Muslim Menu runs into high speed trouble in Spain

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

Renfe Operadora is the state-owned company which operates freight and passenger trains on the 1668-mm [^]

I knew that Stan. But that does not mean that they are not run in a way to attract customers, Stan. You make the mistake of assuming that a government - especially one with the fine old fascist bachground of Spain- isn't interested in selling tickets on their train? There was a government once in Montgomery, Alabama that thought that they could treat some of their bus-riders like second-class citizens and still have them as customers. They were wrong and it took a little over a year, but they finally realised their choice was bankruptcy or equality. Of course, in a nice dictatorial state, the kind you would run, it might take even longer -- or maybe the bus service would be discontinued. You have often struck me as the kind of person who would cut off his nose to spite his face.

Stan Shannon wrote:

demographic change is now driving capitalistic accomodation

Always has, always will. You don't really think they sold as much fish on Friday in New England before the Canucks and Irish showed up, do you?

Stan Shannon wrote:

what a very bad decision the political requirement to accomodate other peoples and their cultures has been.

Once upon a time, my veddy veddy waspish ancestors said exactly the same thing about the Irish. Of course, on the other side of my family, I am half Irish. And yet the sun still shines and the earth still revolves. Armageddon did not come after all. . . Hmmmm. . ."Shannon." You aren't one of the damned immigrants, are you? With all your foreign ideas and ways? :laugh:

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

Didn't you plagiarize this from Sitting Bull?

No, but the reference certainly proves my point.

Oakman wrote:

You have so expressed yourself without fear; and it's not your train. So why the Jeanne Dixon prophesies filled with gloom and doom? By the way - would you tell them to get to the back of the goddamned bus as well?

If I can't tell them to get to the back of the bus, than obviously I cannot express myself 'without fear' now can I?

Oakman wrote:

And once again I point out that you are welcome to prove me wrong by quoting Jefferson to gainsay what I have presented. You do not take me up on this because you know, that with a few exceptions, you cannot. And once again I point out that you are welcome to prove me wrong by quoting Jefferson to gainsay what I have presented. You do not take me up on this because you know, that with a few exceptions, you cannot.

Actually, as usual, I can quite easily. Regardless of anything Jefferson wrote or said about tolerance, the concept is no where to be found in the actual text of the constitution - the foundation of actual Jeffersonian democracy.

Oakman wrote:

You seem convinced that Muslim culture is so superior to Western that it must win if it is allowed to compete. I would have expected to read this in a post by Adnan, but I thought you had more faith in what you held dear. I don't suppose you'd want to read jefferson on the right to have all ideas expressed so that truth would prevail? No, I thought not.

Jon, that is really dumb. The culture that has the spine to say "fuck you and the horse you rode in here on" is the one that is clearly superior. You are not defining a society where all ideas can be expressed. You are defining a society where some ideas are considered too dangerous to be expressed - if they offend someone's cultural preferences or somehow violate Jefferson's views on tolerance.

Oakman wrote:

By the way, I wonder if you'd like to explain the longevity of the the Third Reich, certainly the epitome of your kind of intolerant culture. How fared their racial purity? Is 'Aryan' culture widespread?

Again with the real nonsense. So unless I am willing to be forced to accept things I disagree with, I'm a Nazi. Wo

[R Giskard Reventlov]

Oakman wrote:

Better that than give us both 1's

That is innuendo over here! :-)

Oakman wrote:

eh wot

Nobody really says that, old chap. :-)

Oakman wrote:

For what it's worth, I have never claimed to be the repository of all the truth

Only billy-no-mates Illion does that: the rest of us are normal. Why do people still respond to his bleatings? Somedays it's like the Illionbox in here. Ah well, it's the weekend and we're arguing over where to go for a vacation. Lovely.

me, me, me

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

No, but the reference certainly proves my point.

Only in "History for Idiots." What settled the competition for land in North America was the capability of manufacturing ever-improving weapons.

Stan Shannon wrote:

If I can't tell them to get to the back of the bus, than obviously I cannot express myself 'without fear' now can I?

I didn't ask you whether you could, I asked you if you wanted to.

Stan Shannon wrote:

Regardless of anything Jefferson wrote or said about tolerance,

As I said, you despise Jefferson. It's only the idea that the states trump the Feds that appeals to you.

Stan Shannon wrote:

The culture that has the spine to say "f*** you and the horse you rode in here on" is the one that is clearly superior.

Stan Shannon wrote:

You are not defining a society where all ideas can be expressed. You are defining a society where some ideas are considered too dangerous to be expressed

Stan, you are an idiot if you think that I'd defend the right for Muslims or Catholics or Blacks or any group that has played the professional victim card to ban ideas - most of which you have had the opportunity to hear me speak up for. It is you are are defining a society where Muslims cannot be served as paying customers, where blacks need to sit behind the line on the bus, where intolerance for anything that doesn't suit you becomes enshrined in law by the community so so fondly imagine shares your fear of everything that is different.

Stan Shannon wrote:

unless I am willing to be forced to accept things I disagree with, I'm a Nazi

No, you are a statist. NAZIs just happen to be a particularly appropriate example of statists. If you'd prefer I'll draw my next example from Stalin's Russia. As you have pointed out all societies which glorify the state over individual freedom have more in common than not.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

digital man wrote:

Nobody really says that, old chap

Old bean, are you trying to tell me that Colonel Blimp has popped off?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Lost User]

Stan Shannon wrote:

At the end of the day, the freedom to discriminate is the most profound freedom of them all

I get the impression that you regret the day when slavery and human bondage on the plantation was stopped.

[Stan Shannon]

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

get the impression that you regret the day when slavery and human bondage on the plantation was stopped.

So, if I express any negitivity towards points of view I find objectionable, or people I just don't happen to like, I'm not only a Nazi I'm pro-slavery? Wow, thats one hell of an unassailable intellectual template you've bound me up with. Almost feels like...shackles. Brave new world, indeed.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Paul Conrad]

Stan Shannon wrote:

just go back to the far more intelligent practical intolerance of our past - eat what we serve or go hungry, your choice.

Good point. I bet the squirrels outside my house don't give a damn how their food is prepared. Just eat it or die....

"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

I'm not only a Nazi I'm pro-slavery

If you say so . . . :laugh:

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[R Giskard Reventlov]

Not 'alf; gorn to jingo 'eaven. :)

me, me, me

[Lost User]

Was my presumed impression of your discrimination flawed? Freedom of expression is a human right but we should always be cautious of abusing that right. Unless you view the application of Human Rights as applied in the here and now as both an abuse of your rights and an unacceptable shackle upon your personal space.

[Oakman]

Blimey!

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Stan Shannon]

http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/parents-lose-custody-of-their-children-for-teaching-them-nazi.html[^]

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Stan Shannon]

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

Freedom of expression is a human right but we should always be cautious of abusing that right.

Why single out that right? I mean, you're proving my point. You're saying that my freedom to express contempt towards some one else's expression is secondary to someone else's actual expression. That some are protected, some are controlled. Who gets to decide that? Where does tht power properly lay? With me or with the state?

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/parents-lose-custody-of-their-children-for-teaching-them-nazi.html\[^\]

Right down your alley, eh? Espouse an unpoplar ideology and the state shuts you down. Must have made you happy to see someone told they couldn't expect any special treatment. Take the kids away from the NAZIs, kick the Muslims off the train, tell the Jews they can't eat kosher food; Put the blacks behind the line on the bus. All part and parcel of the kind of intolerant state you want to set up.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Stan Shannon]

The odd thing about using Alabama to defend Spain, is that what Spain is doing is the very definition of 'separate but equal'.

Oakman wrote:

Always has, always will. You don't really think they sold as much fish on Friday in New England before the Canucks and Irish showed up, do you?

Obviously. That is yet another reason why capitalism should be preferred to the alternatives. However, this would be capitalism simply taking advantage of a really stupid political demand (hence making the entire thing fascist. I know you try to blame the ancient Romans for fascism, but the concept is entirely modern and involves corporations cooperating with the state to achieve public goals)

Oakman wrote:

Once upon a time, my veddy veddy waspish ancestors said exactly the same thing about the Irish. Of course, on the other side of my family, I am half Irish. And yet the sun still shines and the earth still revolves. Armageddon did not come after all. . . Hmmmm. . ."Shannon." You aren't one of the damned immigrants, are you? With all your foreign ideas and ways?

Again, you are proving my point. The sun would be shining regardless of who gets to define our society. It shines on Islamic states, communist states and fascist states.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

You're saying that my freedom to express contempt towards some one else's expression is secondary to someone else's actual expression.

Stan, you don't want to express contempt. Your zero tolerance policy denies people the right to speak, unless you and the rest of your friends find it acceptable.

Stan Shannon wrote:

Who gets to decide that? Where does tht power properly lay? With me or with the state?

Your right to deny me free speech ends at your front door. I know you'd like to make sure you never heard anything that upset you or made you question your absolute rightness, just like the society USSR created for Uncle Joe, but unfortunately you don't have the Spetsnaz to enforce your every whim.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

What settled the competition for land in North America was the capability of manufacturing ever-improving weapons.

And the will to use them.

Oakman wrote:

It's only the idea that the states trump the Feds that appeals to you.

Because that is the entirity of what defines the actual Jeffersonian democracy that We The People signed off on. Any thing else is a deviation from the original concept, not an enhancement of it.

Oakman wrote:

Stan, you are an idiot if you think that I'd defend the right for Muslims or Catholics or Blacks or any group that has played the professional victim card to ban ideas - most of which you have had the opportunity to hear me speak up for.

Yet you fail to realize that is precisely what you are doing.

Oakman wrote:

It is you are are defining a society where Muslims cannot be served as paying customers, where blacks need to sit behind the line on the bus, where intolerance for anything that doesn't suit you becomes enshrined in law by the community so so fondly imagine shares your fear of everything that is different.

I never suggested any such thing. There should be no expectation on the part of any one that the state should accomodate their cultural preferences, or that corporations or individuals be in any way required to respect them. All I ask is that any constraints upon my behavior be either explicitely defined in the constitution, or within the legal codes of my community as defined by that community of free individuals applying their freedom of speech, religion, and the press.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Stan Shannon]

The irony is that I am the only one argueing against a totalitarian society. You simply are too brainwashed to understand the concept. The reason we have freedom of speech is specifically to be able to affect our society on all issues not strictly defined in the constitution. Otherwise, it is a meaningless 'right'.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

what Spain is doing is the very definition of 'separate but equal'.

By which I take it you believe that the Railway company was providing better quality food to the Spaniards than to the Muslims? Certainly you aren't crazed enough to claim that the South provided equal educational facilities or opportunities for blacks during the first half of the previous century.

Stan Shannon wrote:

involves corporations cooperating with the state to achieve public goals

Entities which carried on business and were the subjects of legal rights were found in ancient Rome, and India. In medeval Europe, churches became incorporated, as did local governments, such as the Pope and the City of London. The oldest business corporation in the world, the Stora Kopparberg mining community in Falun, Sweden, obtained a charter from King Magnus Eriksson in 1347. Surely you aren't saying there weren't alliances between corporations and the state befor 1900??? Time for you to get out the history books. And you seem to totally miss the deification of the state that is one of the hallmarks of facism.

Stan Shannon wrote:

Again, you are proving my point.

No, I am not. I was being witty. Unfortunately you are only half witty so you didn't catch my meaning.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface