediately! Also, I didn't say that the editor of the danish paper should be fired. He was the one who printed those cartoons first. He couldn't know the impact they might have. And he was free to do so. But the editor of the french paper should really be fired. He knew the impact that would have, and he deliberately chose to do it. The freedom of speach doesn't include insulting religious feelings for no reason, just for the "fun" of it.
-
But the very fact that they have survived, surely, is de-facto evidence that they have merit even if we can't see it? (And I'm sure every good little muzzi boy will point out that could apply equally to islam). It show that the surrounding cultures allow them to do what they want. I can't see that happening in Londonistan or Brusselistan under Ayatollah Blair, can you?
fat_boy wrote:
But, how about 0% loans, isnt that a good thing?
Now I must admit that having just taken on a HUMUNGOUS FUCK-OFF mortgage that could entice me but I could never have a beard. Too itchy. Oh, and I would need to put up pictures of allah otherwise how will I know him when he turns up? No, in truth I could not be forced to worship anyone. Especially Darth Allah.
turning the other cheek just gets you slapped twice
Look at France. It has blocked a take over of Arcelor, Just as it did with Danone. They are terrified of losing their culture, their companies, their way of life etc. In fact, they have been this scared since 1620 when Richlieu (of 3 muskateers fame) set up the Academie Fracnaise, whose aim is to control (ie stop) the evoloution of the French language. An interesting effect of this is the abililty tyo read Voltaire, despite being written ion the late 17th c, it reads liike mo0dern french. Just think how much English has evolved since then, and how the richer it is for it. There is a LOT of merit in the Islamic cultures. Food, music, art, carpets, 0% loans, mosaic tiles, architecture, philosophy, medecine. There is a lot of merit in the west too, its commercial strength far surpasses that of the Islamic countries (part of NOT having 0% loans, ie, venture funding). Its music, cultures, traditions, etc. But, the two have been mixing for a looooooooooong time. Many Persian philosophers work has influenced westerm thinkers as much as Persian carpets have influenced Axminsters designs. And it will keep on mixing. And there will be no harm in this. Our culture has so many merits that the Islamic world will adopt OUR culture. In fact, this is so true of the US culture, IT is the one taking over the world (and pissing the French off). The ONLY problem from the East is the insane, 10% of Islam, the Shia, or Shiite (Suni Islam, Iraq to Morroco is no problem). These guys are loonies, Iran, to Pakistan, they are insane for their religion. These are the guys who beat themselves with chains till they draw blood, all for their religion. So dont be a scare monger, and dont fear Islam, recognise the true danger. Nunc est bibendum
-
And culture isn't transmitted along purely racial lines, or necessarily passed from the conqueror to the conqurered. Greeks are are fair example of this. The Greeks that fought at the battle of Thermopylae were not the same ethnic group as the Greeks who fought at Troy, they were later invaders who adopted and adapted the indigenous culture. Yet the Greeks of thermopolae revered the same heros and Gods. Likewise, Roman culture owed a lot to the Greeks, hell they borrowed their pantheon and adopted stoicism (a greek philosophy) as the Roman ideal. And of course, the habit the roman legions had of picking up foriegn cults from conquered peoples is the reason why europe became christian. Ryan
O fools, awake! The rites you sacred hold Are but a cheat contrived by men of old, Who lusted after wealth and gained their lust And died in baseness—and their law is dust. al-Ma'arri (973-1057)
-
legalAlien wrote:
The editor had the courage to stand up to the bull-boy tactics employed by the islamic morons and his cowardly owner fires him for it
The editor had the courage to stand up to the bull-boy tactics employed by morons and his cowardly owner fires him for it. Question is, are western countries ready to resist to economic pressures[^] to defend their ideals? Is money more important than everything? Here's the question.
Oh Terre de détresse Où nous devons sans cesse Piocher Piocher Fold with us! ¤ flickr
The economical preassure on Denmark will be felt - but the amount of export going to the middle east is not terrible big. I strongly doubt a boycot of danish goods in muslim countries will not bring the country to the grounds. What is interesting though, is that the danish supply of for instance butter (and other dairy products) in some of the boycutting countries is well over 60% of the consumption, with the largest competition covering about 10%. Wonder if they can keep up the boycut. Also - the WTO will have something to say about countries in which governments supports/recommend boycuts. --------------------------- 127.0.0.1 - Sweet 127.0.0.1
-
legalAlien wrote:
The editor had the courage to stand up to the bull-boy tactics employed by the islamic morons and his cowardly owner fires him for it
The editor had the courage to stand up to the bull-boy tactics employed by morons and his cowardly owner fires him for it. Question is, are western countries ready to resist to economic pressures[^] to defend their ideals? Is money more important than everything? Here's the question.
Oh Terre de détresse Où nous devons sans cesse Piocher Piocher Fold with us! ¤ flickr
A very good question indeed. Actually, the association of Danish Industries succeeded in stopping our public channel broadcasting a BBC documentary a few years ago. The documentary was about Saudi Arabia killing a princess judged by Shariah, and it would probably have hurt our dairy export much less than this affair does. "God doesn't play dice" - Albert Einstein "God not only plays dice, He sometimes throws the dices where they cannot be seen" - Niels Bohr
-
legalAlien wrote:
The editor had the courage to stand up to the bull-boy tactics employed by the islamic morons and his cowardly owner fires him for it.
I don't think so. He only reprinted the cartoons. And as an editor, he should have known the impact. I find it irresponsible: if you know that these cartoons will offense many islamic people, then why print them? It's not as if those cartoons are that important. You could describe them of course, you can inform your readers about them. But reprinting them in the full knowlegde that you will only anger people, that's stupid. It has nothing to do with freedom of speach. That's almost the same as shouting "FIRE" in a full theater and create a panic that way. So yes: that idiot should be fired.
SteveKing wrote:
It has nothing to do with freedom of speach. That's almost the same as shouting "FIRE" in a full theater and create a panic that way.
No, it's about journalists making a clear statement that they don't take any bullshit about what that can or cannot publish. I'm relieved that at least the European press can show coherence, it's actually pretty disgusting to hear some of our fellow EU government officials protect their monetary interests by throwing dirt at the Danish government, as if our prime minister could tell our press to do anything at all! "God doesn't play dice" - Albert Einstein "God not only plays dice, He sometimes throws the dices where they cannot be seen" - Niels Bohr
