Ayaan Hirsi Ali - a must see
-
No, both are discriminiation.
Visit http://www.readytogiveup.com/[^] and do something special today.
Discrimination is based on attributes of individuals, rather than their actions. I actively discriminate against crazy people. I want nothing to do with them. :)
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Seen her before, and I'm undecided. She certainly has something to say, and she's driven by a lot of anger - which is on the plus side - but sometimes there's a lot of hypocritical very partial hate shining through.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighist -
Fred_Smith wrote:
I think it is right to distinguish between race-phobia and belief-phobia, if you will... one's race is a metter of fact, one's beleif a matter of choice (or it should be...); it is always wrong to dislike or fear someone because of their race, but it is not necessarily wrong to disloke of fear someone becaue of their beleifs.
I don't think that whether or not something is a matter of choice is fundamental. If some people were born green and all green people were homicidal, then fear of them would be rational. I think that the basic problem is the same with both religion and race: 1. hostility based on false belief (e.g., that they are all prone to violence), or 2. hostility based on a correct belief that is unreasonably intolerant of difference (e.g., they have different dress customs and this shouldn't be allowed or they have different skin colour and therefore should be treated badly). Now, I would agree that in practice some beliefs are just evil, whereas I don't believe there is any race (green or otherwise) that is just evil. Thus in practice there may be more justification for belief-phobia than for race-phobia. Then again, in practice belief-phobia and race-phobia tend to be confounded, with all people of a particular ethnic group presumed guilty of the worst aspects of a religion.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
I don't think that whether or not something is a matter of choice is fundamental. If some people were born green and all green people were homicidal, then fear of them would be rational. I think that the basic problem is the same with both religion and race: 1. hostility based on false belief (e.g., that they are all prone to violence), or 2. hostility based on a correct belief that is unreasonably intolerant of difference (e.g., they have different dress customs and this shouldn't be allowed or they have different skin colour and therefore should be treated badly). Now, I would agree that in practice some beliefs are just evil, whereas I don't believe there is any race (green or otherwise) that is just evil. Thus in practice there may be more justification for belief-phobia than for race-phobia. Then again, in practice belief-phobia and race-phobia tend to be confounded, with all people of a particular ethnic group presumed guilty of the worst aspects of a religion.
All of which establishes precisely how absurdly ludicrous this entire new leftist moral agenda is. When violantly attacked by one group, rather than defendeing ourselves from them, we must instead evaluate our own society's attitudes towards all possible variations of the society we are being attacked from. In other words, before we can defend ourselves against anyone or anything we must first attack our own society to make sure it is a shining beacon of leftest moral perfection. Its rediculous. People should be free to discriminate against anyone they please, anytime they please for what ever personal reasons they might have even if those reasons are not in your little leftist moral handbook.
Pardon Libby!
-
John Carson wrote:
I don't think that whether or not something is a matter of choice is fundamental. If some people were born green and all green people were homicidal, then fear of them would be rational. I think that the basic problem is the same with both religion and race: 1. hostility based on false belief (e.g., that they are all prone to violence), or 2. hostility based on a correct belief that is unreasonably intolerant of difference (e.g., they have different dress customs and this shouldn't be allowed or they have different skin colour and therefore should be treated badly). Now, I would agree that in practice some beliefs are just evil, whereas I don't believe there is any race (green or otherwise) that is just evil. Thus in practice there may be more justification for belief-phobia than for race-phobia. Then again, in practice belief-phobia and race-phobia tend to be confounded, with all people of a particular ethnic group presumed guilty of the worst aspects of a religion.
All of which establishes precisely how absurdly ludicrous this entire new leftist moral agenda is. When violantly attacked by one group, rather than defendeing ourselves from them, we must instead evaluate our own society's attitudes towards all possible variations of the society we are being attacked from. In other words, before we can defend ourselves against anyone or anything we must first attack our own society to make sure it is a shining beacon of leftest moral perfection. Its rediculous. People should be free to discriminate against anyone they please, anytime they please for what ever personal reasons they might have even if those reasons are not in your little leftist moral handbook.
Pardon Libby!
Stan Shannon wrote:
When violantly attacked by one group, rather than defendeing ourselves from them, we must instead evaluate our own society's attitudes towards all possible variations of the society we are being attacked from.
Some of us can walk and chew gum at the same time. Moreover, the effectiveness of our response depends on having an accurate understanding of what we are dealing with. Stupidity and ignorance is never a good idea, even when practiced by Republicans.
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
When violantly attacked by one group, rather than defendeing ourselves from them, we must instead evaluate our own society's attitudes towards all possible variations of the society we are being attacked from.
Some of us can walk and chew gum at the same time. Moreover, the effectiveness of our response depends on having an accurate understanding of what we are dealing with. Stupidity and ignorance is never a good idea, even when practiced by Republicans.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Some of us can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Then why don't you give it a try?
John Carson wrote:
Moreover, the effectiveness of our response depends on having an accurate understanding of what we are dealing with. Stupidity and ignorance is never a good idea, even when practiced by Republicans.
There is absolutely no harm in making the blanket statement "Islam sucks", aside from offending the sensibilities of our own home bred leftist extremists. If Islam doesn't, in fact, suck, than saying that they do should be a very simple challange for them to disprove in a calm, peaceful and rational manner. If they are incapable of doing that, then guess what? They do suck. The challange should not be on me to establish how much I am willing to kow tow to your gum chewing, it should be on them.
Pardon Libby!
-
Seen her before, and I'm undecided. She certainly has something to say, and she's driven by a lot of anger - which is on the plus side - but sometimes there's a lot of hypocritical very partial hate shining through.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighistShe has suffered quite a bit at the hands of those who share the faith she left. Including the mutilation of her genitalia as a child to stop her experiencing sexual pleasure and the murder of her friend. Her anger is quite justified. For a more measured (and scholarly ) apostate, try Ibn Warraq. Oh, and she was driven out the Netherlands partially by those who apparently share her progressive political beliefs, as she made them uncomfortable by applying them to her own culture of origin.
-
John Carson wrote:
Some of us can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Then why don't you give it a try?
John Carson wrote:
Moreover, the effectiveness of our response depends on having an accurate understanding of what we are dealing with. Stupidity and ignorance is never a good idea, even when practiced by Republicans.
There is absolutely no harm in making the blanket statement "Islam sucks", aside from offending the sensibilities of our own home bred leftist extremists. If Islam doesn't, in fact, suck, than saying that they do should be a very simple challange for them to disprove in a calm, peaceful and rational manner. If they are incapable of doing that, then guess what? They do suck. The challange should not be on me to establish how much I am willing to kow tow to your gum chewing, it should be on them.
Pardon Libby!
I'm not having a real opinion about this whole matter, nor am I interested in participating in discussing the current topic. However, I think you are wrong regardless of the topic. It is should be up to the accuser to prove the point. Just like in a working legal system. (I do however, as an atheist, think that islam sucks, so I am not in disagreement with your conclusion, only your means of reaching it)
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
John Carson wrote:
Some of us can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Then why don't you give it a try?
John Carson wrote:
Moreover, the effectiveness of our response depends on having an accurate understanding of what we are dealing with. Stupidity and ignorance is never a good idea, even when practiced by Republicans.
There is absolutely no harm in making the blanket statement "Islam sucks", aside from offending the sensibilities of our own home bred leftist extremists. If Islam doesn't, in fact, suck, than saying that they do should be a very simple challange for them to disprove in a calm, peaceful and rational manner. If they are incapable of doing that, then guess what? They do suck. The challange should not be on me to establish how much I am willing to kow tow to your gum chewing, it should be on them.
Pardon Libby!
Stan Shannon wrote:
There is absolutely no harm in making the blanket statement "Islam sucks", aside from offending the sensibilities of our own home bred leftist extremists. If Islam doesn't, in fact, suck, than saying that they do should be a very simple challange for them to disprove in a calm, peaceful and rational manner. If they are incapable of doing that, then guess what? They do suck.
"Islam sucks" is actually a pretty mild comment. It would doubtless offend Islamic fanatics (if they understood the idiom), but I doubt that your typical "leftist extremist" would be too bothered by it. Personally, I do believe that Islam sucks and, moreover, that it sucks more than some alternative religions. Talk of the accusation being a "very simple challenge for them to disprove" is, however, a visit to fairyland. Nothing in religious debates is simple to prove or disprove to the satisfaction of all participating. Plainly, Islam means different things to different people, making agreement pretty well impossible. The point, however, is not primarily about what is said in casual speech. It is about what we understand about the character of others and how we seek to relate to them. Religious conflict has been proceeding for millenia. Those who hope for a decisive victory for their side in their or their children's lifetimes are deluded --- and there are millions of people who are deluded, on both sides of the debate. Demonising the opposition without qualification satisfies an emotional need, but doesn't make for rational policy. Rational policy says, for example, that if local Muslim clerics are advocating violence, then we throw them in jail. If local women are being mistreated, then we protect them. On the other hand, if Muslims are behaving in a reasonable manner, then we accept and embrace them, and make reasonable accommodations to their needs. We don't gain anything by treating all Muslims as the same and uniting them against us. We should defend our rights to free speech, but not see virtue in making that speech maximally crude and unsophisticated.
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
There is absolutely no harm in making the blanket statement "Islam sucks", aside from offending the sensibilities of our own home bred leftist extremists. If Islam doesn't, in fact, suck, than saying that they do should be a very simple challange for them to disprove in a calm, peaceful and rational manner. If they are incapable of doing that, then guess what? They do suck.
"Islam sucks" is actually a pretty mild comment. It would doubtless offend Islamic fanatics (if they understood the idiom), but I doubt that your typical "leftist extremist" would be too bothered by it. Personally, I do believe that Islam sucks and, moreover, that it sucks more than some alternative religions. Talk of the accusation being a "very simple challenge for them to disprove" is, however, a visit to fairyland. Nothing in religious debates is simple to prove or disprove to the satisfaction of all participating. Plainly, Islam means different things to different people, making agreement pretty well impossible. The point, however, is not primarily about what is said in casual speech. It is about what we understand about the character of others and how we seek to relate to them. Religious conflict has been proceeding for millenia. Those who hope for a decisive victory for their side in their or their children's lifetimes are deluded --- and there are millions of people who are deluded, on both sides of the debate. Demonising the opposition without qualification satisfies an emotional need, but doesn't make for rational policy. Rational policy says, for example, that if local Muslim clerics are advocating violence, then we throw them in jail. If local women are being mistreated, then we protect them. On the other hand, if Muslims are behaving in a reasonable manner, then we accept and embrace them, and make reasonable accommodations to their needs. We don't gain anything by treating all Muslims as the same and uniting them against us. We should defend our rights to free speech, but not see virtue in making that speech maximally crude and unsophisticated.
John Carson
Ok, seriously John, what crack are you smoking? Rational posts won't be tolerated here. 5.
-
John Carson wrote:
Some of us can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Then why don't you give it a try?
John Carson wrote:
Moreover, the effectiveness of our response depends on having an accurate understanding of what we are dealing with. Stupidity and ignorance is never a good idea, even when practiced by Republicans.
There is absolutely no harm in making the blanket statement "Islam sucks", aside from offending the sensibilities of our own home bred leftist extremists. If Islam doesn't, in fact, suck, than saying that they do should be a very simple challange for them to disprove in a calm, peaceful and rational manner. If they are incapable of doing that, then guess what? They do suck. The challange should not be on me to establish how much I am willing to kow tow to your gum chewing, it should be on them.
Pardon Libby!
Stan Shannon wrote:
If Islam doesn't, in fact, suck, than saying that they do should be a very simple challange for them to disprove in a calm, peaceful and rational manner.
There's two problems with that statement. "Islam sucks" is generally not a peaceful and rational statement, so peaceful and rational debate is probably not possible. Second, something "sucking" is a very subjective measure and provides no objective means with which to disprove the thesis. That being so, the idea of disproving it PERIOD is laughable.
-
She has suffered quite a bit at the hands of those who share the faith she left. Including the mutilation of her genitalia as a child to stop her experiencing sexual pleasure and the murder of her friend. Her anger is quite justified. For a more measured (and scholarly ) apostate, try Ibn Warraq. Oh, and she was driven out the Netherlands partially by those who apparently share her progressive political beliefs, as she made them uncomfortable by applying them to her own culture of origin.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
try Ibn Warraq
ah yes, author of, "Why I am not a Muslim".
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
No, both are discriminiation.
Visit http://www.readytogiveup.com/[^] and do something special today.
Trollslayer wrote:
No, both are discriminiation
ya, fuck, really is bad to hate folks who want to mutilate ro kill you. How terribly primitive of those damned biased racists and Islamophobes.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Trollslayer wrote:
No, both are discriminiation
ya, fuck, really is bad to hate folks who want to mutilate ro kill you. How terribly primitive of those damned biased racists and Islamophobes.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
I don't know how careful you were in choosing your words, but there is nothing wrong with the act of discrimination (quite the opposite in fact, it's an essential aspect of our lives) - it's how and what we discrminate that matters. Islam is a belief systenm that some people choose (or are brought up to) believe in, and I am "absolutely" within my moral rights to say I don't like it without being accused of anything by anybody. If I was to say "I don't like Arabs" you could rightly accuse me of being a racist.
-
Not at all, the muslims who condem the violence are being grouped together with the very small minority who are guilty.
Visit http://www.readytogiveup.com/[^] and do something special today.
Now you're being guilty of what you're (almost) accusing me of and assuming that my dislike of Islam is all about terrorism. My feelings towards Islam were not changed one iota by 9/11 - I thought it evil well before then and I still do today. I actually think all religions are evil, but that Islam is perhaps the worst of them all. And I define "evil" in this context as any belief system that tells people that they are, in effect, worthless beings whose highest moral purpose in life is to be subservient to anyone else (human or god). Women, of course, are doubly damned by Islam - subservient first to men and then to god. Terrorism is irrelevant - not to the victims of course, but in the greater scheme of things, it's just a passing phase a few idiots have to put us all through, but these damn religions... they feed off people's weaknesses, sucking people's psyche like a vampire does blood... it's time we stopped being so damn nice to them all. They are dispicalble carbuncles on the face of humanity.
-
She has suffered quite a bit at the hands of those who share the faith she left. Including the mutilation of her genitalia as a child to stop her experiencing sexual pleasure and the murder of her friend. Her anger is quite justified. For a more measured (and scholarly ) apostate, try Ibn Warraq. Oh, and she was driven out the Netherlands partially by those who apparently share her progressive political beliefs, as she made them uncomfortable by applying them to her own culture of origin.
As said, she has all reason for her anger, but there's she point where she's blinded by hate. She doesn't fight to stop genital mutilation, or for equal rights for women in islamic countries. The point is not so much that islam doesn't have to be that, but that she loses the very people that may be best weapon to isolate the lunatics: modern, progressive muslims.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighist -
As said, she has all reason for her anger, but there's she point where she's blinded by hate. She doesn't fight to stop genital mutilation, or for equal rights for women in islamic countries. The point is not so much that islam doesn't have to be that, but that she loses the very people that may be best weapon to isolate the lunatics: modern, progressive muslims.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighistpeterchen wrote:
isolate the lunatics: modern
peterchen wrote:
She doesn't fight to stop genital mutilation, or for equal rights for women in islamic countries.
I seriously doubt a woman would survive in an Islamic country if she fought for anything. Note that the lady had to flee a European country because her life was at risk. If you have the opportunity pick up a book titled, "Princess". A supposedly true story on a Saudi Priincess and her attempts. An eye opening read.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
If Islam doesn't, in fact, suck, than saying that they do should be a very simple challange for them to disprove in a calm, peaceful and rational manner.
There's two problems with that statement. "Islam sucks" is generally not a peaceful and rational statement, so peaceful and rational debate is probably not possible. Second, something "sucking" is a very subjective measure and provides no objective means with which to disprove the thesis. That being so, the idea of disproving it PERIOD is laughable.
Patrick Sears wrote:
There's two problems with that statement. "Islam sucks" is generally not a peaceful and rational statement
So? Doesn't that provide Muslims with the opportunity to prove how moderate they are?
Patrick Sears wrote:
Second, something "sucking" is a very subjective measure and provides no objective means with which to disprove the thesis. That being so, the idea of disproving it PERIOD is laughable.
They could try. And if they don't have to try, why do I?
Pardon Libby!
-
I'm not having a real opinion about this whole matter, nor am I interested in participating in discussing the current topic. However, I think you are wrong regardless of the topic. It is should be up to the accuser to prove the point. Just like in a working legal system. (I do however, as an atheist, think that islam sucks, so I am not in disagreement with your conclusion, only your means of reaching it)
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
I do however, as an atheist, think that islam sucks, so I am not in disagreement with your conclusion, only your means of reaching it
Are you saying that only an atheist has a rational reason to think that Islam sucks? Can't anyone else have a personal reason for thinking it sucks aside from being an athiest?
Pardon Libby!
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
There is absolutely no harm in making the blanket statement "Islam sucks", aside from offending the sensibilities of our own home bred leftist extremists. If Islam doesn't, in fact, suck, than saying that they do should be a very simple challange for them to disprove in a calm, peaceful and rational manner. If they are incapable of doing that, then guess what? They do suck.
"Islam sucks" is actually a pretty mild comment. It would doubtless offend Islamic fanatics (if they understood the idiom), but I doubt that your typical "leftist extremist" would be too bothered by it. Personally, I do believe that Islam sucks and, moreover, that it sucks more than some alternative religions. Talk of the accusation being a "very simple challenge for them to disprove" is, however, a visit to fairyland. Nothing in religious debates is simple to prove or disprove to the satisfaction of all participating. Plainly, Islam means different things to different people, making agreement pretty well impossible. The point, however, is not primarily about what is said in casual speech. It is about what we understand about the character of others and how we seek to relate to them. Religious conflict has been proceeding for millenia. Those who hope for a decisive victory for their side in their or their children's lifetimes are deluded --- and there are millions of people who are deluded, on both sides of the debate. Demonising the opposition without qualification satisfies an emotional need, but doesn't make for rational policy. Rational policy says, for example, that if local Muslim clerics are advocating violence, then we throw them in jail. If local women are being mistreated, then we protect them. On the other hand, if Muslims are behaving in a reasonable manner, then we accept and embrace them, and make reasonable accommodations to their needs. We don't gain anything by treating all Muslims as the same and uniting them against us. We should defend our rights to free speech, but not see virtue in making that speech maximally crude and unsophisticated.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Religious conflict has been proceeding for millenia.
So has every other kind of conflict.
John Carson wrote:
Demonising the opposition without qualification satisfies an emotional need, but doesn't make for rational policy.
Sorry, but I'm not a Vulcan, I have emotional needs. And I damn well expect them to be respected.
John Carson wrote:
Rational policy says, for example, that if local Muslim clerics are advocating violence, then we throw them in jail. If local women are being mistreated, then we protect them. On the other hand, if Muslims are behaving in a reasonable manner, then we accept and embrace them, and make reasonable accommodations to their needs. We don't gain anything by treating all Muslims as the same and uniting them against us.
I disagree completely. There is nothing rational about makeing "reasonable accommodations to their needs" or embracing them. What you are openly promoting is the modification of our own culture to accomodate theirs becaue they damn well are not going to change to accomodate ours. I expect them to accomodate me and to embrace me without me doing a single solitary change of any damned kind. That would be rational policy.
Pardon Libby!