Poll
Question:
Are you in favor of a ban on the building of minarets/mosques?
Option 1: European - Yes
votes: 9
Option 2: European - No
votes: 26
Option 3: North American - Yes
votes: 6
Option 4: North American - No
votes: 31
Option 5: Other - Yes
votes: 0
Option 6: Other - No
votes: 1
Option 7: N/A
votes: 0
Option 8: Meaningless Jaron Option
votes: 1
On Nov. 29th the citizens of Switzerland will be called to approve or disaprove a ban on the construction of muslim minarets in their country. My new avatar is the poster of the YES camp, and the source of major anti-racism handwringning from what I read.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,654963,00.html
http://pluralism.org/news/continuing_stories_view/214
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/sharia-creeps-in-switzerland-govt-bans-anti-minaret-posters/
The Swiss case is merely one of the many symptoms of the increasing unsease in the West regarding the numerous excesses of multiculturalism.
So are you in favor or not of such a ban?
G.
Absolutely not? Unless ya'll want us to start voting on your rights, Grallon.
Architecture the latest excess of multiculturalism.
No.
:lmfao:
Quote from: Faeelin on November 20, 2009, 10:13:46 AM
Absolutely not? Unless ya'll want us to start voting on your rights, Grallon.
To which I'll reply what I usually reply: show me throat-cutting, bomb-exploding, plane- highjacking, honor-killing, religious-creeping homos, in vast numbers, and I'll accept this moral equivalence as a valid argument. Actually if you can find one, just one, that isn't a psychopath mind you, and I'll concede the point.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on November 20, 2009, 10:22:43 AM
To which I'll reply what I usually reply: show me throat-cutting, bomb-exploding, plane- highjacking, honor-killing, religious-creeping homos, in vast numbers, and I'll accept this moral equivalence as a valid argument. Actually if you can find one, just one, that isn't a psychopath mind you, and I'll concede the point.
I think it's the opposite of moral equivalence to insist that all people have the same rights. Surely the moral equivalence is that one's rights can and should be limited according to the behaviour of your group represented by its most extreme and violent elements.
We would need to ban Irish pubs as well :D
And Americans. :weep:
Quote from: Grallon on November 20, 2009, 10:22:43 AM
To which I'll reply what I usually reply: show me throat-cutting, bomb-exploding, plane- highjacking, honor-killing, religious-creeping homos, in vast numbers, and I'll accept this moral equivalence as a valid argument. Actually if you can find one, just one, that isn't a psychopath mind you, and I'll concede the point.
Hrmm. I dunno. I can't help but suspect that more Americans have been killed by gays spreading AIDS than by "throat-cutting" Muslims.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 20, 2009, 10:32:09 AM
We would need to ban Irish pubs as well :D
We'd have to ban pubs :o
Quote from: Grallon on November 20, 2009, 10:22:43 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on November 20, 2009, 10:13:46 AM
Absolutely not? Unless ya'll want us to start voting on your rights, Grallon.
To which I'll reply what I usually reply: show me throat-cutting, bomb-exploding, plane- highjacking, honor-killing, religious-creeping homos, in vast numbers, and I'll accept this moral equivalence as a valid argument. Actually if you can find one, just one, that isn't a psychopath mind you, and I'll concede the point.
G.
Pre-Airplanes and Bombs but Spartans would fit well.
Quote from: Faeelin on November 20, 2009, 10:35:31 AM
Hrmm. I dunno. I can't help but suspect that more Americans have been killed by gays spreading AIDS than by "throat-cutting" Muslims.
Assassins for hire! :punk:
I won't rest until everybody lives in a split-level in the 'burbs. That way everyone is a proper person.
Except poor people. They are often smelly.
If I were Swiss I'd vote yes
Why would I care about minarets?
That's rather silly - even if you disregard the blatant restriction of freedom, I can't for the life of me see the benefit of such a measure.
The only reasonable grounds for banning construction of minarets in some place would be either because it fucks up with the landscape (same reason we ban, say, tall buildings in some places etc.) or that noise of the muezzins (sp?) would constitute a nuisance for the local populace.
Of course not.
I don't have a problem with the government paying special attention to Muslim houses of worship, however.
Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2009, 11:24:17 AM
The only reasonable grounds for banning construction of minarets in some place would be either because it fucks up with the landscape (same reason we ban, say, tall buildings in some places etc.) or that noise of the muezzins (sp?) would constitute a nuisance for the local populace.
One of the defender of the ban is describing minarets as "ideological emitters"... Social ecology should also be considered yes? :P
G.
Quote from: Grallon on November 20, 2009, 11:33:33 AM
One of the defender of the ban is describing minarets as "ideological emitters"... Social ecology should also be considered yes? :P
Sounds like more tinfoil is needed in the caps in Switzerland.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 20, 2009, 11:28:39 AM
Of course not.
I don't have a problem with the government paying special attention to Muslim houses of worship, however.
I'm glad you and Grallon have both foudn something you can agree upon.
Of course not. That's stupid.
Quote from: Tyr on November 20, 2009, 11:39:52 AM
Of course not. That's stupid.
Hmmm I wonder how much of the opposition is motivated by political correctness?
Is there no grounds then to the argument that Islam is dangerous and it's propagation should be curtailed?
And please let's not compare 'AIDS Warriors' whith fanatical jihadists...
G.
Quote from: Grallon on November 20, 2009, 11:50:50 AM
Hmmm I wonder how much of the opposition is motivated by political correctness?
Is there no grounds then to the argument that Islam is dangerous and it's propagation should be curtailed?
And please let's not compare 'AIDS Warriors' whith fanatical jihadists...
Trying to halt the propogation of Islam goes against one of the core beliefs of western culture - that people are free to practice whatever faith they wish.
And why not compare? I don't like the AIDS example though - I prefer the gay child molester (since it's a more deliberate act). If I could prove that child molester's are disproportionately gay, would that be grounds to persecute gays?
Quote from: Faeelin on November 20, 2009, 11:37:44 AM
I'm glad you and Grallon have both foudn something you can agree upon.
Intelligence efforts should be targeted, that's simple common sense.
Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2009, 11:53:07 AM
Trying to halt the propogation of Islam goes against one of the core beliefs of western culture - that people are free to practice whatever faith they wish.
And why not compare? I don't like the AIDS example though - I prefer the gay child molester (since it's a more deliberate act). If I could prove that child molester's are disproportionately gay, would that be grounds to persecute gays?
Even the right to freedom of religion is not inviolable. When a faith's "followers" hide behind a religious facade to tie the government's hands in dealing with the bloody insurrection it encourages and participates in, then catering to that religion no longer serves in the country's best interests.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 20, 2009, 12:04:13 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2009, 11:53:07 AM
Trying to halt the propogation of Islam goes against one of the core beliefs of western culture - that people are free to practice whatever faith they wish.
And why not compare? I don't like the AIDS example though - I prefer the gay child molester (since it's a more deliberate act). If I could prove that child molester's are disproportionately gay, would that be grounds to persecute gays?
Even the right to freedom of religion is not inviolable. When a faith's "followers" hide behind a religious facade to tie the government's hands in dealing with the bloody insurrection it encourages and participates in, then catering to that religion no longer serves in the country's best interests.
So, to pick an example, during the troubles in Northern Ireland, the UK would have been correct to no longer "cater" to Catholicism? :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2009, 11:24:17 AM
That's rather silly - even if you disregard the blatant restriction of freedom, I can't for the life of me see the benefit of such a measure.
The only reasonable grounds for banning construction of minarets in some place would be either because it fucks up with the landscape (same reason we ban, say, tall buildings in some places etc.) or that noise of the muezzins (sp?) would constitute a nuisance for the local populace.
I agree entirely.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 20, 2009, 12:04:13 PM
Even the right to freedom of religion is not inviolable. When a faith's "followers" hide behind a religious facade to tie the government's hands in dealing with the bloody insurrection it encourages and participates in, then catering to that religion no longer serves in the country's best interests.
Switzerland hasn't dealt with bloody religious insurrection since Zwingli was swanning round Geneva.
It's just a matter of time now.
Or to elaborate:
Preventing the spread of Islam is a sign of societal health. Western civilization is an old codger with a dysfunctional immunesystem. In the paraphrased words of agent Smith, "Islam.. is a disease."
Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2009, 11:53:07 AM
Trying to halt the propogation of Islam goes against one of the core beliefs of western culture - that people are free to practice whatever faith they wish.
Add enough religiously motivated demands, enough religiously inspired accomodations and you end up having said western culture undermined... for having been too mired in its own tropes and ideological conundrums.
Or let me put it this way, christianity used to be a malignant disease that we've become more or less immune to whereas Islam is still extremely virulent.
Common sense dictates we should try to prevent the spread of a disease rather than stupidly exposing ourselves to it.
G.
Quote from: Slargos on November 20, 2009, 12:23:34 PM
It's just a matter of time now.
Or to elaborate:
Preventing the spread of Islam is a sign of societal health. Western civilization is an old codger with a dysfunctional immunesystem. In the paraphrased words of agent Smith, "Islam.. is a disease."
:rolleyes:
I'm beginning to think swedotardism is the disease.
Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2009, 12:31:30 PM
Quote from: Slargos on November 20, 2009, 12:23:34 PM
It's just a matter of time now.
Or to elaborate:
Preventing the spread of Islam is a sign of societal health. Western civilization is an old codger with a dysfunctional immunesystem. In the paraphrased words of agent Smith, "Islam.. is a disease."
:rolleyes:
I'm beginning to think swedotardism is the disease.
I sincerely hope you're right, but I fear you are not. :hug:
How will we drop the bomb between the minarets then?
Seriously- nah. The FBI needs a place to bug.
Maybe you should move to Switzerland Grallon?
Quote from: Jacob on November 20, 2009, 12:48:14 PM
Maybe you should move to Switzerland Grallon?
Maybe you should relent in your crusade against punctuation, Jacob? :mad:
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 20, 2009, 12:12:15 PM
Switzerland hasn't dealt with bloody religious insurrection since Zwingli was swanning round Geneva.
Within their own borders, but Islam has created significant organized conflicts using their religion for justification in the US, the UK, Denmark... Islam is anathema to freedom of religion because so many believe their religious governance supercedes the legal governance of the followers' own country.
In the case of Ireland, it was extremists. The radical activities were done without the encouragement or material support of the church; with so many flavors of Catholic and Protestant Christian following, we've been incredibly fortunate in that the verse "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" has been widely and liberally applied to mean Christian obeisance of state governments- it's insulated us from the kind of iconoclastic bloodbaths that marked the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and even the Counter-Reformation.
Quote from: Jacob on November 20, 2009, 12:48:14 PM
Maybe you should move to Switzerland Grallon?
Whatever for? There's a growing menace here too. Wherever they go muslims carry their disease with them.
G.
My first reaction was "this is bollocks" but it made me think:
We (well, most of Europe) do not allow all political ideologies to roam free. We try to silence the extreme ones. Why religion is any different?
Why should we ignore the literal interpretation of a religion, and rather, judge it by the most mild explanations of it?
If someone wears a svastika armband, and says that his hatred toward the jews and gays is just a metaphor for inner struggles of his peaceful soul, we still ban the guy from wearing that armband.
But we have religions, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity (old testament is a holy book of it, so though luck there) which makes such texts and teachings sacrate which are in no way compatible with modern society. Yet there is no problem with it because the followers not only pretend to ignore the controversial parts (then go ahead and act on them) but also because those teachings are claimed to come from a higher power, which of course gives a free pass.
So why should a liberal society allow someone to build a temple to preach ideas like secondary role for women, unholy nature of gays, and all that jihad crap. Again: if some bloke was to preach the teachings and laws present in islam completely free of religion, just as a purely political platform, he would be banned and/or thrown out of society.
The trouble with Islam is down to extremists too. There's no problem with the vast majority of muslims.
When the initial waves of Pakistani immigration came in the 50s (or was it the 60s?) Islam was hailed as a nice peaceful religion whose adherants were hard workers. The rise of extremism has tarnished this quite a bit but still, to tar 1.5 billion people with the same brush because of a few thousand nutters and a few million supportive of nutters....
This thread delivers, and reminds us once again that a fanatic is a man who can not change his mind and will not change the subject.
Of course not, it's a symptom of short sighted bigotry.
Quote from: Tyr on November 20, 2009, 01:06:24 PM
The trouble with Islam is down to extremists too. There's no problem with the vast majority of muslims.
When the initial waves of Pakistani immigration came in the 50s (or was it the 60s?) Islam was hailed as a nice peaceful religion whose adherants were hard workers. The rise of extremism has tarnished this quite a bit but still, to tar 1.5 billion people with the same brush because of a few thousand nutters and a few million supportive of nutters....
Again: we shouldn't care for people who claim to be memebers of a religion, but ignore the teachings they don't like. For example: a muslim or catholic who has no hard feelings toward gays is a decent man, but this should not save islam or catholicism from the hard fact of them being very intolerant ideologies.
A liberal society can not survive on the long term if it does not defend its basic ideas vehemently. If we say "no intolerance of minority lifestyles/races" then we should not have places of worship where they lash out against minorities. Simple as that.
Quote from: The Larch on November 20, 2009, 01:09:09 PM
Of course not, it's a symptom of short sighted bigotry.
This. If a place wants to avoid the construction of minarets I'm pretty sure they can do that citing local building laws. A national ban is a shame, but I guess the Swiss are getting accostumated...
Quote from: clandestino on November 20, 2009, 01:17:11 PM
This. If a place wants to avoid the construction of minarets I'm pretty sure they can do that citing local building laws. A national ban is a shame, but I guess the Swiss are getting accostumated...
In America a statute designed to exclude minarets would be unconstitutional. But we're weird like that.
The typical American constitution is gross.
They should ban the call to prayer while they're at it. That's the most annoying shit on earth. In Malaysia once I accidentally stayed in a hotel that was right next to a mosque, absolute hell being woken up after a night of drinking by a loudspeaker blaring moon chants at 5am.
Quote from: The Larch on November 20, 2009, 01:09:09 PM
Of course not, it's a symptom of short sighted bigotry.
Why is that particular brand of bigotry short-sighted?
Well keep in mind, the Swiss didn't allow women to vote until the 1970's.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 20, 2009, 12:41:51 PM
How will we drop the bomb between the minarets then?
Seriously- nah. The FBI needs a place to bug.
Damn you! I just posted that and had to go back in delete it.
I see no point to banning a building, irrespective of it being a associated with a particular religion or organization.
On the practical side, if you do ban minarets and mosques, it won't stop people from worshiping. They will still gather but it will be in other places. Worse yet, you will turn honest and innocent moderates into radicals as you infringe on their beliefs.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 20, 2009, 02:31:31 PM
Well keep in mind, the Swiss didn't allow women to vote until the 1970's.
Smart nation.
Quote from: Tamas on November 20, 2009, 01:14:31 PM
A liberal society can not survive on the long term.
I fixed that for you!
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on November 20, 2009, 02:08:14 PM
They should ban the call to prayer while they're at it. That's the most annoying shit on earth. In Malaysia once I accidentally stayed in a hotel that was right next to a mosque, absolute hell being woken up after a night of drinking by a loudspeaker blaring moon chants at 5am.
I find it funny that a religion who claims it's followers are so devout NEED to be reminded when to pray each day.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on November 20, 2009, 02:08:14 PM
They should ban the call to prayer while they're at it. That's the most annoying shit on earth. In Malaysia once I accidentally stayed in a hotel that was right next to a mosque, absolute hell being woken up after a night of drinking by a loudspeaker blaring moon chants at 5am.
I'm not opposed to building minarets but I agree the call to prayer should be banned. The cacophony of a multitude of them trying to out-shrill each other in their ululating is absolutely horrendous.
edit: At my hotel in Kuala Lumpur the manager tried to drink me under the table with free vodka drinks and then offered me girls of the night. I'm glad I was still sober enough to understand that would not have been a good idea. He probably had some kind of plan for me. But I got free drinks so it ended happy as far as I'm concerned.
I don't mind the call to prayer, if it is done well and not at an inappropriate time.
I also like the sound of church bells. I live near three churches and I kinda like hearing 'em. I wouldn't like it much at 5 am though.
What I hated in Indonesia was the cheap-ass calls to prayer that were just bad tape recordings. Have some guy with a good voice do it live.
^
When I visited my father in Jakarta this summer, they were not only live, they actually seemed to do battle with each other :huh:
Quote from: miglia on November 20, 2009, 02:46:22 PM
The cacophony of a multitude of them trying to out-shrill each other in their ululating is absolutely horrendous.
Luckily for us, Martinus holds a firm shrilling monopoly in Warsaw, so there is a barrier for their expansion.
Quote from: Tamas on November 20, 2009, 01:05:53 PM
My first reaction was "this is bollocks" but it made me think:
We (well, most of Europe) do not allow all political ideologies to roam free. We try to silence the extreme ones.
In America, we don't believe in doing that. I'm not saying that we've never done it in practice (not the only way we've failed at times to live up to our ideals), but it's something that's just not right.
QuoteSo why should a liberal society allow someone to build a temple to preach ideas like secondary role for women, unholy nature of gays, and all that jihad crap. Again: if some bloke was to preach the teachings and laws present in islam completely free of religion, just as a purely political platform, he would be banned and/or thrown out of society.
Because the very definition of a liberal society is one in which ideas different from or even opposed to those of society as a whole can be discussed and advocated freely.
QuoteA liberal society can not survive on the long term if it does not defend its basic ideas vehemently.
And the proper way to defend them is to argue for them, not try to ban competing ideas. If you are banning ideas you don't like, you have no claim on being a liberal society.
Quote from: Tamas on November 20, 2009, 02:52:25 PM
Quote from: miglia on November 20, 2009, 02:46:22 PM
The cacophony of a multitude of them trying to out-shrill each other in their ululating is absolutely horrendous.
Luckily for us, Martinus holds a firm shrilling monopoly in Warsaw, so there is a barrier for their expansion.
Franchises are cheap at least. You need a white suit.
HOLY CRAP, MART IS COLONEL SANDERS.
Quote from: miglia on November 20, 2009, 02:51:56 PM
^
When I visited my father in Jakarta this summer, they were not only live, they actually seemed to do battle with each other :huh:
I was there more than a decade ago. Maybe things have changed. When I was there, it was all by recording, usually with lots of extra hissing and static.
Point though is that if one group of religions can toll bells publicly, another ought to be allowed, within reason, to sing or chant publicly.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on November 20, 2009, 02:08:14 PM
They should ban the call to prayer while they're at it. That's the most annoying shit on earth. In Malaysia once I accidentally stayed in a hotel that was right next to a mosque, absolute hell being woken up after a night of drinking by a loudspeaker blaring moon chants at 5am.
It's not restricted to Islam.
The hotel RH, Tamas, Ank and I stayed at in Cortina, Italy we were awoken by a very loud church bell at 7am after a night of drinking. <_<
I can't say I care much about what the Swiss do.
I find it very odd though that the West handles the War on Terror as it does. We wage wars against Muslims where we can't possibly hope to win or eradicate them, and lay down passively in the arenas where we can. I fear that we won't really begin fighting back until it is too late.
:swiss: hate freedom. :(
Quote from: miglia on November 20, 2009, 02:51:56 PM
^
When I visited my father in Jakarta this summer, they were not only live, they actually seemed to do battle with each other :huh:
A Swede visiting his father in Jakarta? Are you bmollson's son? :lol:
It's not like the minarets are very tall by today's standards.
Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2009, 03:38:50 PM
.
The hotel RH, Tamas, Ank and I stayed at in Cortina, Italy we were awoken by a very loud church bell at 7am after a night of drinking. <_<
That was HORRIBLE! :lol:
Quote from: Neil on November 20, 2009, 02:12:11 PM
Quote from: The Larch on November 20, 2009, 01:09:09 PM
Of course not, it's a symptom of short sighted bigotry.
Why is that particular brand of bigotry short-sighted?
Because it serves no other purpose but to stick it to the muslims. It's a petty and marginalizing measure that won't, if passed, achieve anything but to send a "you don't belong here" message, giving a false sense of superiority and security to a bunch of close minded bigots, while at the same time further marginalizing muslims.
Quote from: The Larch on November 20, 2009, 04:07:34 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 20, 2009, 02:12:11 PM
Quote from: The Larch on November 20, 2009, 01:09:09 PM
Of course not, it's a symptom of short sighted bigotry.
Why is that particular brand of bigotry short-sighted?
Because it serves no other purpose but to stick it to the muslims. It's a petty and marginalizing measure that won't, if passed, achieve anything but to send a "you don't belong here" message, giving a false sense of superiority and security to a bunch of close minded bigots, while at the same time further marginalizing muslims.
That is sort of the point. They cannot really be "assimilated" into society if they are not welcomed into it.
I realize assimilate seems to have a much more sinister connotation of destroyed identity over in Euroland...but I am not sure what word would be better...integrated?
Quote from: Valmy on November 20, 2009, 04:13:49 PM
Quote from: The Larch on November 20, 2009, 04:07:34 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 20, 2009, 02:12:11 PM
Quote from: The Larch on November 20, 2009, 01:09:09 PM
Of course not, it's a symptom of short sighted bigotry.
Why is that particular brand of bigotry short-sighted?
Because it serves no other purpose but to stick it to the muslims. It's a petty and marginalizing measure that won't, if passed, achieve anything but to send a "you don't belong here" message, giving a false sense of superiority and security to a bunch of close minded bigots, while at the same time further marginalizing muslims.
That is sort of the point. They cannot really be "assimilated" into society if they are not welcomed into it.
I realize assimilate seems to have a much more sinister connotation of destroyed identity over in Euroland...but I am not sure what word would be better...integrated?
So are minarets so widespread in the US?
Quote from: The Larch on November 20, 2009, 04:00:24 PM
Quote from: miglia on November 20, 2009, 02:51:56 PM
^
When I visited my father in Jakarta this summer, they were not only live, they actually seemed to do battle with each other :huh:
A Swede visiting his father in Jakarta? Are you bmollson's son? :lol:
No, but I did meet bmollson at the monthly meeting of the Swedish Business Association (which is an excuse for swedes to get together and get drunk).
Quote from: Tamas on November 20, 2009, 04:17:51 PM
So are minarets so widespread in the US?
Let me just say I am very very grateful for our immigration "problems" everytime I hear about Western Europe's. We do not have immigrant organizations specifically devoted to having contempt and scorn for the decadent west and its traditions. The Latinos, for the most part, are glad to be here even if they freak out the anti-immigrant peeps alot.
Quote from: Valmy on November 20, 2009, 04:21:26 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 20, 2009, 04:17:51 PM
So are minarets so widespread in the US?
Let me just say I am very very grateful for our immigration "problems" everytime I hear about Western Europe's. We do not have immigrant organizations specifically devoted to having contempt and scorn for the decadent west and its traditions. The Latinos, for the most part, are glad to be here even if they freak out the anti-immigrant peeps alot.
I was under the impression that latinos had lower crime rates than blacks, even recently arrived latinos
Quote from: Valmy on November 20, 2009, 04:21:26 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 20, 2009, 04:17:51 PM
So are minarets so widespread in the US?
Let me just say I am very very grateful for our immigration "problems" everytime I hear about Western Europe's. We do not have immigrant organizations specifically devoted to having contempt and scorn for the decadent west and its traditions. The Latinos, for the most part, are glad to be here even if they freak out the anti-immigrant peeps alot.
Yes it is crazy to have people who come here (Europe) then start hate-mongering on their chosen home, trying to make it look like their tribal homelands they fled from. I know they are the loud minority but maybe the silent majority should start fucking yelling at them because obviously they are screwing things up, or help the european bigots to screw it up, this referendum being the latest example of it.
And if the only "solution" will continue to be the "omg if you mention that there is an issue you are a nazi", then there will be devil to pay.
I think it has been playing out like the gypsy situation here: the majority of non-violent whites and gypsies stayed silent while the minority of gypsies not respecting society, and the white nazis using this as an excuse for their attricious views from the 30s continued to roam ever more freely, in time influencing more and more people on their respective sides, as the so called liberal laws of the majority society failed to do anything to handle the problem (the problem being both the uncooperative gypsies and the nazis)
20 years of that, and here we are. Last week, we had yet another clash between the nazi militia and an organized group of gypsies, while the nazi party is second in the polls.
The nazi party second in the polls? Nazi according to you or nazi according to themselves?
Quote from: miglia on November 20, 2009, 04:23:07 PM
I was under the impression that latinos had lower crime rates than blacks, even recently arrived latinos
I would say going by prison populations that is an entirely accurate impression.
Quote from: miglia on November 20, 2009, 04:32:42 PM
The nazi party second in the polls? Nazi according to you or nazi according to themselves?
Okay, second tied with the socialist, and it means maybe like 8%-10%, but they are declaredly anti-EU, anti-Jew, and has a de facto (as of yet unarmed) militia called the Hungarian Guard, who wear uniform, and terrorize gypsies. Yes, they are as nazi as they can get.
Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2009, 03:38:50 PM
It's not restricted to Islam.
The hotel RH, Tamas, Ank and I stayed at in Cortina, Italy we were awoken by a very loud church bell at 7am after a night of drinking. <_<
I barely even noticed bells when I was in Italy, definitely not enough to wake me up where I stayed.
If I lived someplace with lots of mosques I'd be ok with getting rid of church bells if it meant getting rid of the call to prayer. The annoyance level isn't even remotely the same. It's much louder, it's pervasive everywhere, it lasts a lot longer, it's speech, and it happens 5 times per day, every day. They mount huge loud speakers on the tops of their minarets and have daily DJ battles starting at sunrise.
here's an image of the new mosque they are building on the Danforth
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3329%2F3670088034_1b4074a2e4.jpg%3Fv%3D0&hash=943b30fd1ef6f399200d28e2590034aec8e51355)
since this is a Greek 'hood, I imagine there will be no problems with the locals. ;)
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on November 20, 2009, 04:37:41 PM
If I lived someplace with lots of mosques I'd be ok with getting rid of church bells if it meant getting rid of the call to prayer. The annoyance level isn't even remotely the same. It's much louder, it's pervasive everywhere, it lasts a lot longer, it's speech, and it happens 5 times per day, every day. They mount huge loud speakers on the tops of their minarets and have daily DJ battles starting at sunrise.
Simple noise ordinance would take care of that.
Quote from: Valmy on November 20, 2009, 04:47:16 PM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on November 20, 2009, 04:37:41 PM
If I lived someplace with lots of mosques I'd be ok with getting rid of church bells if it meant getting rid of the call to prayer. The annoyance level isn't even remotely the same. It's much louder, it's pervasive everywhere, it lasts a lot longer, it's speech, and it happens 5 times per day, every day. They mount huge loud speakers on the tops of their minarets and have daily DJ battles starting at sunrise.
Simple noise ordinance would take care of that.
Which is how it works in Sweden. There's a mosque in central Stockholm but it doesn't call to prayer (thankfully)
Yeah, opposing a ban on minarets does not imply that minarets can be erected just anywhere or that muezzins can make the call to prayer at all hours of the day; both of these are regulated in the the usual way.
one of the problems with the mosques/minarets is that people have figured out that there's no reciprocity in many/most muslim countries. It's decidedly difficult to get a church built in the middle-east, it's almost impossibly hard to convert to christianity there, etc.
So people ask: why should we allow mosques if they're not willing to allow christians the same in their homecountries.
soit, stuff like http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,658103,00.html (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,658103,00.html) give me some hope (though I don't necessarily have to trust the person writing them).
QuoteAs for those in the streets of Hamburg who think about jihad in the path of God, they should think about life, because this is the true jihad in the path of God. The mere fact that there are 46 prayer rooms in Hamburg is in and of itself evidence of the tolerance showed by the German state towards Muslims. There is no comparably large number of churches in a city in any Islamic country.
If even a fundamentalist can come to this conclusion others may as well, and while that no reason why the west should bend even one inch to accomodate illiberal attitudes or traditions just because their religious it may point to the fact that even islam might get 'there', given enough time.
But then some other idiots open their mouths and then it seems a wholesale culling might indeed be the best solution. So the solution might be in the middle: cullnigs for some, miniature gay-marriages for others.
As for the minarets/mosque-building: quid pro quo: for every mosque built here a church of comparabale size should be built there.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 20, 2009, 05:24:15 PM
one of the problems with the mosques/minarets is that people have figured out that there's no reciprocity in many/most muslim countries. It's decidedly difficult to get a church built in the middle-east, it's almost impossibly hard to convert to christianity there, etc.
So people ask: why should we allow mosques if they're not willing to allow christians the same in their homecountries.
If we are letting Egypt become our moral arbiter then we have already failed.
I technically should have voted "North American - No" but my opinion would be different were I a Euro (where this is actually an issue), so I voted Euro-Yes.
We have plenty of room here for mooselimbs as long as they are not of the radical variety & make some attempt to assimilate, but Europe is a different matter. It's kind of like a theme park you don't want to ever change.
Quote from: Faeelin on November 20, 2009, 05:36:40 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 20, 2009, 05:24:15 PM
one of the problems with the mosques/minarets is that people have figured out that there's no reciprocity in many/most muslim countries. It's decidedly difficult to get a church built in the middle-east, it's almost impossibly hard to convert to christianity there, etc.
So people ask: why should we allow mosques if they're not willing to allow christians the same in their homecountries.
If we are letting Egypt become our moral arbiter then we have already failed.
And if we let the Saudis plop down wahabi mosques just like that we'll fail too.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 20, 2009, 05:44:50 PM
And if we let the Saudis plop down wahabi mosques just like that we'll fail too.
Ya know, this doesn't seem a huge problem here.
But I know Euros are big on notions of racial guilt.
Quote from: Slargos on November 20, 2009, 12:53:05 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 20, 2009, 12:48:14 PM
Maybe you should move to Switzerland Grallon?
Maybe you should relent in your crusade against punctuation, Jacob? :mad:
o.k.a.y...i...w.i.l.l...d.o...a.s...y.o.u...s.u.g.g.e.s.t!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 20, 2009, 05:24:15 PM
As for the minarets/mosque-building: quid pro quo: for every mosque built here a church of comparabale size should be built there.
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of who the actors are in this issue. There is not an Emperor of IslamAsia who can strike deals for quid pro quos with the Emperor of FascEurope. There is not even a "here" here nor a "there" there.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 20, 2009, 05:24:15 PM
one of the problems with the mosques/minarets is that people have figured out that there's no reciprocity in many/most muslim countries. It's decidedly difficult to get a church built in the middle-east, it's almost impossibly hard to convert to christianity there, etc.
So people ask: why should we allow mosques if they're not willing to allow christians the same in their homecountries.
Not in the slightest. I don't represent "team Christian", so I don't have any specific interest in helping Arabs convert to Christianity or whatever. The human rights records of various muslim countries are of concern, but I don't subscribe to some team Christian vs team Muslim narrative. Fuck that noise.
Quote from: grumbler on November 20, 2009, 06:25:39 PM
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of who the actors are in this issue. There is not an Emperor of IslamAsia who can strike deals for quid pro quos with the Emperor of FascEurope. There is not even a "here" here nor a "there" there.
Indeed. Crusades are over. Most of western civilization has no interest in building churches "over there".
Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2009, 05:41:46 PM
I technically should have voted "North American - No" but my opinion would be different were I a Euro (where this is actually an issue), so I voted Euro-Yes.
We have plenty of room here for mooselimbs as long as they are not of the radical variety & make some attempt to assimilate, but Europe is a different matter. It's kind of like a theme park you don't want to ever change.
Why don't you vote like yourself and stop pretending to be able to read our minds?
Quote from: The Larch on November 20, 2009, 06:31:11 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2009, 05:41:46 PM
I technically should have voted "North American - No" but my opinion would be different were I a Euro (where this is actually an issue), so I voted Euro-Yes.
We have plenty of room here for mooselimbs as long as they are not of the radical variety & make some attempt to assimilate, but Europe is a different matter. It's kind of like a theme park you don't want to ever change.
Why don't you vote like yourself and stop pretending to be able to read our minds?
We know what you are thinking.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 20, 2009, 06:33:07 PM
Quote from: The Larch on November 20, 2009, 06:31:11 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2009, 05:41:46 PM
I technically should have voted "North American - No" but my opinion would be different were I a Euro (where this is actually an issue), so I voted Euro-Yes.
We have plenty of room here for mooselimbs as long as they are not of the radical variety & make some attempt to assimilate, but Europe is a different matter. It's kind of like a theme park you don't want to ever change.
Why don't you vote like yourself and stop pretending to be able to read our minds?
We know what you are thinking.
I knew I shouldn't have drank the fluoridated water!
Fluoridation is a communist conspiracy.
Americans spike your soft drinks.
Quote from: Grallon on November 20, 2009, 11:50:50 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 20, 2009, 11:39:52 AM
Of course not. That's stupid.
Hmmm I wonder how much of the opposition is motivated by political correctness?
Is there no grounds then to the argument that Islam is dangerous and it's propagation should be curtailed?
And please let's not compare 'AIDS Warriors' whith fanatical jihadists...
G.
Is "political correctness" the new code word for "doing the right thing even if you'd rather not" these days? It seems to be thrown around these days every time someone is told he can't hate fags, blacks, muslims, immigrants and whatnot.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 20, 2009, 02:31:31 PM
Well keep in mind, the Swiss didn't allow women to vote until the 1970's.
Even the broken clock is right twice a day, though.
Quote from: Tamas on November 20, 2009, 04:17:51 PM
So are minarets so widespread in the US?
I wouldn't mind them.
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2009, 02:50:23 PM
I don't mind the call to prayer, if it is done well and not at an inappropriate time.
I also like the sound of church bells. I live near three churches and I kinda like hearing 'em. I wouldn't like it much at 5 am though.
What I hated in Indonesia was the cheap-ass calls to prayer that were just bad tape recordings. Have some guy with a good voice do it live.
There was a case in Poland recently where a local priest installed a hi-fi church bell system that would pretty much wake up the entire neighborhood at 6 a.m. So it's not just muezzins. :P
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 20, 2009, 05:24:15 PM
one of the problems with the mosques/minarets is that people have figured out that there's no reciprocity in many/most muslim countries.
I thought human rights are rights possessed by, you know, humans. Not cultures, religions or ethnic groups.
That's why talking about reciprocity in the context of human rights is rather stupid.
Quote from: Jacob on November 20, 2009, 06:26:33 PM
...The human rights records of various muslim countries are of concern, but I don't subscribe to some team Christian vs team Muslim narrative. Fuck that noise.
You are hopelessly naive Jacob. *shakes head*
G.
Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2009, 06:45:15 PM
Is "political correctness" the new code word for "doing the right thing even if you'd rather not" these days? It seems to be thrown around these days every time someone is told he can't hate fags, blacks, muslims, immigrants and whatnot.
I'm not sure I'm following you Marty... I don't mind muslims so long as when they move over here they assimilate; i.e. they abandon the ridiculous superstitions/values that make their various sub-cultures inferior to western ones (precedence of religion over rule of law, precedence of tribal mores over human rights, slavery of women, etc).
G.
STOPP JA?
If we start becoming more and more like our supposed enemies in order to combat them, even if we "win" we lose. It's our freedoms which define our nations, if we start curbing them in order to combat our enemies, real or imagined, then we are no longer the nations we were. Losing to some supposed Islamic threat will be secondary, as we'll have already lost to our own fears and prejudices.
Quote from: Grallon on November 20, 2009, 07:06:52 PM
I'm not sure I'm following you Marty... I don't mind muslims so long as when they move over here they assimilate; i.e. they abandon the ridiculous superstitions/values that make their various sub-cultures inferior to western ones (precedence of religion over rule of law, precedence of tribal mores over human rights, slavery of women, etc).
It's funny, you would be incredibly homophobic if you were straight.
Quote from: Judas Iscariot on November 20, 2009, 08:52:11 PM
If we start becoming more and more like our supposed enemies in order to combat them, even if we "win" we lose. It's our freedoms which define our nations, if we start curbing them in order to combat our enemies, real or imagined, then we are no longer the nations we were. Losing to some supposed Islamic threat will be secondary, as we'll have already lost to our own fears and prejudices.
That sounds all fine and dandy, but when you put your hand in a pile of goo that was once your best friend's face, you'll know what to do.
It's chinatown.
Are you trying to suggest I pirated that from a movie or something? :huh:
Quote from: The Larch on November 20, 2009, 06:31:11 PM
Why don't you vote like yourself and stop pretending to be able to read our minds?
Who said I was trying to read your mind? Minarets are simply not an issue over here. They are in the Old Country, so I voted as I would if I happened to be a Euro. Kinda odd that it seems to offend you.
Quote from: Faeelin on November 20, 2009, 09:05:53 PM
It's funny, you would be incredibly homophobic if you were straight.
Why do you persist in comparing murderous fanatics with regular people?
G.
Quote from: Grallon on November 20, 2009, 09:39:44 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on November 20, 2009, 09:05:53 PM
It's funny, you would be incredibly homophobic if you were straight.
Why do you persist in comparing murderous fanatics with regular people?
G.
Child molesters aren't regular people.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 20, 2009, 12:41:51 PM
Seriously- nah. The FBI needs a place to bug.
Bingo. I'd rather have the places infiltrated and monitored than driven underground. Build them as big as you can. As a plus if Islam has one redeeming quality is that its architecture is beautiful.
By the way, at least in the few cases I've heard about, opposition to build a mosque has more to do with their effect on nearby property prices than anything else.
Quote from: Iormlund on November 21, 2009, 12:44:36 AM
By the way, at least in the few cases I've heard about, opposition to build a mosque has more to do with their effect on nearby property prices than anything else.
Exactly. This is one reason why only landed males should have the vote.
Quote from: Grallon on November 20, 2009, 07:06:52 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2009, 06:45:15 PM
Is "political correctness" the new code word for "doing the right thing even if you'd rather not" these days? It seems to be thrown around these days every time someone is told he can't hate fags, blacks, muslims, immigrants and whatnot.
I'm not sure I'm following you Marty... I don't mind muslims so long as when they move over here they assimilate; i.e. they abandon the ridiculous superstitions/values that make their various sub-cultures inferior to western ones (precedence of religion over rule of law, precedence of tribal mores over human rights, slavery of women, etc).
G.
What does that have to do with building narrow towers with screaming guys on top of them?
Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2009, 06:50:26 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 20, 2009, 04:17:51 PM
So are minarets so widespread in the US?
I wouldn't mind them.
But others would, wouldn't they? So they did not get built.
Or maybe because you got the muslims who wanted to leave their medieval baggage at home, Europe is just less lucky.
Anyways, I would still vote no on this thing, I am just saying that liberalism should not tolerate open anti-liberalism. That's basic self-defense. Not easy at all to draw the boundaries I know, but still.
It's like when I saw an interesting debate about ban on holocaust-denial in Hungary. Both sides had good arguments: at one hand, you can't really stop these assholes to think what they want. I mean, for 50 years it was outright banned to feel anything less but hate toward anything resembling not just nazism, but the conservative system of pre-WW2 Hungary. Not to mention the communist brainwash attempt at school for a whole generation. Yet, when the system collapsed, the jew-haters were back in business faster than you could say 'kosher'.
On the other hand, when you have a lot of "losers of the system change" ie. uneducated bums, the idea that it is not themselves who are responsible for the grand failure of their lives, but rather some mass conspiracy, can be very popular very fast. So to try at least slow down the spread and limit its reaches could seem like a good idea, and something which at the end, yields a net positive result for a free society.
I don't know which is the good way to go, but Islam is not much different from that problem. It is a medieval tribal ideology which has no place in today's world.
Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2009, 09:23:54 PM
Quote from: The Larch on November 20, 2009, 06:31:11 PM
Why don't you vote like yourself and stop pretending to be able to read our minds?
Who said I was trying to read your mind? Minarets are simply not an issue over here. They are in the Old Country, so I voted as I would if I happened to be a Euro. Kinda odd that it seems to offend you.
Because this is not a question about here or there, it's a question that should be adressed regardless of the setting. And the theme park thingie just grated me.
Quote from: Iormlund on November 21, 2009, 12:34:17 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 20, 2009, 12:41:51 PM
Seriously- nah. The FBI needs a place to bug.
Bingo. I'd rather have the places infiltrated and monitored than driven underground.
That I can agree with :)
No muezzin calls and no architectural abominations as well...
Saying NO means being on the level of Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on November 21, 2009, 10:00:45 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on November 21, 2009, 12:34:17 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 20, 2009, 12:41:51 PM
Seriously- nah. The FBI needs a place to bug.
Bingo. I'd rather have the places infiltrated and monitored than driven underground.
That I can agree with :)
No muezzin calls and no architectural abominations as well...
Saying NO means being on the level of Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan.
Which one of those did we invade for being behind 9/11? I always forget.
Quote from: Tamas on November 21, 2009, 06:35:03 AM
But others would, wouldn't they? So they did not get built.
Or maybe because you got the muslims who wanted to leave their medieval baggage at home, Europe is just less lucky.
So I started looking this up. I found out that we do have a least one minaret in California.
I then also found a blog of a woman who said that she didn't think Islamic groups in the US should be building minarets as there were better uses for said funds.
So yeah they actually did get built. ;)
*edit: Minarets are more common than I thought. Here's a count by location that I got from one publication:
Michigan: 3
Arizona: 2
DC: 1
Louisiana: 1
Maryland: 1
Arkansas: 1
NJ: 1
NYC: 1
Washington: 1
Massachusetts (at MIT): 2
What's cool about the mosques they belong to is that all of these ones were designed to fit into the context of their surroundings. Here's the link. Look at that New Mexico mosque. Fabulous.
http://www.pbs.org/weta/crossroads/images/content/mosque/MosquesofNorthAmerica.pdf
I did a few more searches and it looks like we have many mosques with at least one minaret. I didn't know that as I typically don't see/ don't notice many mosques. Not such a big deal here. :)
Oooooh, some of these mosques are really pretty. I liked the modernist one in New York, especially. Looks like something out of SMAC.
When I was in Playa del Ingles in Gran Canaria, there was a mosque/islamic centre on the outskirts of a big shopping mall featuring maybe 20-30 gay bars, bathhouses and nightclubs. Apparently no incidents. Friday nights were fun. :D
Quote from: Martinus on November 21, 2009, 10:40:30 AM
Oooooh, some of these mosques are really pretty. I liked the modernist one in New York, especially. Looks like something out of SMAC.
Yeah some of them are quite lovely. Can't see myself freaking out over architecture unless it was something hideous like this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.igpuk.com%2FGERKIN%25204.jpg&hash=5b216775c6d3126dbd13a45714f02a7df3e7ca0b)
Who wouldn't want their city's landscape dominated by a giant dildo. :D
Quote from: Tamas on November 20, 2009, 01:05:53 PM
We (well, most of Europe) do not allow all political ideologies to roam free. We try to silence the extreme ones. Why religion is any different?
We shouldn't double down on stupidity?
I think we should have confidence in the immense attractiveness of western values such as freedom, drunkenness and promiscuity.
I find it distasteful that we ban political parties for their views, I find it even more distasteful that we would have men reporting on what is preached in Mosques or Churches, lest they fall foul of 'modern society'. I think that's a step backwards from our modern society and not to be desired.
QuoteA liberal society can not survive on the long term if it does not defend its basic ideas vehemently. If we say "no intolerance of minority lifestyles/races" then we should not have places of worship where they lash out against minorities. Simple as that.
The greatest defence, then, is surely the adherence to those values - which are attractive - not the selective abandonment of them? How is a liberal society that defends its liberty by restricting free speech and restricting the right to religious practice significantly more liberal than an authoritarian society that does the same for the sake of security?
I find the lack of faith that people here have in the attractiveness of a liberal society through the simple, understated example of liberalism really weird.
QuoteWhat I hated in Indonesia was the cheap-ass calls to prayer that were just bad tape recordings. Have some guy with a good voice do it live.
Agreed nothing like a well sung call to prayer. When I first arrived in Tangiers I was really happy that I'd arrived just as the sun was going down. I got off the boat and the city started to cry out in the call to prayer - it was Ramadan as well, so especially importance. I really liked it the entire time I was there. But then I'm a very heavy sleeper.
QuoteThat is sort of the point. They cannot really be "assimilated" into society if they are not welcomed into it.
And let's not forget that while racism is thrown about too much a great deal of, especially continental, European societies are quite racist. I knew a girl who was half-French, half-Cantonese who was born in Paris, had French as her mother tongue and had a degree in law who moved to London in part because she didn't like the racism in France. She was really annoyed that despite being French and speaking with a Parisian accent people would talk to her as if she'd just stepped off the boat.
In this country the press and popular sentiment has turned on the Poles and Eastern Europeans. These are legal migrants who have, overwhelmingly, got jobs, come from a similar racial and cultural background, claim very little on benefits, pay their taxes and commit little crime. I used to believe that most people were culturalist in their opposition to immigration - that's a position I disagree with but respect. I think some people are, I believe RH is, for example. But I think the way that we view the Central and Eastern Europeans and other immigrant groups such as East Asians suggests to me that while it's not racism it is just xenophobia.
I think it's understandable, to some extent. For all of the anxiety in Europe we have only 50-60 years of mass migration and that experience is overwhelmingly of people from different cultural and racial backgrounds. I think it's as difficult for the society to deal with that as it is for the immigrant to assimilate - it requires, I think, work on both sides. Now the US has around 200 years of experience with mass migration, we don't.
Integration on this forum too often seems to mean that immigrants should change but not that European societies treat them with any more consideration or effort. The fact is it's difficult to demand that people change their way of life if you're not going to make a very concerted effort to treat them in the same way as you'd treat any other citizen. I'm not convinced Europe's doing that. In the UK I think London and maybe a couple of other well-off cities are where we should be in terms of equality of opportunity. I also think it matters that we're now in an age of affordable cheap travel. It's more difficult to keep your cultural background relevant if you can't affordably visit Karachi or Algiers a couple of times a year.
QuoteIs "political correctness" the new code word for "doing the right thing even if you'd rather not" these days? It seems to be thrown around these days every time someone is told he can't hate fags, blacks, muslims, immigrants and whatnot.
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD!
In the UK it generally means anything that the Daily Mail doesn't like. If possible it should be linked to gypsies, immigrants and the EU in their desperate attempt to muzzle the bluff John Bull-ish Daily Mail.
I read in From Babel to Dragoman that whereas Islamic law deals exhaustively with how Muslims are supposed to act in Muslim-ruled lands, and how to deal with non Muslims in those same lands, it has virtually nothing to say about how Muslims should act in non-Muslim ruled lands. This is virgin territory.
I find the anti-Polish sentiments I've read in parts of the tabloid press, and those that have been expressed to me by people I've spoken to, deeply depressing <_<
I agree with Sheilbh, it can only be xenophobia. I find the Poles who have made their way to Preston preferable to the general population; they enjoy a drink at the weekend (like the rest of us), are almost universally in work (unlike a large fraction of the natives) and are more polite and pleasant than the average. I suppose there must be horrible Poles somewhere, but they didn't come here :lol:
The worst thing, IMO, is what this implies about the possibility of other groups ever being properly accepted. What chance does a brown non-drinking Muslim have when half the population doesn't even like a white beer-drinking Polish workman?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 21, 2009, 12:16:08 PM
The worst thing, IMO, is what this implies about the possibility of other groups ever being properly accepted. What chance does a brown non-drinking Muslim have when half the population doesn't even like a white beer-drinking Polish workman?
Exactly. On the upside I think it suggests that Britain's remarkably un-racist given that our experience of mass non-white migration starts in 1948. Perhaps it's progress that black and white Brits are united in disliking immigrants, not because of their colour but because they're foreign. But it's a very small silver lining to a pretty depressing cloud.
Quote from: Martinus on November 21, 2009, 10:48:20 AM
Who wouldn't want their city's landscape dominated by a giant dildo. :D
Are you retarded or something?
Quote from: Iormlund on November 21, 2009, 12:34:17 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 20, 2009, 12:41:51 PM
Seriously- nah. The FBI needs a place to bug.
Bingo. I'd rather have the places infiltrated and monitored than driven underground. Build them as big as you can. As a plus if Islam has one redeeming quality is that its architecture is beautiful.
I beg to differ. Ed knows what I'm talking about. Not that the megachurch down the road & on the other side is any better, mind you :D
edit: here's the mosque, and I believe that's a minaret
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.groundspeak.com%2Fwaymarking%2F30cbebb1-de23-4a16-a870-965accdc5cae.jpg&hash=c6295c1d65db499ef780b72c2f41a8a5381916d1)
And in the interest of equal time, here's the megachurch monstrosity:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.ning.com%2Ffiles%2F7X1wIOHFtrzGjIc6kBLDhPjgG3PBBzBQugEaRoaF74o_%2FJesus.jpg&hash=35aa86a2dfc93ac3b19e0922712fea9a83d5c8cd)
And here are some of Ed's buddies being smartasses:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_WcOS_h-hD9g%2FRfjFs6PGZuI%2FAAAAAAAAALc%2FT5s24rC-AwE%2Fs1600%2Fohio_jesus.jpg&hash=f7592938c74afec5f859def5518380196f1d2ac0)
We do that at Bengals games at the end of the 3rd quarter (without Jesus, though).
Quote from: The Larch on November 21, 2009, 08:22:49 AM
Because this is not a question about here or there, it's a question that should be adressed regardless of the setting.
Is it? Why does it have to be the same for North America and Europe? Europe is older, and has some beautiful ancient cities that absolutely should be preserved, without the blight of a minaret. The U.S. is a lot younger, with more dynamic cityscapes, and I believe most mosques here tend to be in surburban areas, mostly out of the way.
That's on top of the huge difference that exists between muslim immigrants in the U.S. and muslim immigrants in Europe.
The Europe and North American both belong to "the West" but there are and always will be differences.
QuoteAnd the theme park thingie just grated me.
I actually meant that as a compliment. I like theme parks :)
Quote from: derspiess on November 21, 2009, 02:45:23 PM
We do that at Bengals games at the end of the 3rd quarter (without Jesus, though).
This BEGS for a YMCA set-up. :P
I wonder if they'd let us build a gothic cathedral in downtown Mecca. :P
Quote from: derspiess on November 21, 2009, 03:03:08 PM
Is it? Why does it have to be the same for North America and Europe? Europe is older, and has some beautiful ancient cities that absolutely should be preserved, without the blight of a minaret. The U.S. is a lot younger, with more dynamic cityscapes, and I believe most mosques here tend to be in surburban areas, mostly out of the way.
But surely that issue can be dealt with through general zoning and building restrictions, rather than banning mosques outright?
and WHY is minaret a "blight"?
Quote from: Barrister on November 21, 2009, 03:22:29 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 21, 2009, 03:03:08 PM
Is it? Why does it have to be the same for North America and Europe? Europe is older, and has some beautiful ancient cities that absolutely should be preserved, without the blight of a minaret. The U.S. is a lot younger, with more dynamic cityscapes, and I believe most mosques here tend to be in surburban areas, mostly out of the way.
But surely that issue can be dealt with through general zoning and building restrictions, rather than banning mosques outright?
Yeah I mean Europe's old but we still have to build new offices and new houses and stuff. I don't see why we shouldn't have minarets if we can have Ortho churches:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.russianchurchlondon.org%2Fi%2Fpic.jpg&hash=d3db7e76e1a5e144a44e308a36240201e5f342b7)
Hindu Temples:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flondonforfun.com%2Fimages%2FNeasden%2520Temple.jpg&hash=4db977a364e2b72ecbde6529fecb759dcc5eaf18)
And the largest Gurdwara outside of India:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sikhtimes.com%2Fhavelock_road_gurdwara_southall_london_uk_mar_2003.jpg&hash=98aec90bfbed8cebdf340c088560bbe9f2c744c2)
All of those are from London. But while I agree that we should protect our cities and our heritage it's simply impossible to stop development full-stop.
I have to admit, RoboJesus emerging from his slumber in that lake is pretty fucking cool.
Quote from: Jaron on November 21, 2009, 03:23:30 PM
and WHY is minaret a "blight"?
It's ugly & alien in a European city. They do look cool in Baghdad or Damascus, where they belong.
Quote from: PDH on November 21, 2009, 03:30:35 PM
I have to admit, RoboJesus emerging from his slumber in that lake is pretty fucking cool.
I've come to love Big Butter Jesus.
Quote from: derspiess on November 21, 2009, 04:17:44 PM
It's ugly & alien in a European city. They do look cool in Baghdad or Damascus, where they belong.
What places are you thinking of? The only place that I've been to where such wouldn't fit would potentially be Italy. I think they'd be fine in Spain, Berlin, Amsterdam, Paris and London.
Besides, based on those American ones I posted, they can be tailored to be suitable for any location.
Quote from: Martinus on November 21, 2009, 03:14:58 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 21, 2009, 02:45:23 PM
We do that at Bengals games at the end of the 3rd quarter (without Jesus, though).
This BEGS for a YMCA set-up. :P
That's pretty common at basketball games, actually.
And now that I think of it, I was at a college football game where the Village People played at halftime.
Quote from: garbon on November 21, 2009, 04:23:50 PM
What places are you thinking of? The only place that I've been to where such wouldn't fit would potentially be Italy. I think they'd be fine in Spain, Berlin, Amsterdam, Paris and London.
Agree to disagree, then.
QuoteBesides, based on those American ones I posted, they can be tailored to be suitable for any location.
I wouldn't say *any* location.
True. I don't know why I would think someone like you would have a sense of taste. It's like expecting Marty to.
You're talking to a man whose heart would swell with pride if his boy called the president a nigger.
Fair.
Tampa has some pretty cool minarets, but they aren't associated with any mosque or place or worship. The University of Tampa, which is housed in a 19th century hotel, is built in a moorish/morrocan style, which means minarets aplenty.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_KVmReQtTNJk%2FSlIF9c-RnFI%2FAAAAAAAABEc%2FsXnT1qiYThI%2Fs800%2FUniversity%2Bof%2BTampa%2BMinarets%2Bbw%2B070609.jpg&hash=12ee269e3604e3b8201708ce4a1fca605b8f0c87)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dajalu.com%2Fminaretsnew.jpg&hash=4f3fcdd4673cb872a7cb276296d9ec637f94d4f1)
Quote from: stjaba on November 21, 2009, 05:35:54 PM
Tampa has some pretty cool minarets, but they aren't associated with any mosque or place or worship. The University of Tampa, which is housed in a 19th century hotel, is built in a moorish/morrocan style, which means minarets aplenty.
Brighton has the wonderfully pointless 19th century pleasure palace pavilion which is rather foreign looking:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.timetravel-britain.com%2Farticles%2F1photos%2Ftowns%2Fpavilion2BOV.jpg&hash=c4181d14a5c598fd717972eaf82de5174d9fac1d)
I love it personally. I think every city needs a healthy dose of the preposterous.
Quote from: garbon on November 21, 2009, 04:42:34 PM
True. I don't know why I would think someone like you would have a sense of taste. It's like expecting Marty to.
That's uncalled for.
Anyone who has tbr access knows your shitty taste :rolleyes:
:P
What the fuck is that supposed to mean?
Quote from: Martinus on November 21, 2009, 06:29:01 PM
That's uncalled for.
No, it isn't at all on the level of what you spoke about. <_<
I guess I will just have to live with the fact I will never be able to reach the heights of Languish sense of taste.
Like XXXL plaid shirts. Or blue hair. For example. :cry:
Oh don't worry. If you wrap it up in a scarf no one will notice those garish, slavic features.
I don't even own a plaid shirt :lol:
Quote from: garbon on November 21, 2009, 06:39:40 PM
Oh don't worry. If you wrap it up in a scarf no one will notice those garish, slavic features.
Oh I see you are raising the ante by going after physical traits. Shorty.
Quote from: katmai on November 21, 2009, 06:44:45 PM
I don't even own a plaid shirt :lol:
How about a hairnet?
Quote from: katmai on November 21, 2009, 06:44:45 PM
I don't even own a plaid shirt :lol:
Wasn't there a picture of you in a plaid shirt? :P
That was the movie Colors.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 21, 2009, 06:49:55 PM
Quote from: katmai on November 21, 2009, 06:44:45 PM
I don't even own a plaid shirt :lol:
How about a hairnet?
you know I don't have enough hair to need on of those. You are so cruel
Quote from: Martinus on November 21, 2009, 06:50:48 PM
Quote from: katmai on November 21, 2009, 06:44:45 PM
I don't even own a plaid shirt :lol:
Wasn't there a picture of you in a plaid shirt? :P
hmmm oh that was a shirt of my dad's which I wore for a joke pic with the old hat as well.
Quote from: katmai on November 21, 2009, 06:57:56 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 21, 2009, 06:49:55 PM
Quote from: katmai on November 21, 2009, 06:44:45 PM
I don't even own a plaid shirt :lol:
How about a hairnet?
you know I don't have enough hair to need on of those. You are so cruel
You've got to be cruel to be kind.
Besides, my hair is thinning out also.
Fave pick of Marcin
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhphotos-snc1.fbcdn.net%2Fhs245.snc1%2F9234_170873321848_620916848_2846487_8078740_n.jpg&hash=fc2a2b0adeeae252a39bcaa527700455c6f207c9)
Quote from: Jaron on November 21, 2009, 07:01:36 PM
:nelson:
Don't worry friend. Father Time is coming for you too.
Father Tim? :unsure: Is he going to make me into an alt history character?
That pic has to be photoshopped that skinny body couldn't support that melon.
Don't worry about that. The head looks heavy but its actually quite hollow.
Quote from: Jaron on November 21, 2009, 07:03:07 PM
Father Tim? :unsure: Is he going to make me into an alt history character?
A Santa Ana that actually wins battles.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 21, 2009, 07:07:15 PM
Quote from: Jaron on November 21, 2009, 07:03:07 PM
Father Tim? :unsure: Is he going to make me into an alt history character?
A Santa Ana that actually wins battles.
Mexico did win that war. America was deceived. ;)
Quote from: Jaron on November 21, 2009, 07:09:34 PM
Mexico did win that war. America was deceived. ;)
Mexico effectively implemented its strategy of giving away half the country.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2009, 07:12:50 PM
Quote from: Jaron on November 21, 2009, 07:09:34 PM
Mexico did win that war. America was deceived. ;)
Mexico effectively implemented its strategy of giving away half the country.
The empty half?
Quote from: Jaron on November 21, 2009, 07:16:03 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2009, 07:12:50 PM
Quote from: Jaron on November 21, 2009, 07:09:34 PM
Mexico did win that war. America was deceived. ;)
Mexico effectively implemented its strategy of giving away half the country.
The empty half?
Yes, the part they hadn't had a chance to screw up yet.
Quote from: katmai on November 21, 2009, 06:44:45 PM
I don't even own a plaid shirt :lol:
I own several. :Canuck:
Quote from: Martinus on November 21, 2009, 06:49:01 PM
Oh I see you are raising the ante by going after physical traits. Shorty.
Whatevs. All I know is it ain't polite to walk around with your knuckles dragging on the ground, like you do.
Quote from: dps on November 21, 2009, 08:58:37 PM
Quote from: Jaron on November 21, 2009, 07:16:03 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2009, 07:12:50 PM
Quote from: Jaron on November 21, 2009, 07:09:34 PM
Mexico did win that war. America was deceived. ;)
Mexico effectively implemented its strategy of giving away half the country.
The empty half?
Yes, the part they hadn't had a chance to screw up yet.
No, America managed that all on their own.
:lol: This catfight thread delivers.
Quote from: katmai on November 21, 2009, 06:30:35 PM
Anyone who has tbr access knows your shitty taste :rolleyes:
:P
OMG! TBR SANCTITY BROKEN!
Quote from: Jaron on November 21, 2009, 07:04:52 PM
Don't worry about that. The head looks heavy but its actually quite hollow.
I'm betting that stung! :P
If jabs from Jaron stung me, I don't think I'd post on Languish.
I guess he is just used to different body mass proportions.
I don't have a problem with mosques and minarets. General zoning laws apply to them of course.
I am sceptical of the mosques that are operated by Turkey or Saudi Arabia in Germany. I would prefer if they were paid for by something like the German church tax for the Catholic and Lutheran church and were independent of foreign governments.
Quote from: Zanza on November 22, 2009, 05:19:48 PM
I don't have a problem with mosques and minarets. General zoning laws apply to them of course.
I am sceptical of the mosques that are operated by Turkey or Saudi Arabia in Germany. I would prefer if they were paid for by something like the German church tax for the Catholic and Lutheran church and were independent of foreign governments.
Aren't Catholic churches operated by Vatican?
Quote from: Martinus on November 22, 2009, 05:27:44 PM
Quote from: Zanza on November 22, 2009, 05:19:48 PM
I don't have a problem with mosques and minarets. General zoning laws apply to them of course.
I am sceptical of the mosques that are operated by Turkey or Saudi Arabia in Germany. I would prefer if they were paid for by something like the German church tax for the Catholic and Lutheran church and were independent of foreign governments.
Aren't Catholic churches operated by Vatican?
Catholic churches are operated by the local diocese, under the guidance of the Vatican.
I was involved in suing the Church a number of years ago, and they have quite a convoluted legal structure. Which coincedentally makes it very difficult to collect judgements against the Church.
Quote from: Zanza on November 22, 2009, 05:19:48 PM
I am sceptical of the mosques that are operated by Turkey or Saudi Arabia in Germany. I would prefer if they were paid for by something like the German church tax for the Catholic and Lutheran church and were independent of foreign governments.
If that's the case in Germany that'd be a sensible option, but imagine the screams of the Grallons and the supporters of banning architectural features of a building, or the German equivalent of the Daily Mail/Sun.
Quote from: Martinus on November 22, 2009, 05:27:44 PMAren't Catholic churches operated by Vatican?
Not in Germany. The Roman Catholic Church of Germany is a statuary corporation operating under German public law and special "state church law" that applies to those (statuary) corporations that are considered religious or similar organisations. Other organisations operating in a similar legal status are the Lutheran and various other Protestant and Orthodox churches, various Jewish organisations, Jehova's Witnesses, and even some atheist organisations. The Muslims have not yet created an organisation that would fulfill the requirements. The Church of Scientology did not get that legal status by the way as they were considered commercial, not religious.
One of the most important things about this status is that the tax authorities will levy church taxes based on your income tax for the organisation that you belong to. The organisations can set that tax rate themselves but the federal state parliaments have to agree. Most of the smaller churches etc. do not use this though.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 22, 2009, 05:36:13 PMIf that's the case in Germany that'd be a sensible option, but imagine the screams of the Grallons and the supporters of banning architectural features of a building, or the German equivalent of the Daily Mail/Sun.
I don't think anybody would scream. I suppose that the tabloids and Grallons of Germany have more faith in having it operate in Germany under our own laws than having foreign governments furthering their agenda through those mosques.
The first motherfucker that wakes me up on a Saturday morning with a megaphoned call to prayer on top of a minaret gets a fertilizer bomb.
Just read an article in Time about Dearborn, Michigan, the most Muslim city in America. Context was the Ft. Hood shootings and fear of a backlash. Population is 1/3 Muslim, there are 10 mosques in town. Fun fact: kids in Dearborn public schools get Muslim holidays off.
No mentions of architectural harmony or calls to prayer at 5 AM.
I am an american, I want to be woken early saturday morning by a moron in a pickup truck revving his engine. That or a lawnmower.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 22, 2009, 11:16:58 PM
No mentions of architectural harmony or calls to prayer at 5 AM.
Local noise ordnances > 1st Amendment
I thought this said "Ann Margaret poll" at first. Sadly I was wrong :(
Incidently I found a site with muslim gay porn... Quite arousing! So different from the overly staged, overly expressive straight guys doing gay porn for money one gets from the US or Europe.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on November 23, 2009, 01:26:04 PM
Incidently I found a site with muslim gay porn... Quite arousing! So different from the overly staged, overly expressive straight guys doing gay porn for money one gets from the US or Europe.
G.
Suddenly, a certain poster begain to re-think his opposition to Muslim immigration ... ;)
Quote from: Malthus on November 23, 2009, 01:38:25 PM
Suddenly, a certain poster begain to re-think his opposition to Muslim immigration ... ;)
On muslim minarets at any rate. ^_^
G.
His towering minaret rose steadily, dominating the view.
Speaking of faggot Mooselimbs, where's Vile Wahabbist? He still post on EUOT, or is he dead now?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 23, 2009, 07:09:15 PM
Speaking of faggot Mooselimbs, where's Vile Wahabbist? He still post on EUOT, or is he dead now?
Last time I checked, he was studying in California, starring in college musicals and dressing up as Tinkerbell for Halloween.
Don't ask how I know.
Quote from: Grallon on November 23, 2009, 01:26:04 PM
Incidently I found a site with muslim gay porn... Quite arousing! So different from the overly staged, overly expressive straight guys doing gay porn for money one gets from the US or Europe.
G.
Link?
:lol:
Quote from: Martinus on November 23, 2009, 07:10:57 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 23, 2009, 07:09:15 PM
Speaking of faggot Mooselimbs, where's Vile Wahabbist? He still post on EUOT, or is he dead now?
Last time I checked, he was studying in California, starring in college musicals and dressing up as Tinkerbell for Halloween.
Don't ask how I know.
Tell him he needs to start posting here again.
He's scared of CdM.
Quote from: Martinus on November 23, 2009, 07:10:57 PM
Last time I checked, he was studying in California, starring in college musicals and dressing up as Tinkerbell for Halloween.
Don't ask how I know.
So he was Jaron all along?
The Swiss voted to ban minarets...
QuoteSwiss voters favour minaret ban: exit polls
(AFP) – 6 hours ago
GENEVA — Voters in a referendum on Sunday voted in favour of imposing a blanket ban on the building of minarets in Switzerland, public television reported, citing exit polls.
With ballot-counting still underway, the exit polls suggested that the proposal -- put forth by far-right politicians -- enjoyed around 59 percent support.
Prior to the referendum, opinion polls indicated that more Swiss would oppose rather than support the ban.
Earliest results after polls closed at mid-day (1100 GMT) showed that at least four cantons -- all in German-speaking Switzerland -- want a ban on minarets.
Partial results also showed that Lucerne is for the ban, while French-speaking cantons Geneva and Vaud are against.
The Swiss People's Party (SVP) -- Switzerland's biggest party -- had forced a referendum under Swiss regulations on the issue after collecting 100,000 signatures within 18 months from eligible voters.
It claims that minarets -- the turrets or towers attached to mosques from where Muslims are called to prayer -- symbolise a "political-religious claim to power."
The Swiss government has asked voters to reject the call, arguing that accepting a ban would bring about "incomprehension overseas and harm Switzerland's image."
Switzerland, a nation of 7.5 million people, has an uneasy relationship with its Muslim minority of around 400,000. Islam is its second largest religion after Christianity.
Four minarets have so far been built in Switzerland and the construction of a fifth is planned.
In the run-up to the referendum, a mosque in Geneva was vandalised for the third time during the anti-minaret campaign, local media reported Saturday.
Determined to stop the SVP from gaining sympathisers, Bern issued several statements calling on the Swiss to vote against the proposal.
Swiss President Hans-Rudolf Merz made a video broadcast to the nation, saying: "Muslims should be able to practice their religion and have access to minarets in Switzerland too. But the call of the muezzin will not sound here."
However, an opinion poll published a day after Merz's broadcast found that support for a ban had increased three percentage points from a month ago to 37 percent, while those who opposed the ban remained unchanged at 53 percent.
In a bid to push their case, the SVP, which had been accused of xenophobia with their election poster campaign in 2007, has once again turned to controversial tactics.
Its latest poster campaign depicts a burqa-clad woman against a background of a Swiss flag upon which several minarets resembling missiles are erected, sparking an uproar in some quarters.
Switzerland's Commission Against Racism said the campaign defamed the Muslim minority, stirred up hatred and could threaten public peace.
Religious groups, including Christians, Jews and Muslims, have also come out in a rare show of unity against the right-wing proposal.
On the diplomatic front, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secretary general of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, had earlier expressed quiet confidence that Switzerland would turn down the ban.
"We are sure that the people of Switzerland will reach the best consensus and will take the best decision -- this is an old democratic society," Ihsanoglu said.
:)
Well, what can you expect from a nation of Holocaust grave-robbers.
so how many hours/days until the violent manifestations start?
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 29, 2009, 11:08:03 AM
so how many hours/days until the violent manifestations start?
Since I don't like the Swiss, I hope it's soon.
Quote from: Martinus on November 29, 2009, 11:01:17 AM
Well, what can you expect from a nation of Holocaust grave-robbers.
Ironic, given that you guys were the ones the perpetrated the Holocaust and the post-Holocaust festivities.
Quote from: Martinus on November 29, 2009, 11:09:56 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 29, 2009, 11:08:03 AM
so how many hours/days until the violent manifestations start?
Since I don't like the Swiss, I hope it's soon.
The thing is, the Swiss might be the one nation in Europe that has the spine to put down violent protests by Muslims.
Quote from: Martinus on November 29, 2009, 11:01:17 AM
Well, what can you expect from a nation of Holocaust grave-robbers.
At least they didn't forget to rob the grave
:bleeding:
This is why I hate direct democracy.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 29, 2009, 11:47:19 AM
:bleeding:
This is why I hate direct democracy.
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."
I hope Switzerland gets around to banning homosexuality in the near future, as long as they are getting their bigots off their asses and to the polls. The furor that would arouse would be
most amusing.
Quote from: grumbler on November 29, 2009, 11:57:46 AM
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."
Isn't that just the way of things though.
If a million Muslim rise up against this, will the Swiss shoot twice and go home?
Ouch. Switzerland has just lost a lot of respect in my book...wonder how other countries will treat this.
This must be that sophistication and tolerance we here so much about in European culture.
A small victory, but an important one. :cheers:
Quote from: grumbler on November 29, 2009, 11:57:46 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 29, 2009, 11:47:19 AM
:bleeding:
This is why I hate direct democracy.
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."
I hope Switzerland gets around to banning homosexuality in the near future, as long as they are getting their bigots off their asses and to the polls. The furor that would arouse would be most amusing.
Considering they voted to approve gay marriage (civil union) a few years back dont hold your breath. ;)
Embarassing.
Won't it damage the Swiss reputation for neutrality that they just declared war on Islam?
Quote from: Ancient Demon on November 29, 2009, 01:26:15 PM
Won't it damage the Swiss reputation for neutrality that they just declared war on Islam?
The Swiss aren't entirely neutral. They've always been anti-barbarism,with the exception of the Slav lands, who are included in the civilized world by tradition from the time when they were ruled by Germans.
Quote from: Tyr on November 29, 2009, 12:47:45 PM
Ouch. Switzerland has just lost a lot of respect in my book...wonder how other countries will treat this.
I doubt the swiss are the only country that would vote for this sort of thing. I wonder if it would pass in the US--unfortunately I suspect it might.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 29, 2009, 01:50:48 PM
I doubt the swiss are the only country that would vote for this sort of thing. I wonder if it would pass in the US--unfortunately I suspect it might.
I think the majority of Americans would have spiess's attitude- not against it in principle, but don't see a reason to bother implementing a ban now.
It's funny how the main talking point against the ban was "don't vote for the ban, or the muslims might respond with violence, look what happened to Denmark!" Fuck, I'd vote for the ban too just to spite this kind of thinking. Seriously, when being worried about violent retribution is the main reason you oppose certain policies, something is rotten.
Also, the Swiss voted against banning the export of weapons and military goods.
Quote from: Jaron on November 29, 2009, 12:37:03 PM
If a million Muslim rise up against this, will the Swiss shoot twice and go home?
There are only 400,000 Muslims in Switzerland, and vast majority come from Bosnia (i.e. not darkies).
As for, I am split on the issue. While I defend freedom of religion (heck, when I was in highschool the Saudis and Saddam built a Mosque right next to us, and they were very friendly*, on the other hand I secretly - and kinda hipocritically, I'll admit :blush: - would like to see a ban on the construction of any and all religions buildings, be they Mosques, Churches, Synagogues and the rest. Maybe then people would start depending on themselves and not on the Big Spook in the Sky Who Plays Hide and Seek with Aeroplanes.
(and yes, I know the referendum was just about Minarets, not Mosques)
*: The girls hated them. The Muslims would not let them enter the Mosque.
:nelson @ all you limp-wristed Diversity types.
Quote from: derspiess on November 29, 2009, 02:52:04 PM
:nelson @ all you limp-wristed Diversity types.
Is there something wrong with diversity?
Quote from: Jaron on November 29, 2009, 02:57:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 29, 2009, 02:52:04 PM
:nelson @ all you limp-wristed Diversity types.
Is there something wrong with diversity?
In & of itself, not too much. But when it becomes the highest priority & flies in the face of common sense, yeah, there's plenty wrong with the Cult of Diversity.
Quote from: derspiess on November 29, 2009, 02:52:04 PM
:nelson @ all you limp-wristed Diversity types.
I had no idea letting Bosnians build minarets flew in face of common sense.
Europeans tore the world apart and rebuilt it with Europe at the center of all civilization and then grow restless and angry when the very people they once conquered look upon the white continent as their home too. Such nerve.
Quote from: Solmyr on November 29, 2009, 02:00:33 PM
It's funny how the main talking point against the ban was "don't vote for the ban, or the muslims might respond with violence, look what happened to Denmark!" Fuck, I'd vote for the ban too just to spite this kind of thinking. Seriously, when being worried about violent retribution is the main reason you oppose certain policies, something is rotten.
I would have thought a better talking point would have been 'singling out members of a particular religion for minor repression of their expression based on nothing but dislike of the majority of the population for practitioners of said religion and their "alien" ways goes against Western values of freedom and equality'.
To my mind, removing issues like this from the ambit of direct democracy via constitutional means is the best idea: avoids the 'three wolves and two sheep voting on what's for dinner' aspect that always arises when the majority get to vote on the rights of a minority.
Quote from: Malthus on November 29, 2009, 04:12:53 PM
I would have thought a better talking point would have been 'singling out members of a particular religion for minor repression of their expression based on nothing but dislike of the majority of the population for practitioners of said religion and their "alien" ways goes against Western values of freedom and equality'.
Over analyze it, will you? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Malthus on November 29, 2009, 04:12:53 PM
I would have thought a better talking point would have been 'singling out members of a particular religion for minor repression of their expression based on nothing but dislike of the majority of the population for practitioners of said religion and their "alien" ways goes against Western values of freedom and equality'.
To my mind, removing issues like this from the ambit of direct democracy via constitutional means is the best idea: avoids the 'three wolves and two sheep voting on what's for dinner' aspect that always arises when the majority get to vote on the rights of a minority.
I dunno - this move by Swiss voters is narrow-minded and bigoted. But voters have the right to make the wrong choice from time to time. You can't protect the voters from themselves without worse consequences in the long run.
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2009, 04:36:53 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 29, 2009, 04:12:53 PM
I would have thought a better talking point would have been 'singling out members of a particular religion for minor repression of their expression based on nothing but dislike of the majority of the population for practitioners of said religion and their "alien" ways goes against Western values of freedom and equality'.
To my mind, removing issues like this from the ambit of direct democracy via constitutional means is the best idea: avoids the 'three wolves and two sheep voting on what's for dinner' aspect that always arises when the majority get to vote on the rights of a minority.
I dunno - this move by Swiss voters is narrow-minded and bigoted. But voters have the right to make the wrong choice from time to time. You can't protect the voters from themselves without worse consequences in the long run.
Uhm, ever heard of a constitution/bill of rights concept? :huh:
Or are you saying that a country like the US - with the basic rights of the people enshrined in the constitution that is not subject to whims of the mob (at least not to the same degree a direct democracy referendum is) is the sure way to lead to "worse consequences in the long run"? :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on November 29, 2009, 04:48:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2009, 04:36:53 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 29, 2009, 04:12:53 PM
I would have thought a better talking point would have been 'singling out members of a particular religion for minor repression of their expression based on nothing but dislike of the majority of the population for practitioners of said religion and their "alien" ways goes against Western values of freedom and equality'.
To my mind, removing issues like this from the ambit of direct democracy via constitutional means is the best idea: avoids the 'three wolves and two sheep voting on what's for dinner' aspect that always arises when the majority get to vote on the rights of a minority.
I dunno - this move by Swiss voters is narrow-minded and bigoted. But voters have the right to make the wrong choice from time to time. You can't protect the voters from themselves without worse consequences in the long run.
Uhm, ever heard of a constitution/bill of rights concept? :huh:
Or are you saying that a country like the US - with the basic rights of the people enshrined in the constitution that is not subject to whims of the mob (at least not to the same degree a direct democracy referendum is) is the sure way to lead to "worse consequences in the long run"? :huh:
I am well aware of a bill of rights. And lets take the example of the US. The US Bill of Rights didn't prevent slavery, it didn't prevent Jim Crow laws, it allowed discrimination against homosexuals until very recently (and even now has done little in the whole gay marriage debate).
I'm sure you're also familiar with the UK, which has no written constitution or bill of rights, and yet has historically been amongst the freest of societies.
I firmly believe that respect for minorities and human rights must come from within the society, and not externally imposed.
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2009, 04:54:20 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 29, 2009, 04:48:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2009, 04:36:53 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 29, 2009, 04:12:53 PM
I would have thought a better talking point would have been 'singling out members of a particular religion for minor repression of their expression based on nothing but dislike of the majority of the population for practitioners of said religion and their "alien" ways goes against Western values of freedom and equality'.
To my mind, removing issues like this from the ambit of direct democracy via constitutional means is the best idea: avoids the 'three wolves and two sheep voting on what's for dinner' aspect that always arises when the majority get to vote on the rights of a minority.
I dunno - this move by Swiss voters is narrow-minded and bigoted. But voters have the right to make the wrong choice from time to time. You can't protect the voters from themselves without worse consequences in the long run.
Uhm, ever heard of a constitution/bill of rights concept? :huh:
Or are you saying that a country like the US - with the basic rights of the people enshrined in the constitution that is not subject to whims of the mob (at least not to the same degree a direct democracy referendum is) is the sure way to lead to "worse consequences in the long run"? :huh:
I am well aware of a bill of rights. And lets take the example of the US. The US Bill of Rights didn't prevent slavery, it didn't prevent Jim Crow laws, it allowed discrimination against homosexuals until very recently (and even now has done little in the whole gay marriage debate).
I'm sure you're also familiar with the UK, which has no written constitution or bill of rights, and yet has historically been amongst the freest of societies.
I firmly believe that respect for minorities and human rights must come from within the society, and not externally imposed.
Are you saying that the US constitution is "externally imposed"? Wow, those Yanks really have a wrong idea about that entire "independence" thing, then.
Sorry, but your argument makes little sense. The US constitution does not address every issue or right it should (it was written in another time, for one) but to the extent it does address a right, it has served a good role in preventing the tyranny of majority.
Your views sometimes strike me as really odd, to be honest... :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on November 29, 2009, 04:59:58 PM
Are you saying that the US constitution is "externally imposed"? Wow, those Yanks really have a wrong idea about that entire "independence" thing, then.
Sorry, but your argument makes little sense. The US constitution does not address every issue or right it should (it was written in another time, for one) but to the extent it does address a right, it has served a good role in preventing the tyranny of majority.
Your views sometimes strike me as really odd, to be honest... :huh:
No, I'm saying that the attempts by the courts to impose human rights are "externally imposed" on the populace.
The US constitution has a very checkered history of preventing tyranny of the majority to be honest. The Freedom of speech protection didn't do much in the 1950s and earlier. I've already mentioned Jim Crow laws. The internment of Japanese during WWII. Segregation.
My point of view perhaps can be understood by remembering a bit of Canadian history. We didn't have a written Charter of Rights until 1982, historically very recent (and within my living memory). We weren't a police state in 1981, and we didn't become a shining model of human rights in 1983. In fact I think the state of our democracy was stronger pre-Charter, but I am in the minority view on this.
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2009, 05:08:05 PM
In fact I think the state of our democracy was stronger pre-Charter, but I am in the minority view on this.
True, but supporters of the Charter aren't big fans of democracy. The only thing that is important to them is evil.
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2009, 04:54:20 PM
I'm sure you're also familiar with the UK, which has no written constitution or bill of rights, and yet has historically been amongst the freest of societies.
Key word. ;)
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2009, 05:08:05 PM
The US constitution has a very checkered history of preventing tyranny of the majority to be honest. The Freedom of speech protection didn't do much in the 1950s and earlier. I've already mentioned Jim Crow laws. The internment of Japanese during WWII. Segregation.
God damn America!
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2009, 04:54:20 PM
I am well aware of a bill of rights. And lets take the example of the US. The US Bill of Rights didn't prevent slavery, it didn't prevent Jim Crow laws, it allowed discrimination against homosexuals until very recently (and even now has done little in the whole gay marriage debate).
The Bill of Rights did not prevent slavery because the constitution was designed to permit slavery and the Bill of Rights were not drafted to prevent it.
The Bill of Rights (post 14th amendment) was used to invalidate Jim Crow and it was used to invalidate at least certain discrimination vs. gays at times in history where majority opinion favored such discrimination.
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2009, 04:54:20 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 29, 2009, 04:48:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2009, 04:36:53 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 29, 2009, 04:12:53 PM
I would have thought a better talking point would have been 'singling out members of a particular religion for minor repression of their expression based on nothing but dislike of the majority of the population for practitioners of said religion and their "alien" ways goes against Western values of freedom and equality'.
To my mind, removing issues like this from the ambit of direct democracy via constitutional means is the best idea: avoids the 'three wolves and two sheep voting on what's for dinner' aspect that always arises when the majority get to vote on the rights of a minority.
I dunno - this move by Swiss voters is narrow-minded and bigoted. But voters have the right to make the wrong choice from time to time. You can't protect the voters from themselves without worse consequences in the long run.
Uhm, ever heard of a constitution/bill of rights concept? :huh:
Or are you saying that a country like the US - with the basic rights of the people enshrined in the constitution that is not subject to whims of the mob (at least not to the same degree a direct democracy referendum is) is the sure way to lead to "worse consequences in the long run"? :huh:
I am well aware of a bill of rights. And lets take the example of the US. The US Bill of Rights didn't prevent slavery, it didn't prevent Jim Crow laws, it allowed discrimination against homosexuals until very recently (and even now has done little in the whole gay marriage debate).
I'm sure you're also familiar with the UK, which has no written constitution or bill of rights, and yet has historically been amongst the freest of societies.
I firmly believe that respect for minorities and human rights must come from within the society, and not externally imposed.
Yeah, and with that unwritten constitution they seem well on their way to 1984 style surveillance. Cameras everywhere, massive DNA database, etc.
WE are the ones WE'VE been waiting for.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 29, 2009, 07:05:30 PM
Yeah, and with that unwritten constitution they seem well on their way to 1984 style surveillance. Cameras everywhere, massive DNA database, etc.
That's the price of freedom.
Another word for nothing left to lose.
Quote from: Cecil on November 29, 2009, 01:16:23 PM
Considering they voted to approve gay marriage (civil union) a few years back dont hold your breath. ;)
Considering that the outcome of these kinds of votes depends on who is motivated to vote, don't be surprised if future votes overturn past ones. ;)
Quote from: Solmyr on November 29, 2009, 02:00:33 PM
It's funny how the main talking point against the ban was "don't vote for the ban, or the muslims might respond with violence, look what happened to Denmark!" Fuck, I'd vote for the ban too just to spite this kind of thinking. Seriously, when being worried about violent retribution is the main reason you oppose certain policies, something is rotten.
It's also funny that the main talking point in favor of the ban was that "minarets represent militant Islam and Sharia law!" :lol: Fuck, I'd vote twice against the ban just to punish pinheads for pinheaded thinking.
I think it is pretty amazing that in a country that considers itself civilized, this would even make it on the ballot. I don't think even the Polacks or the Irish have done referenda this stupid.
However, it won't make any difference to my lifespan, and there are aparently only 4 minarets in Switzerland now, so this isn't an issue of great significance to me other than to show that those Euro balls o' light are as racist as the people on the next continent.
Quote from: Faeelin on November 29, 2009, 03:09:05 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 29, 2009, 02:52:04 PM
:nelson @ all you limp-wristed Diversity types.
I had no idea letting Bosnians build minarets flew in face of common sense.
Derspiess is a member of the Cult of Anti-Diversity. Cultists don't do "common sense."
Quote from: grumbler on November 29, 2009, 07:23:20 PM
However, it won't make any difference to my lifespan, and there are aparently only 4 minarets in Switzerland now, so this isn't an issue of great significance to me other than to show that those Euro balls o' light are as racist as the people on the next continent.
Hatred of Islam isn't racism, you ignorant fuck.
Quote from: Neil on November 29, 2009, 07:27:20 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 29, 2009, 07:23:20 PM
However, it won't make any difference to my lifespan, and there are aparently only 4 minarets in Switzerland now, so this isn't an issue of great significance to me other than to show that those Euro balls o' light are as racist as the people on the next continent.
Hatred of Islam isn't racism, you ignorant fuck.
It sure can be, you stupid twat.
Quote from: grumbler on November 29, 2009, 07:23:20 PM
However, it won't make any difference to my lifespan, and there are aparently only 4 minarets in Switzerland now, so this isn't an issue of great significance to me other than to show that those Euro balls o' light are as racist as the people on the next continent.
Oh my, we've certainly more than that.
Quote from: grumbler on November 29, 2009, 07:30:28 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 29, 2009, 07:27:20 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 29, 2009, 07:23:20 PM
However, it won't make any difference to my lifespan, and there are aparently only 4 minarets in Switzerland now, so this isn't an issue of great significance to me other than to show that those Euro balls o' light are as racist as the people on the next continent.
Hatred of Islam isn't racism, you ignorant fuck.
It sure can be, you stupid twat.
But it is not in this case, as the majority of Swiss muslims are European. Cocksucker.
Quote from: Neil on November 29, 2009, 07:38:36 PM
But it is not in this case, as the majority of Swiss muslims are European. Cocksucker.
The nationality of the actual Muslims doesn't effect how racists vote on what they think is the issue, Your Assholiness.
Quote from: grumbler on November 29, 2009, 07:40:23 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 29, 2009, 07:38:36 PM
But it is not in this case, as the majority of Swiss muslims are European. Cocksucker.
The nationality of the actual Muslims doesn't effect how racists vote on what they think is the issue, Your Assholiness.
I would argue that it would be difficult for you to speak intelligently on the motivations of a Swiss voter against the minarets. Moreover, given the lack of other anti-slav laws, I think to claim racism is foolish. DICK.
This thread really livened up!
Quote from: Faeelin on November 29, 2009, 03:09:05 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 29, 2009, 02:52:04 PM
:nelson @ all you limp-wristed Diversity types.
I had no idea letting Bosnians build minarets flew in face of common sense.
Bosnians can build all the minarets they want: in Bosnia.
Quote from: Neil on November 29, 2009, 07:56:51 PM
I would argue that it would be difficult for you to speak intelligently on the motivations of a Swiss voter against the minarets. Moreover, given the lack of other anti-slav laws, I think to claim racism is foolish. DICK.
You can argue what ever you like, you'll still be a CHENEY.
Quote from: grumbler on November 29, 2009, 08:14:15 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 29, 2009, 07:56:51 PM
I would argue that it would be difficult for you to speak intelligently on the motivations of a Swiss voter against the minarets. Moreover, given the lack of other anti-slav laws, I think to claim racism is foolish. DICK.
You can argue what ever you like, you'll still be a CHENEY.
Are you refering to Sir Thomas Cheney, Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports in the 16th century?
Quote from: derspiess on November 29, 2009, 08:12:18 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on November 29, 2009, 03:09:05 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 29, 2009, 02:52:04 PM
:nelson @ all you limp-wristed Diversity types.
I had no idea letting Bosnians build minarets flew in face of common sense.
Bosnians can build all the minarets they want: in Bosnia.
God forbid that moderate Muslims move in. Lets get some more of those crazies from Pakistan.
We are pleased. The Swiss show the way; being welcoming is one thing - tolerating an invasion in the name of multiculturalism is another.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on November 29, 2009, 08:51:22 PM
We are pleased. The Swiss show the way; being welcoming is one thing - tolerating an invasion in the name of multiculturalism is another.
G.
Going a bit overboard, aren't we?
Quote from: Jaron on November 29, 2009, 08:53:02 PM
Going a bit overboard, aren't we?
One step at a time - I'm not.
G.
I dunno. The minaret thing doesn't seem important. What is important is to deny permission for Muslim cultural centres (read: terrorist recruitment centres), which Switzerland is doing a good job with.
Quote from: Neil on November 29, 2009, 09:06:26 PM
I dunno. The minaret thing doesn't seem important.
Are you sure? Canada and the US allowed minarets and look what has become of us.
Quote from: Grallon on November 29, 2009, 08:55:05 PM
Quote from: Jaron on November 29, 2009, 08:53:02 PM
Going a bit overboard, aren't we?
One step at a time - I'm not.
G.
Yes Martims, you have won a great victory over Islam here today.
Quote from: Neil on November 29, 2009, 09:06:26 PM
I dunno. The minaret thing doesn't seem important. What is important is to deny permission for Muslim cultural centres (read: terrorist recruitment centres), which Switzerland is doing a good job with.
Because clearly Lac La Biche, Alberta is a terrorist recruitment centre. :rolleyes:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mwlcanada.org%2Fpictures%2Fm_ab_lac.jpg&hash=5582f4434c6de89312e9e892030c544e863773cf)
Yes, it is.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 29, 2009, 01:58:46 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 29, 2009, 01:50:48 PM
I doubt the swiss are the only country that would vote for this sort of thing. I wonder if it would pass in the US--unfortunately I suspect it might.
I think the majority of Americans would have spiess's attitude- not against it in principle, but don't see a reason to bother implementing a ban now.
God, I'd hope that most people would be opposed to it on principle. I'm not sure what other reason there would be to oppose it, other than that it violates the basic right to free exercise of religion.
I don't think there are too many scenarios in which I would support a ban like this in the US. I might support it as a zoning restriction in my township, but that's about it.
Beeb I'm sure it is a haven for those nutzo "albertan" seperatists.
Quote from: Grallon on November 29, 2009, 08:51:22 PM
We are pleased. The Swiss show the way; being welcoming is one thing - tolerating an invasion in the name of multiculturalism is another.
G.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg163.imageshack.us%2Fimg163%2F2631%2F481pxburningofsodomites.jpg&hash=d6c42e680a6690bb51d8ef28425a5c6000e00831) (http://img163.imageshack.us/i/481pxburningofsodomites.jpg/)
Zurich, 1482. The burning of two sodomites.
Quote from: dps on November 29, 2009, 11:03:18 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 29, 2009, 01:58:46 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 29, 2009, 01:50:48 PM
I doubt the swiss are the only country that would vote for this sort of thing. I wonder if it would pass in the US--unfortunately I suspect it might.
I think the majority of Americans would have spiess's attitude- not against it in principle, but don't see a reason to bother implementing a ban now.
:)
God, I'd hope that most people would be opposed to it on principle. I'm not sure what other reason there would be to oppose it, other than that it violates the basic right to free exercise of religion.
Quote from: Neil on November 29, 2009, 09:06:26 PM
I dunno. The minaret thing doesn't seem important. What is important is to deny permission for Muslim cultural centres (read: terrorist recruitment centres), which Switzerland is doing a good job with.
They haven't done that though.
Surely from that stand point its better to have muslim buildings stand out and be obviously what they are than secretely hidden away in office buildings?
Quote from: Martinus on November 29, 2009, 04:48:30 PM
Uhm, ever heard of a constitution/bill of rights concept? :huh:
Or representative democracy.
I agree with grumbler. I find it very sad that if you actually support liberal values you're seen as being somehow to weak to protect liberalism.
Quote from: dps on November 29, 2009, 11:03:18 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 29, 2009, 01:58:46 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 29, 2009, 01:50:48 PM
I doubt the swiss are the only country that would vote for this sort of thing. I wonder if it would pass in the US--unfortunately I suspect it might.
I think the majority of Americans would have spiess's attitude- not against it in principle, but don't see a reason to bother implementing a ban now.
God, I'd hope that most people would be opposed to it on principle. I'm not sure what other reason there would be to oppose it, other than that it violates the basic right to free exercise of religion.
they can exercise their religion all they want, no minarets are needed. Christians don't need churchbells either.
"The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers... "
A little poem by Erdogan no less. It's from quite a while ago but it remains telling, even if maybe Erdogan himself doen't subscribe to it anymore (though there is no way of knowing for sure).
Make enough veiled threats or call for 'our' destruction enough and a backlash is all but assured.
As it is the people at large weren't asked about mass-immigration, and when they voiced their fears or pointed out problems they were hounded away by the politicians and poco-loco-organisations on the left. No, instead they were told to be inclusive and to show understanding.
This is the result you get when people are eventually asked. The good get to suffer because of the bad, as always.
More silly talk from Europeans. After what we Americans have been through, did we possibly expect them to ever understand what freedom of religion is?
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2009, 10:26:54 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 29, 2009, 09:06:26 PM
I dunno. The minaret thing doesn't seem important. What is important is to deny permission for Muslim cultural centres (read: terrorist recruitment centres), which Switzerland is doing a good job with.
Because clearly Lac La Biche, Alberta is a terrorist recruitment centre. :rolleyes:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mwlcanada.org%2Fpictures%2Fm_ab_lac.jpg&hash=5582f4434c6de89312e9e892030c544e863773cf)
It looks like an act of terrorism against good taste. :P
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 30, 2009, 02:29:54 AM
they can exercise their religion all they want, no minarets are needed. Christians don't need churchbells either.
"The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers... "
A little poem by Erdogan no less. It's from quite a while ago but it remains telling, even if maybe Erdogan himself doen't subscribe to it anymore (though there is no way of knowing for sure).
Make enough veiled threats or call for 'our' destruction enough and a backlash is all but assured.
As it is the people at large weren't asked about mass-immigration, and when they voiced their fears or pointed out problems they were hounded away by the politicians and poco-loco-organisations on the left. No, instead they were told to be inclusive and to show understanding.
This is the result you get when people are eventually asked. The good get to suffer because of the bad, as always.
So were mosques banned as well?
Quote from: garbon on November 30, 2009, 03:23:36 AM
So were mosques banned as well?
evidently not, but where the future will lead I know not.
In other news, Muslim dictators will still need Swiss bank accounts.
I voted "no" on principle, it infringes freedom of religion and doesn't solve any problems at all. I'm surprised at the amount of "yes" votes let alone the fact that it passed. :blink:
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 30, 2009, 03:28:42 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 30, 2009, 03:23:36 AM
So were mosques banned as well?
evidently not, but where the future will lead I know not.
Well, back in the day of the muhammed cartoons, did we have so called "international experts" claiming that we in didnt have any mosques in Denmark, becourse non of them had a minarat, so no minarat, no mosque...
Funny enough, most of our local muslims didnt see it that way, but then again what our local muslims say or though was largely seen as irrelevant doing the muhammed cartoon crisis...
Very retarded.
Compromising on the principles of freedom of religion just to harrass a certain religion is very silly IMO.
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2009, 02:32:01 AM
It looks like an act of terrorism against good taste. :P
It looks like a Russian Orthodox Church woke up one day and decided it wanted to be in a trailer park.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 30, 2009, 03:28:42 AM
evidently not, but where the future will lead I know not.
What's it like living in a world of delusions and hate?
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2009, 04:36:53 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 29, 2009, 04:12:53 PM
I would have thought a better talking point would have been 'singling out members of a particular religion for minor repression of their expression based on nothing but dislike of the majority of the population for practitioners of said religion and their "alien" ways goes against Western values of freedom and equality'.
To my mind, removing issues like this from the ambit of direct democracy via constitutional means is the best idea: avoids the 'three wolves and two sheep voting on what's for dinner' aspect that always arises when the majority get to vote on the rights of a minority.
I dunno - this move by Swiss voters is narrow-minded and bigoted. But voters have the right to make the wrong choice from time to time. You can't protect the voters from themselves without worse consequences in the long run.
I don't believe that direct democracy via yes/no questions on targeted referendums makes any sense under the best of circumstances. Even less, where the question at issue is the rights particular to a
minority.
Constitutional limitations on direct democracy simply make sense. While it is true that such limitations may be either implicit or explicit (and an implicit code may be more effective in some legal cultures), they must be there. There has to be some standard of decency and fairness against which proposed measures can be weighed.
A self-imposed constitutional limitation on legislation is not undemocratic; far from it. It is the framework which allows democracy to work. There should of course be some mechanism to change the constitution but this mechanism should be subject to many checks and balances - a direct majority vote should not be the way.
Quote from: garbon on November 30, 2009, 10:18:40 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 30, 2009, 03:28:42 AM
evidently not, but where the future will lead I know not.
What's it like living in a world of delusions and hate?
See Crazy Ivan - Garbon's attitude is what you were talking about. Layering guilt out of political correctness when legitimate fears are expressed, here through the ballot.
And I don't want to read the fallacious parallel between gays as a minority and muslims as a minority. No gay organizations or individuals call for holy war, murder, terror attacks in support of their 'religion' - muslims do.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on November 30, 2009, 10:36:28 AM
See Crazy Ivan - Garbon's attitude is what you were talking about. Layering guilt out of political correctness when legitimate fears are expressed, here through the ballot.
There is no such thing as a legitimate fear of architecture. Look, I hate neo-Georgian pastiche a la Prince Charles's estate. I think it the Daily Mail in 3D but I don't think it should be banned.
If an organisation calls for murder ban them and prosecute them. But don't blame the building.
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2009, 10:30:59 AM
I don't believe that direct democracy via yes/no questions on targeted referendums makes any sense under the best of circumstances. Even less, where the question at issue is the rights particular to a minority.
Constitutional limitations on direct democracy simply make sense. While it is true that such limitations may be either implicit or explicit (and an implicit code may be more effective in some legal cultures), they must be there. There has to be some standard of decency and fairness against which proposed measures can be weighed.
A self-imposed constitutional limitation on legislation is not undemocratic; far from it. It is the framework which allows democracy to work. There should of course be some mechanism to change the constitution but this mechanism should be subject to many checks and balances - a direct majority vote should not be the way.
I agree--it goes back to your analogy of 3 wolves and 2 sheep voting on dinner plans. Most people belong to some minority group, and are thus better off being protected by a consitutional limit built into the law. Even if that means as an American that I have to deal with the scourge of minarets.
That is a bizarre vote...anyway I am sure the Muslims will just have mosques without minarets now. An annoyance and harrasment that really changes nothing.
Switzerland is like that though, no hanging out your washing on a sunday, death sentence for chewing gum, 28 different boxes for your garbage :swiss:
Their democracy is very direct and people can change things. In a way it's amazing that the place is at all civilised under those rules.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 30, 2009, 10:41:07 AM
If an organisation calls for murder ban them and prosecute them. But don't blame the building.
The building is the expression of an idea or a complex of ideas. This idea was rejected by a majority of voters in Switzerland. Yes this ban represents discrimination against one particular group; but it is warranted by this group's actions around the world.
Besides I see these results as a reaction of the people against its elites and their handling of the consequences of immigration - as much, if not more, than it is against muslims.
G.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 30, 2009, 10:41:07 AM
Quote from: Grallon on November 30, 2009, 10:36:28 AM
See Crazy Ivan - Garbon's attitude is what you were talking about. Layering guilt out of political correctness when legitimate fears are expressed, here through the ballot.
There is no such thing as a legitimate fear of architecture. Look, I hate neo-Georgian pastiche a la Prince Charles's estate. I think it the Daily Mail in 3D but I don't think it should be banned.
If an organisation calls for murder ban them and prosecute them. But don't blame the building.
and as far as I can glean from the news the swiss didn't vote to forbid minarets just because they're minarets but for the ideological baggage they (are percieved to) carry. Claiming otherwise is to ignore the afterlaying issue: namely that europeans aren't all that certain anymore that mass-immigration from muslims lands was that good an idea, as well as the fact that a significant portion of the european populace isn't sure that our progressive liberal democracies are able to stand against reactionary muslim immigrants.
Call it the result of decades of being told that our values are not better than those of the migrants countries of origin; that and the whole post-war post-colonial introspective that has really worked wonders on our sense of cultural self-worth.
Add to that the people, NGO's and politicians that can't help but ridicule, insult or just ignore the people -their potential voters!- because what these people say doesn't stroke with their utopia of multi-culti bliss and then we're supposed to be surprised that people will vote this way?
I think not. Given what has happened since the Rushdie case I'm rather amazed that the anti-camp could only garnered 57%.
Hysterical muslims denouncing (bad?) writers, burning embassies over cartoons, sawing off journalists' heads and calling minarets bayonets for the faith is no way to convince europeans that islam is a peaceful religion; people will just scoff when you claim it is and remember what they've seen or read.
@garbon:
We've had people with your attitude - head in arse- here for over 20 years now and they've done exactly nothing to adress the issue other than letting it fester. If the mainly left-wing politicians had tried to come up with real solutions to the issue rather than denouncing those that spoke up back then things wouldn't have come to this point, and everyone -including our muslims- would have been better off.
Even worse, those same lefties that did so much to break the Church's immense influence on society, thus making today's progressive society possible, are now seen as making common cause with islam in order to get the immigrant vote. It doesn't set well with many people that left-wing parties/groups are so eager and quick to attack christianity for being reactionary while not doing the same with islam.
And when someone from those same left-wing parties does admit there's a problem with immigrants and their integration (and for belgium that usually means muslim immigrants) then all hell breaks loose and the PC-brigade lashes out like there's no tomorrow. But at least the debate is finally beginning, albeit 20 years too late, thanks to to people like you.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 30, 2009, 11:48:30 AM
and as far as I can glean from the news the swiss didn't vote to forbid minarets just because they're minarets but for the ideological baggage they (are percieved to) carry. Claiming otherwise is to ignore the afterlaying issue: namely that europeans aren't all that certain anymore that mass-immigration from muslims lands was that good an idea, as well as the fact that a significant portion of the european populace isn't sure that our progressive liberal democracies are able to stand against reactionary muslim immigrants.
Call it the result of decades of being told that our values are not better than those of the migrants countries of origin; that and the whole post-war post-colonial introspective that has really worked wonders on our sense of cultural self-worth.
Add to that the people, NGO's and politicians that can't help but ridicule, insult or just ignore the people -their potential voters!- because what these people say doesn't stroke with their utopia of multi-culti bliss and then we're supposed to be surprised that people will vote this way?
I think not. Given what has happened since the Rushdie case I'm rather amazed that the anti-camp could only garnered 57%.
Hysterical muslims denouncing (bad?) writers, burning embassies over cartoons, sawing off journalists' heads and calling minarets bayonets for the faith is no way to convince europeans that islam is a peaceful religion; people will just scoff when you claim it is and remember what they've seen or read.
@garbon:
We've had people with your attitude - head in arse- here for over 20 years now and they've done exactly nothing to adress the issue other than letting it fester. If the mainly left-wing politicians had tried to come up with real solutions to the issue rather than denouncing those that spoke up back then things wouldn't have come to this point, and everyone -including our muslims- would have been better off.
Even worse, those same lefties that did so much to break the Church's immense influence on society, thus making today's progressive society possible, are now seen as making common cause with islam in order to get the immigrant vote. It doesn't set well with many people that left-wing parties/groups are so eager and quick to attack christianity for being reactionary while not doing the same with islam.
And when someone from those same left-wing parties does admit there's a problem with immigrants and their integration (and for belgium that usually means muslim immigrants) then all hell breaks loose and the PC-brigade lashes out like there's no tomorrow. But at least the debate is finally beginning, albeit 20 years too late, thanks to to people like you.
Amen, right on brother...
They should remain part of the achitecture, but to retain a non-theist community element we should build helter-skelters around them.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 30, 2009, 11:48:30 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 30, 2009, 10:41:07 AM
Quote from: Grallon on November 30, 2009, 10:36:28 AM
See Crazy Ivan - Garbon's attitude is what you were talking about. Layering guilt out of political correctness when legitimate fears are expressed, here through the ballot.
There is no such thing as a legitimate fear of architecture. Look, I hate neo-Georgian pastiche a la Prince Charles's estate. I think it the Daily Mail in 3D but I don't think it should be banned.
If an organisation calls for murder ban them and prosecute them. But don't blame the building.
and as far as I can glean from the news the swiss didn't vote to forbid minarets just because they're minarets but for the ideological baggage they (are percieved to) carry. Claiming otherwise is to ignore the afterlaying issue: namely that europeans aren't all that certain anymore that mass-immigration from muslims lands was that good an idea, as well as the fact that a significant portion of the european populace isn't sure that our progressive liberal democracies are able to stand against reactionary muslim immigrants.
Call it the result of decades of being told that our values are not better than those of the migrants countries of origin; that and the whole post-war post-colonial introspective that has really worked wonders on our sense of cultural self-worth.
Add to that the people, NGO's and politicians that can't help but ridicule, insult or just ignore the people -their potential voters!- because what these people say doesn't stroke with their utopia of multi-culti bliss and then we're supposed to be surprised that people will vote this way?
I think not. Given what has happened since the Rushdie case I'm rather amazed that the anti-camp could only garnered 57%.
Hysterical muslims denouncing (bad?) writers, burning embassies over cartoons, sawing off journalists' heads and calling minarets bayonets for the faith is no way to convince europeans that islam is a peaceful religion; people will just scoff when you claim it is and remember what they've seen or read.
@garbon:
We've had people with your attitude - head in arse- here for over 20 years now and they've done exactly nothing to adress the issue other than letting it fester. If the mainly left-wing politicians had tried to come up with real solutions to the issue rather than denouncing those that spoke up back then things wouldn't have come to this point, and everyone -including our muslims- would have been better off.
Even worse, those same lefties that did so much to break the Church's immense influence on society, thus making today's progressive society possible, are now seen as making common cause with islam in order to get the immigrant vote. It doesn't set well with many people that left-wing parties/groups are so eager and quick to attack christianity for being reactionary while not doing the same with islam.
And when someone from those same left-wing parties does admit there's a problem with immigrants and their integration (and for belgium that usually means muslim immigrants) then all hell breaks loose and the PC-brigade lashes out like there's no tomorrow. But at least the debate is finally beginning, albeit 20 years too late, thanks to to people like you.
The solution is to have pride in one's liberal values and courage of one's convictions. I'm no relativist - to my mind, at this stage in history Western values of liberal, secular democracy are simply
superior to those of (say) Saudi Arabia. People from that part of the world come to the West, there should be no tollerance for the baggage they take with them, insofar as it contradicts those values - "honour killing", persecution of gays and women and the like should be dealt with by the courts and people left in no doubt that this is not tolerated here.
One of the ways in which we are clearly better than Saudi Arabia is in the aspect of tolerance for the not-harmful views of others. In Saudi Arabia, Christian churches are banned. We are better than them because, and to the extent, we
don't do that sort of thing.
This is gonna get good.
<steals microwave popcorn from coworker on vacation>
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 30, 2009, 10:41:07 AM
There is no such thing as a legitimate fear of architecture. Look, I hate neo-Georgian pastiche a la Prince Charles's estate. I think it the Daily Mail in 3D but I don't think it should be banned.
:lol:
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 30, 2009, 11:48:30 AM
@garbon:
We've had people with your attitude - head in arse- here for over 20 years now and they've done exactly nothing to adress the issue other than letting it fester. If the mainly left-wing politicians had tried to come up with real solutions to the issue rather than denouncing those that spoke up back then things wouldn't have come to this point, and everyone -including our muslims- would have been better off.
A real solution is banning a piece of architecture? If I look at BB's Canadian example, that's the equivalent of a chimney. Forgive me if I don't think banning such will stop the negative effects of radical islam.
I don't know what can be done, but I'm pretty sure that the solution to problems with immigration does not lie in alienating those immigrants by passing legislation to selectively discriminate* nor is it to coddle them for actions that are harmful to society for fear of upsetting them.
*Side note, but how exactly do you get immigrants to conform to a countries values if from day one they are should that said values are selectively applied?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2009, 08:24:40 PM
God forbid that moderate Muslims move in. Lets get some more of those crazies from Pakistan.
Ah yes, those mythical moderate muslims, who are never heard speaking out against the extremists in their religion and indeed act all understanding when someone blows up a bus.
Just to put things into some perspective, here are a few pictures of the threats against western civilization and values that we're talking about:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F9%2F95%2FMoschee_Wangen_bei_Olten.jpg%2F800px-Moschee_Wangen_bei_Olten.jpg&hash=d2ec99527c88dfc1f3f3ff2979b8d499b7633db6)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F9%2F9e%2FMahmud_Moschee1.jpg%2F436px-Mahmud_Moschee1.jpg&hash=e8f8cc004e2761f074336217e844c45139404c9e)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ork.ch%2Fspip%2FIMG%2Fjpg%2FMusulman_001.jpg&hash=8404940eead63d46261aa7e6995311b4c334cd6c)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmodules.drs.ch%2Fdynimages%2F576%2Fdata%2Fpictures%2Fdrs4%2Fbildergalerie%2F2009%2Fmoscheen_schweiz%2F41968.091020_schweiz_minarette_03-576.jpg&hash=50c633e66b8af1a2784d8ecd3486f25b4f7e5a51)
And that's it. Those are all the minarets that currently exist in Switzerland, a grand total of four minarets that threaten the very fabric of society.
As a comparison, there are more minarets in the poster campaigning for the ban than in the whole country:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F9%2F9d%2FMinarets_poster_1.jpg&hash=df8ef9573b62c66cb77b287bfde3aec2a23a1952)
That's great news there are only 4. Much less demolition work to be done.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on November 30, 2009, 12:29:40 PM
That's great news there are only 4. Much less demolition work to be done.
They won't be demolished, the ban is on the construction of new ones.
Quote from: garbon on November 30, 2009, 12:20:20 PM
A real solution is banning a piece of architecture? If I look at BB's Canadian example, that's the equivalent of a chimney. Forgive me if I don't think banning such will stop the negative effects of radical islam.
It's become a solution because as Ivan said, every other proposed solution gets immediately shot down by the PC brigade and the originators get called racist bigots etc, etc. The whole radicalization of European voters on this issue that we are now witnessing stems from this.
That's for the next referendum.
Quote from: Solmyr on November 30, 2009, 12:33:06 PM
It's become a solution because as Ivan said, every other proposed solution gets immediately shot down by the PC brigade and the originators get called racist bigots etc, etc. The whole radicalization of European voters on this issue that we are now witnessing stems from this.
It's not a solution, it's a small minded way to stick it to the muslims without even adressing any perceived problem. It just sends the message that muslims are not welcome.
Quote from: Solmyr on November 30, 2009, 12:33:06 PM
It's become a solution because as Ivan said, every other proposed solution gets immediately shot down by the PC brigade and the originators get called racist bigots etc, etc. The whole radicalization of European voters on this issue that we are now witnessing stems from this.
An course of action that does nothing to alleviate a situation is not a solution.
Quote from: Grallon on November 30, 2009, 11:33:43 AM
The building is the expression of an idea or a complex of ideas. This idea was rejected by a majority of voters in Switzerland. Yes this ban represents discrimination against one particular group; but it is warranted by this group's actions around the world.
They've not banned Mosques, they've banned minarets.
QuoteBesides I see these results as a reaction of the people against its elites and their handling of the consequences of immigration - as much, if not more, than it is against muslims.
I think you would have had a point a decade ago I think there's been a sea change in discourse about immigration in Europe and possibly elsewhere. Frankly I also think that discriminating against a small group in society that are often already discriminated against in socio-economic terms to get back at the 'elite' won't have much effect. What it'll actually do is discriminate against a small minority. I don't think anti-elite populism justifies victimisation of a portion of society - because really you're targeting the 'elite - is right and I think it's deeply distasteful.
I entirely agree with Malthus's post. I find the self-pitying, anti-liberal screeds of the European anti-immigrant right absolutely infuriating. If you want to take pride in liberalism - which we probably should, though I'm not wholly supportive of it - then surely the way to do that is to apply liberal values; not to target and discriminate a particular section of the population. Hearing some Europeans talking about minority groups they sounds like a wifebeater getting all upset about how he had to hit her.
You have a better proposed solution to the muslim immigrant and islamic global terrorism problems, that won't be denounced by the multiculturalists as racist? I'm all ears.
It is not a solution though, it is a nasty petty-minded move that can only be counter-productive.
Far better for Swiss citizens to press for their laws to be applied equally and fairly to all.
Quote from: Solmyr on November 30, 2009, 12:33:06 PM
It's become a solution because as Ivan said, every other proposed solution gets immediately shot down by the PC brigade and the originators get called racist bigots etc, etc. The whole radicalization of European voters on this issue that we are now witnessing stems from this.
I think that's bullshit. The reason people cry racist is because a lot of it stems from racism or xenophobia. Did the UK tabloids and many people turn on the Poles because they kept blowing up buses? Do the French not hire people with Arabic sounding names because they're so Goddamn tired of the liberal elite?
No. It's because they don't like foreigners; which is an understandable reaction to what's still the first experience Europe's ever had of mass immigration. But the truth is that immigration will never work in Europe if you won't get a job because your name's Mohammed even if you spend every waking minute reading Hugo and that you'll still get the piss taken out of you, no matter how integratable you are, because your from Lodz.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 30, 2009, 12:40:53 PM
It is not a solution though, it is a nasty petty-minded move that can only be counter-productive.
Far better for Swiss citizens to press for their laws to be applied equally and fairly to all.
It's now been said three times. I wonder if Solmyr will understand what is *not* a solution.
Quote from: Solmyr on November 30, 2009, 12:39:00 PM
You have a better proposed solution to the muslim immigrant and islamic global terrorism problems, that won't be denounced by the multiculturalists as racist? I'm all ears.
What's your proposed solution to Muslim immigration and Islamic global terrorism? As far as I can tell it's to make Muslims not want to move here because we're architecturally unwelcoming and a global moratorium on Arabesque towers. I mean I can think of a number of better solutions than that.
Perhaps we should ban flock wallpaper in Bangladeshi restaurants while we are at it?
bah :mad:
Bravo to Switzerland. Way to show that Europe has less religious tolerance than America. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 30, 2009, 12:42:06 PM
I think that's bullshit. The reason people cry racist is because a lot of it stems from racism or xenophobia. Did the UK tabloids and many people turn on the Poles because they kept blowing up buses? Do the French not hire people with Arabic sounding names because they're so Goddamn tired of the liberal elite?
No. It's because they don't like foreigners; which is an understandable reaction to what's still the first experience Europe's ever had of mass immigration. But the truth is that immigration will never work in Europe if you won't get a job because your name's Mohammed even if you spend every waking minute reading Hugo and that you'll still get the piss taken out of you, no matter how integratable you are, because your from Lodz.
And I think that's bullshit, because as an immigrant myself, with a decidedly non-Finnish name, I have integrated into Finnish society extremely well and pretty much all my interaction with society and workplaces has been positive. Why? Because I've understood that to live here, I need to respect and follow the cultural norms of this society. Something which muslim immigrants seem to have no desire to do.
Quote from: Solmyr on November 30, 2009, 12:39:00 PM
You have a better proposed solution to the muslim immigrant and islamic global terrorism problems, that won't be denounced by the multiculturalists as racist? I'm all ears.
Because, of course any proposed solution to inimgration problems has to be done "against" the inmigrants, right?
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 30, 2009, 12:43:49 PM
What's your proposed solution to Muslim immigration and Islamic global terrorism? As far as I can tell it's to make Muslims not want to move here because we're architecturally unwelcoming and a global moratorium on Arabesque towers. I mean I can think of a number of better solutions than that.
See above. My solution is for immigrants to learn to adapt to the cultural values of the country they live in. Of course this is one of those solutions that are shot down by multiculti moral relativists, because ZOMG we must respect their traditions!
In other words, if immigrants come to live into another country and this creates problems, the onus to adjust is on the immigrants, not the host populace.
Quote from: Solmyr on November 30, 2009, 12:49:05 PM
See above. My solution is for immigrants to learn to adapt to the cultural values of the country they live in. Of course this is one of those solutions that are shot down by multiculti moral relativists, because ZOMG we must respect their traditions!
I have a hard time believing what multi-culture people really want is colonies of Muslims settling in Europe with their cultures intact and distinct and separate. I mean that would just create a set up to continue the ethnic, religious, and national strife that has plagued Europe for centuries.
What is reasonable is that the immigrants move in and become part of the culture...with the obvious result that the host culture changes a bit also. It is not like Germany could absorb millions of Turks and not be a bit different just like the US became a little Irish when we absorbed the Irish immigrants.
Quote from: Solmyr on November 30, 2009, 12:47:13 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 30, 2009, 12:42:06 PM
I think that's bullshit. The reason people cry racist is because a lot of it stems from racism or xenophobia. Did the UK tabloids and many people turn on the Poles because they kept blowing up buses? Do the French not hire people with Arabic sounding names because they're so Goddamn tired of the liberal elite?
No. It's because they don't like foreigners; which is an understandable reaction to what's still the first experience Europe's ever had of mass immigration. But the truth is that immigration will never work in Europe if you won't get a job because your name's Mohammed even if you spend every waking minute reading Hugo and that you'll still get the piss taken out of you, no matter how integratable you are, because your from Lodz.
And I think that's bullshit, because as an immigrant myself, with a decidedly non-Finnish name, I have integrated into Finnish society extremely well and pretty much all my interaction with society and workplaces has been positive. Why? Because I've understood that to live here, I need to respect and follow the cultural norms of this society. Something which muslim immigrants seem to have no desire to do.
But clearly you have failed, since the cultural norms in the West include tolerance for other peoples religious views.
You should probably be shipped out.
Quote from: garbon on November 30, 2009, 12:42:48 PM
It's now been said three times. I wonder if Solmyr will understand what is *not* a solution.
To help Solmyr out, because I don't see any sign he is going to make a good point on his own, it could be a solution for Switzerland. I would guess that the proportion of deeply religious muslims wanting to immigrate to Switzerland as opposed to other parts of Europe will decline, and some that have recently immigrated may want to move.
An obvious counterpoint is there isn't a large group of that type of immigrant entering the country right now anyway.
The solution to the problem of Muslim immigration is to ban it entirely. If immigrants are needed take Vietnamese, Hindus, South Americans, etc.
Quote from: Solmyr on November 30, 2009, 12:49:05 PM
See above. My solution is for immigrants to learn to adapt to the cultural values of the country they live in. Of course this is one of those solutions that are shot down by multiculti moral relativists, because ZOMG we must respect their traditions!
Saying you shouldn't target a specific minority group isn't being a multiculti moral relativist, nor is it demanding that we adapt to their values. It's demanding that we live according to our own.
Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2009, 12:52:15 PM
But clearly you have failed, since the cultural norms in the West include tolerance for other peoples religious views.
You should probably be shipped out.
Nonsense, since when is unconditional tolerance a part of Western culture? I tolerate other religious views up to the point where those views call for brutally murdering me.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on November 30, 2009, 12:55:19 PM
The solution to the problem of Muslim immigration is to ban it entirely. If immigrants are needed take Vietnamese, Hindus, South Americans, etc.
Yeah, sure. The Poles have problems in the UK - they're white, Christian and overwhelmingly in work. They're model immigrants and people don't like them. I know a girl whose half-Cantonese half-French who left Paris (where she was born) because she didn't like the racism she received.
I think that while there is a problem with Muslim immigrants in terms of assimilation, that it's also fair to say that Europe generally has a problem with immigrants.
Oddly, orientalist style used to be "in" at some point.
Yenidze cigarette factory in Dresden (now clubs and bars):
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zoonar.de%2Fimg%2Fwww_repository2%2F96%2Fa8%2Fe2%2F10_ce9c4c752ca9e7cdc2aec3fb8327ad59.jpg&hash=30f2f672cfdd009d424214b558faf20758d9ede7)
Zacherlhaus Vienna, build in early 1900s for a pest control company.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fa%2Fa3%2FWien-Unterd%25C3%25B6bling_Zacherl-Haus.jpg%2F800px-Wien-Unterd%25C3%25B6bling_Zacherl-Haus.jpg&hash=b820d23b982033dc56257ed7779ed24f29df3504)
Quote from: Solmyr on November 30, 2009, 12:56:47 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2009, 12:52:15 PM
But clearly you have failed, since the cultural norms in the West include tolerance for other peoples religious views.
You should probably be shipped out.
Nonsense, since when is unconditional tolerance a part of Western culture? I tolerate other religious views up to the point where those views call for brutally murdering me.
Nonsense, since trying to stifle people religion who have no intention of brutally murdering you, or even gently murdering, or even brutally making fun of you, seems to be your goal.
If you are really all about stopping people from brutally murdering you (I assume this is some kind of major problem in Finland - lots of minaret builders brutally murdering people left and right?), you should consider passing some laws against brutal murder. That would work a lot better than your jihad against people who don't look just like you, or pray the way you pray, or whatever.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 30, 2009, 12:53:00 PM
To help Solmyr out, because I don't see any sign he is going to make a good point on his own, it could be a solution for Switzerland. I would guess that the proportion of deeply religious muslims wanting to immigrate to Switzerland as opposed to other parts of Europe will decline, and some that have recently immigrated may want to move.
Immigrant groups tend to go where there's a link or a community of some sort already, because it helps. So I believe that Sweden, for example, has a disproportionate number of Kurds because there was a lot Kurdish migration there in the 60s and 70s. I don't know why, maybe assylum laws? Similarly Germany has a high Turkish population because they sought 'guest workers' in the 60s and 70s. France has a high Algerian population and Britain a large Bangladeshi and Pakistani one.
I think the decision of which country to move to is rarely dictated by the ideological comfort you'll get, or even the economic situation in different countries. Rather I think it's where you have family or a community that you know of (someone from your village or area) that you'll be able to settle into.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 30, 2009, 12:55:47 PM
Saying you shouldn't target a specific minority group isn't being a multiculti moral relativist, nor is it demanding that we adapt to their values. It's demanding that we live according to our own.
I don't see buckling under pressure and accepting every group regardless of the actual content of their beliefs as part of Western values, sorry. I do in fact agree that a ban on minarets is silly and unlikely to help much in the long run, but something has to be done, and right now the options are very stifled.
Ah, the old line about PC keeping you down.
At least in my country, PC has been completely defeated - playing the victim while in government and with a sizable part of the populace supporting you is pretty pathethic. If anything, people who are PC are being shouted down - anything constructive will be lambasted for not being mean enough against the hated immigrants.
The aim of the anti-immigration crowd isn't integration. It's all about "winning". The harsher a proposal is, the better, since every restriction of liberty and happiness in the immigrant population is a blow against the filthy foreigners and the hated "liberals". I love how the anti-immigration side will portray itself as "realistic" and "offering solutions" while propagating BS nonsense like this and doing fuck all where it will actually matter.
Better schools and stronger support for immigrants won't win elections, but it just might solve some problems. Banning tea because it is an expression of muslim culture probably won't.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 30, 2009, 01:02:21 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 30, 2009, 12:53:00 PM
To help Solmyr out, because I don't see any sign he is going to make a good point on his own, it could be a solution for Switzerland. I would guess that the proportion of deeply religious muslims wanting to immigrate to Switzerland as opposed to other parts of Europe will decline, and some that have recently immigrated may want to move.
Immigrant groups tend to go where there's a link or a community of some sort already, because it helps. So I believe that Sweden, for example, has a disproportionate number of Kurds because there was a lot Kurdish migration there in the 60s and 70s. I don't know why, maybe assylum laws? Similarly Germany has a high Turkish population because they sought 'guest workers' in the 60s and 70s. France has a high Algerian population and Britain a large Bangladeshi and Pakistani one.
I think the decision of which country to move to is rarely dictated by the ideological comfort you'll get, or even the economic situation in different countries. Rather I think it's where you have family or a community that you know of (someone from your village or area) that you'll be able to settle into.
I think that is too simplistic - what if you want to emigrate, and are a professional minaret architect?
What then????
Quote from: Solmyr on November 30, 2009, 01:03:39 PM
I don't see buckling under pressure and accepting every group regardless of the actual content of their beliefs as part of Western values, sorry. I do in fact agree that a ban on minarets is silly and unlikely to help much in the long run, but something has to be done, and right now the options are very stifled.
So doing something completely pointless with no relation to the problems at hand is better than doing nothing.
Right.
Actually, we should ban the color green. It's often associated with Islam. We have to do something!
I'm generally pretty firmly on the tolerance side of the issue, but I think it gets complicated as (or if) the demographics tip. Would it be acceptable if Muslims were a voting majority in a European country and they passed sharia type or sharia friendly legislation? Or more immediately, if they were a minority partner in a coalition government and did the same?
Quote from: Solmyr on November 30, 2009, 12:20:49 PM
Ah yes, those mythical moderate muslims, who are never heard speaking out against the extremists in their religion and indeed act all understanding when someone blows up a bus.
It's not that hard to find muslim voices speaking against terrorism:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3059365.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3059365.stm)
QuoteOne of the world's most influential Islamic leaders has condemned all attacks by suicide bombers at an international conference for Islamic scholars.
Grand Sheikh Mohammed Sayed Tantawi of the Al-Azhar mosque of Cairo - which is seen as the highest authority in Sunni Islam - said groups which carried out suicide bombings were the enemies of Islam.
http://www.islamicity.com/articles/Articles.asp?ref=AM0109-335 (http://www.islamicity.com/articles/Articles.asp?ref=AM0109-335)
QuoteMuslim Americans Condemn Attack
Leaders of the American Muslim Political Coordination Council (AMPCC) held a meeting in Washington, DC, on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, to issue the following points related to the terrorist attacks:
- We assert unequivocal condemnation based on our religious values and our identity as American Muslims (...)
http://www.fatwa-online.com/news/0050709.htm (http://www.fatwa-online.com/news/0050709.htm)
QuoteGrand Mufti and Others Denounce London Bombings
The Kingdom (Saudi Arabia)'s grand mufti yesterday strongly denounced the deadly blasts that rocked London, saying Islam strictly prohibits the killing of innocent people. He also censured the terrorists for tarnishing the image of Islam by attaching their heinous crimes to the religion.
Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2009, 01:00:19 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on November 30, 2009, 12:56:47 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2009, 12:52:15 PM
But clearly you have failed, since the cultural norms in the West include tolerance for other peoples religious views.
You should probably be shipped out.
Nonsense, since when is unconditional tolerance a part of Western culture? I tolerate other religious views up to the point where those views call for brutally murdering me.
Nonsense, since trying to stifle people religion who have no intention of brutally murdering you, or even gently murdering, or even brutally making fun of you, seems to be your goal.
If you are really all about stopping people from brutally murdering you (I assume this is some kind of major problem in Finland - lots of minaret builders brutally murdering people left and right?), you should consider passing some laws against brutal murder. That would work a lot better than your jihad against people who don't look just like you, or pray the way you pray, or whatever.
Where did I say anything about stifling religion of people different from me? My point was that I don't extend unconditional tolerance to every belief system out there in the name of equality, when such belief system includes aspects that are totally alien to Western cultural norms. Yes, I believe that at this point in time Western cultural values are superior to anything else available and anyone who hopes to live in a Western country should adapt to those values first and foremost.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 30, 2009, 01:10:46 PM
I'm generally pretty firmly on the tolerance side of the issue, but I think it gets complicated as (or if) the demographics tip. Would it be acceptable if Muslims were a voting majority in a European country and they passed sharia type or sharia friendly legislation? Or more immediately, if they were a minority partner in a coalition government and did the same?
Illiberal policies in muslim majority countries are no better than illiberal policies other places. But there is no reason to suppose that a muslim majority would demand sharia etc. Turkey, Bosnia or Albania haven't, and the fairly big Muslim minorities around Europe have yet to produce a single viable Islamic political party.
Quote from: Solmyr on November 30, 2009, 01:03:39 PM
I don't see buckling under pressure and accepting every group regardless of the actual content of their beliefs as part of Western values, sorry. I do in fact agree that a ban on minarets is silly and unlikely to help much in the long run, but something has to be done, and right now the options are very stifled.
The options aren't stifled. I agree with bogh. In the British perspective it's tiresome to read the Sun, the Daily Mail, the Daily Express, the Telegraph and sometimes the Times bemoan how repressed we are by political correctness. If you read them you'd think we were living under Polly Toynbee's benign dictatorial rule. We live in a political culture in which discussion of immigration is hedged between the hardline and the ultra hardline. I find the self-pitying, victimised, put-upon posing of the anti-PC brigade far more tiresome than any of the politically correct strictures.
My argument has always been that if people move here they should live their lives according to Western law and values. It doesn't matter if gay-bashing or domestic violence is culturally acceptable in Jamaica or Saudi Arabia, in this country it's not. However I don't think government practically speaking can change people's opinions or beliefs, especially not in an age of cheap air travel and I don't think the regulation of belief is something the government should be involved in. We draw the line at acts against our values not at beliefs and we have faith in the deep seductiveness of a free society.
I find it ironic that you're unhappy with political correctness because it closes down debate and thought but you think that Western societies should actually close down and regulate what is acceptable belief.
Quote from: bogh on November 30, 2009, 01:06:24 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on November 30, 2009, 01:03:39 PM
I don't see buckling under pressure and accepting every group regardless of the actual content of their beliefs as part of Western values, sorry. I do in fact agree that a ban on minarets is silly and unlikely to help much in the long run, but something has to be done, and right now the options are very stifled.
So doing something completely pointless with no relation to the problems at hand is better than doing nothing.
Right.
Actually, we should ban the color green. It's often associated with Islam. We have to do something!
How is this no relation to the problems at hand? Minarets are a symbol of Islam and thus represent a target for some, since targeting more pertinent things is impossible.
Your example is bad because green is associated with a lot more than just Islam.
Quote from: bogh on November 30, 2009, 01:16:03 PM
Illiberal policies in muslim majority countries are no better than illiberal policies other places. But there is no reason to suppose that a muslim majority would demand sharia etc. Turkey, Bosnia or Albania haven't, and the fairly big Muslim minorities around Europe have yet to produce a single viable Islamic political party.
Picking out the examples of secular Muslim countries (you forgot Indonesia) is not the same as saying there is *no* reason to suppose a Muslim majority would demand sharia. It's a hypothetical, a possibility.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 30, 2009, 12:43:49 PM
What's your proposed solution to Muslim immigration and Islamic global terrorism? As far as I can tell it's to make Muslims not want to move here because we're architecturally unwelcoming and a global moratorium on Arabesque towers. I mean I can think of a number of better solutions than that.
True - this ban on minarets is silly in the sense that it does not address the problem directly: muslim immigration is not welcome. Not in this day and age when immigrants have no incentive to abandon their neurotic cultures; when all they need to do to keep in touch and remain morrocan, or algerian, or saudi, is an internet access and a computer.
But who will have the courage to say so? Who will say that there should be a ban on all immigration coming from north-africa and the middle-east? Who will speak of cultural profiling? Who will say no to outlandish demands from these minorities? Those are solutions but there's no one with enough balls to carry them through.
G.
Quote from: The Larch on November 30, 2009, 01:11:37 PM
QuoteOne of the world's most influential Islamic leaders has condemned all attacks by suicide bombers at an international conference for Islamic scholars.
Grand Sheikh Mohammed Sayed Tantawi of the Al-Azhar mosque of Cairo - which is seen as the highest authority in Sunni Islam - said groups which carried out suicide bombings were the enemies of Islam.
This would be the Tantawi who considers Jews to be degenerate liars and rejects any kind of peace with Israel? Yeah, real moderate there.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 30, 2009, 01:21:22 PM
Picking out the examples of secular Muslim countries (you forgot Indonesia) is not the same as saying there is *no* reason to suppose a Muslim majority would demand sharia. It's a hypothetical, a possibility.
I think we should think about that when we reach that moment. At the minute in the EU under 1% of the population is Muslim (far less the sort of Muslim that wants Sharia) - so in terms of demographics it's the same as the Jehovah's Witnesses getting a majority in the US. In the most Muslim, France, the best guess would make it like Asian Americans becoming the majority. It will take such a prodigious feat of reproduction for that to be an issue that I'd be inclined to say, let them.
Both's not just listing secular countries but the countries that Switzerland Muslim community overwhelmingly originate from. They're mostly Bosnians and Turks.
Quote from: Solmyr on November 30, 2009, 01:27:11 PM
Quote from: The Larch on November 30, 2009, 01:11:37 PM
QuoteOne of the world's most influential Islamic leaders has condemned all attacks by suicide bombers at an international conference for Islamic scholars.
Grand Sheikh Mohammed Sayed Tantawi of the Al-Azhar mosque of Cairo - which is seen as the highest authority in Sunni Islam - said groups which carried out suicide bombings were the enemies of Islam.
This would be the Tantawi who considers Jews to be degenerate liars and rejects any kind of peace with Israel? Yeah, real moderate there.
You wanted muslim figures speaking out against extremism, you got muslim figures speaking out against extremism.
Quote from: Fate on November 30, 2009, 12:45:12 PM
Bravo to Switzerland. Way to show that Europe has less religious tolerance than America. :thumbsup:
Not a bit of a surprise to me. Europe is to the left of America politically, and it's pretty obvious that there is a significant minority on the left that thinks that freedom of speach, conscience, etc., only means freedom for those who think like them.
Quote from: dps on November 30, 2009, 01:32:41 PM
Quote from: Fate on November 30, 2009, 12:45:12 PM
Bravo to Switzerland. Way to show that Europe has less religious tolerance than America. :thumbsup:
Not a bit of a surprise to me. Europe is to the left of America politically, and it's pretty obvious that there is a significant minority on the left that thinks that freedom of speach, conscience, etc., only means freedom for those who think like them.
It's a mistake to cast xenophobia and intolerance as a left or right issue.
Quote from: dps on November 30, 2009, 01:32:41 PM
Europe is to the left of America politically
Yeah it is tricky to compare Euro Left-Right and American Left-Right. They come from different traditions and different histories and perspectives so to say somehow that Europeans are like Leftwing Americans would be misleading. Actually to compare political movements across countries and cultures is difficult.
Quote from: The Larch on November 30, 2009, 01:31:06 PM
You wanted muslim figures speaking out against extremism, you got muslim figures speaking out against extremism.
I wanted moderate muslims, actually. Ones who also act accordingly instead of merely mouthing platitudes.
Good questions to identify moderate muslims would be:
1. Do you believe that religious beliefs are more important to follow than state laws, if the two are in disagreement?
2. Do you believe that people who convert away from or renounce Islam should be punished with death, as called by Islamic law?
If they answer yes to either of those, they are not what I'd consider moderate.
Quote from: Solmyr on November 30, 2009, 01:41:31 PM
Quote from: The Larch on November 30, 2009, 01:31:06 PM
You wanted muslim figures speaking out against extremism, you got muslim figures speaking out against extremism.
1. Do you believe that religious beliefs are more important to follow than state laws, if the two are in disagreement?
If you polled practicing Christians with respect to #1, I suspect the vast majority would say God's law is above that of the State's, especially when in disagreement. :mellow:
Quote from: Solmyr on November 30, 2009, 01:41:31 PM
Good questions to identify moderate muslims would be:
1. Do you believe that religious beliefs are more important to follow than state laws, if the two are in disagreement?
I disagree that this is useful. I think most religious people would answer that the religious law is the more important. I know my (Catholic) parents would do whatever the equivalent of conscientious objecting was if they were required to do something that went against Church teaching. I'm trying to think of an example but the best I can is abortion which doesn't work.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 30, 2009, 01:44:13 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on November 30, 2009, 01:41:31 PM
Good questions to identify moderate muslims would be:
1. Do you believe that religious beliefs are more important to follow than state laws, if the two are in disagreement?
I disagree that this is useful. I think most religious people would answer that the religious law is the more important. I know my (Catholic) parents would do whatever the equivalent of conscientious objecting was if they were required to do something that went against Church teaching. I'm trying to think of an example but the best I can is abortion which doesn't work.
Catholicism's organized opposition to legal racial discrimination during the Civil Rights era might work for those in the United States.
Quote from: Fate on November 30, 2009, 01:43:44 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on November 30, 2009, 01:41:31 PM
Quote from: The Larch on November 30, 2009, 01:31:06 PM
You wanted muslim figures speaking out against extremism, you got muslim figures speaking out against extremism.
1. Do you believe that religious beliefs are more important to follow than state laws, if the two are in disagreement?
If you polled practicing Christians with respect to #1, I suspect the vast majority would say God's law is above that of the State's, especially when in disagreement. :mellow:
Then they aren't moderate.
Quote from: Solmyr on November 30, 2009, 01:41:31 PM
Quote from: The Larch on November 30, 2009, 01:31:06 PM
You wanted muslim figures speaking out against extremism, you got muslim figures speaking out against extremism.
I wanted moderate muslims, actually. Ones who also act accordingly instead of merely mouthing platitudes.
Good questions to identify moderate muslims would be:
1. Do you believe that religious beliefs are more important to follow than state laws, if the two are in disagreement?
2. Do you believe that people who convert away from or renounce Islam should be punished with death, as called by Islamic law?
If they answer yes to either of those, they are not what I'd consider moderate.
You can find a couple of Muslims willing to say no to both in the Danish parliament.
The clerical cousins from the Danish Peoples Party here would definitely answer yes to your first question from a Christian perspective.
Quote from: Solmyr on November 30, 2009, 01:46:24 PM
Quote from: Fate on November 30, 2009, 01:43:44 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on November 30, 2009, 01:41:31 PM
Quote from: The Larch on November 30, 2009, 01:31:06 PM
You wanted muslim figures speaking out against extremism, you got muslim figures speaking out against extremism.
1. Do you believe that religious beliefs are more important to follow than state laws, if the two are in disagreement?
If you polled practicing Christians with respect to #1, I suspect the vast majority would say God's law is above that of the State's, especially when in disagreement. :mellow:
Then they aren't moderate.
Your conception of moderate is complete bullshit and is framed from a xenophobe's perspective.
Quote from: Fate on November 30, 2009, 01:43:44 PM
If you polled practicing Christians with respect to #1, I suspect the vast majority would say God's law is above that of the State's, especially when in disagreement. :mellow:
...Laws...Christian Laws...what would those be exactly? Christians are not really big on having lots of laws that is way more of a Muslim and Jewish thing. :mellow:
In fact I consider that one of the primary strengths of the religion.
Quote from: Fate on November 30, 2009, 01:47:21 PM
Your conception of moderate is complete bullshit and is framed from a xenophobe's perspective.
I'm a xenophobe for thinking that secular national laws should take precedence over religious dogma in public life of society? Some interesting definitions you have there, yourself.
I'd expect religious folks to oppose laws that they see as immoral, just as anyone else would.
What I demand is that they, and everyone else, abide by the recognized process for such opposition - democratic and legal means or, in the most extreme cases, civil disobedience.
All within a context that recognizes certain rights as constitutionally protected.
Quote from: Valmy on November 30, 2009, 01:48:16 PM
...Laws...Christian Laws...what would those be exactly? Christians are not really big on having lots of laws that is way more of a Muslim and Jewish thing. :mellow:
In fact I consider that one of the primary strengths of the religion.
The best I can think of is abortion for some Christians. Possibly war for Quakers?
Though I agree with Malthus.
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2009, 01:52:06 PM
I'd expect religious folks to oppose laws that they see as immoral, just as anyone else would.
What I demand is that they, and everyone else, abide by the recognized process for such opposition - democratic and legal means or, in the most extreme cases, civil disobedience.
All within a context that recognizes certain rights as constitutionally protected.
Which is my point - if you oppose some law, there is still an established process for doing it, and it's not threatening to blow up people or cut off their heads if they don't agree to your demands.
Quote from: Solmyr on November 30, 2009, 01:54:38 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2009, 01:52:06 PM
I'd expect religious folks to oppose laws that they see as immoral, just as anyone else would.
What I demand is that they, and everyone else, abide by the recognized process for such opposition - democratic and legal means or, in the most extreme cases, civil disobedience.
All within a context that recognizes certain rights as constitutionally protected.
Which is my point - if you oppose some law, there is still an established process for doing it, and it's not threatening to blow up people or cut off their heads if they don't agree to your demands.
That you immediately go to blowing up people or cutting off heads as the form of Muslim disagreement with the law strongly suggest you are indeed, a xenophobe. :lol:
Quote from: Fate on November 30, 2009, 01:56:56 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on November 30, 2009, 01:54:38 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2009, 01:52:06 PM
I'd expect religious folks to oppose laws that they see as immoral, just as anyone else would.
What I demand is that they, and everyone else, abide by the recognized process for such opposition - democratic and legal means or, in the most extreme cases, civil disobedience.
All within a context that recognizes certain rights as constitutionally protected.
Which is my point - if you oppose some law, there is still an established process for doing it, and it's not threatening to blow up people or cut off their heads if they don't agree to your demands.
That you immediately go to blowing up people or cutting off heads as the form of Muslim disagreement with the law strongly suggest you are indeed, a xenophobe. :lol:
Because the global Muslim response to, say, the Danish cartoons was calm, measured, and completely civil, right?
Quote from: Solmyr on November 30, 2009, 01:54:38 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2009, 01:52:06 PM
I'd expect religious folks to oppose laws that they see as immoral, just as anyone else would.
What I demand is that they, and everyone else, abide by the recognized process for such opposition - democratic and legal means or, in the most extreme cases, civil disobedience.
All within a context that recognizes certain rights as constitutionally protected.
Which is my point - if you oppose some law, there is still an established process for doing it, and it's not threatening to blow up people or cut off their heads if they don't agree to your demands.
Certainly. But that makes nonsense of your first point - that "moderates" must defer to national laws, by not holding whatever they happen to believe is "god's law" higher than that of the state.
I have certain beliefs I have that I hold higher than state laws; I expect many people do. Not necessarily religious, mind. That's why if the state comes out with a law I don't like, I have a basis for opposing it.
To my mind, a "moderate" is someone willing to recognize that other people have beliefs of this sort which, though you may not agree with them, are entitled to a certain level of respect. In short, a person who participates in the receprocity necessary for a functioning society. Your true religious fanatic has no respect for the belief of others (and indeed for their persons) and will thus cheerfully blow people up in furtherance of their beliefs; a non-fanatic, while disagreeing with others (perhaps fundamentally) is willing to engage in the sort of receprocity I discuss.
That is also my critique of the anti-Minaret measure. It is not an example of the sort of receprocity and respect for the (perhaps fundamentally wrong) beliefs of others which IMO our system attempts, however imperfectly, to embody. It obviously is not of the same order as cutting off heads or blowing people up - more like a petty harrassment; but to the extent that there is a division within the Muslim community between moderates (who believe in reciprocity) and fanatics (who don't), it surely strengthens the hands of the latter!
Quote from: Solmyr on November 30, 2009, 02:03:22 PM
Quote from: Fate on November 30, 2009, 01:56:56 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on November 30, 2009, 01:54:38 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2009, 01:52:06 PM
I'd expect religious folks to oppose laws that they see as immoral, just as anyone else would.
What I demand is that they, and everyone else, abide by the recognized process for such opposition - democratic and legal means or, in the most extreme cases, civil disobedience.
All within a context that recognizes certain rights as constitutionally protected.
Which is my point - if you oppose some law, there is still an established process for doing it, and it's not threatening to blow up people or cut off their heads if they don't agree to your demands.
That you immediately go to blowing up people or cutting off heads as the form of Muslim disagreement with the law strongly suggest you are indeed, a xenophobe. :lol:
Because the global Muslim response to, say, the Danish cartoons was calm, measured, and completely civil, right?
No. The civilized, calm, and measured way to respond to the Danish cartoon controversy is to ban minaret construction. :yes:
Quote from: Solmyr on November 30, 2009, 01:46:24 PM
Quote from: Fate on November 30, 2009, 01:43:44 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on November 30, 2009, 01:41:31 PM
Quote from: The Larch on November 30, 2009, 01:31:06 PM
You wanted muslim figures speaking out against extremism, you got muslim figures speaking out against extremism.
1. Do you believe that religious beliefs are more important to follow than state laws, if the two are in disagreement?
If you polled practicing Christians with respect to #1, I suspect the vast majority would say God's law is above that of the State's, especially when in disagreement. :mellow:
Then they aren't moderate.
Ah, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Man, it
has been a long time since I've seen this one trotted out! :lol:
The naivete of some people is staggering. :yeahright:
G.
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2009, 02:05:54 PM
Certainly. But that makes nonsense of your first point - that "moderates" must defer to national laws, by not holding whatever they happen to believe is "god's law" higher than that of the state.
I have certain beliefs I have that I hold higher than state laws; I expect many people do. Not necessarily religious, mind. That's why if the state comes out with a law I don't like, I have a basis for opposing it.
To my mind, a "moderate" is someone willing to recognize that other people have beliefs of this sort which, though you may not agree with them, are entitled to a certain level of respect. In short, a person who participates in the receprocity necessary for a functioning society. Your true religious fanatic has no respect for the belief of others (and indeed for their persons) and will thus cheerfully blow people up in furtherance of their beliefs; a non-fanatic, while disagreeing with others (perhaps fundamentally) is willing to engage in the sort of receprocity I discuss.
That is also my critique of the anti-Minaret measure. It is not an example of the sort of receprocity and respect for the (perhaps fundamentally wrong) beliefs of others which IMO our system attempts, however imperfectly, to embody. It obviously is not of the same order as cutting off heads or blowing people up - more like a petty harrassment; but to the extent that there is a division within the Muslim community between moderates (who believe in reciprocity) and fanatics (who don't), it surely strengthens the hands of the latter!
Perhaps I worded my first point poorly then, apologies for that. I did not mean to imply that slavish obedience of state laws is a sign of a moderate. What I meant that placing religious dogma above secular in every situation that does not concern purely oneself personally is not moderate. I have no problem with people practicing whatever beliefs they want as long as it does not affect anyone who does not want to be affected. In that regard I agree with your post above. However it should also be noted that I consider criticism of others' beliefs to be a fundamental part of freedom of speech that should be possible to exercise without receiving threats of violence. When such threats are issued then that belief no longer has a place in civilized society, IMO.
Quote from: Grallon on November 30, 2009, 02:18:08 PM
The naivete of some people is staggering. :yeahright:
G.
I agree. The world is at a significant deficit in terms of chicken little-ism. :angry:
It ain't over: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jSvKwQU-w3j6Gp8PWHRzV2hnh54QD9CA0T403
What is puzzling to me is the overreaction to what is really a very modest measure.
Quote from: derspiess on November 30, 2009, 03:07:46 PM
What is puzzling to me is the overreaction to what is really a very modest measure.
It's a gesture laden with symbolism. That's where these battles usually get fought. Most people fighting to prevent
Lady Chatterley's Lover from being censored were not really all that interested in reading it; most people fighting to censor it were not really all that concerned with manservants run amuck.
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2009, 03:13:09 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 30, 2009, 03:07:46 PM
What is puzzling to me is the overreaction to what is really a very modest measure.
It's a gesture laden with symbolism. That's where these battles usually get fought. Most people fighting to prevent Lady Chatterley's Lover from being censored were not really all that interested in reading it; most people fighting to censor it were not really all that concerned with manservants run amuck.
Right. The point of the bill is a "fuck you" to the country's Muslims. I am actually surprised at the lackf of outrage int eh islamic world.
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2009, 12:07:09 PM
The solution is to have pride in one's liberal values and courage of one's convictions. I'm no relativist - to my mind, at this stage in history Western values of liberal, secular democracy are simply superior to those of (say) Saudi Arabia. People from that part of the world come to the West, there should be no tollerance for the baggage they take with them, insofar as it contradicts those values - "honour killing", persecution of gays and women and the like should be dealt with by the courts and people left in no doubt that this is not tolerated here.
and there a big part of the problem lies.
I'm speaking specifically about the belgian situation now.
Over here, when you express the sentiment your just described -and which most of us here subscribe to- you're called a conservative at best, an extremist right-wing racist in most other cases.
Things are changing though so there's some hope one will be able to extress that sentiment with ease again soonish.
In the meantime however the government has -against the will of the majority- decided to initiate another legalisation-drive that at best will result in about 150K new residents, and at worst 400K new residents. That's a rise equivalent to about 4% of the current population... all in a few months to a year. And then politicians wonder why the people are ill at ease.
In the meantime the situation remains fubared though.
Quote from: Faeelin on November 30, 2009, 03:22:38 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2009, 03:13:09 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 30, 2009, 03:07:46 PM
What is puzzling to me is the overreaction to what is really a very modest measure.
It's a gesture laden with symbolism. That's where these battles usually get fought. Most people fighting to prevent Lady Chatterley's Lover from being censored were not really all that interested in reading it; most people fighting to censor it were not really all that concerned with manservants run amuck.
Right. The point of the bill is a "fuck you" to the country's Muslims. I am actually surprised at the lackf of outrage int eh islamic world.
That's probably still in the makin, or -hopefully- not coming this time. Still, most musim countries have no reason to be outraged about this, lest they come over as a bunch of hypocrites. which would of course be easy propaganda for those that need it.
Quote from: derspiess on November 30, 2009, 03:07:46 PM
What is puzzling to me is the overreaction to what is really a very modest measure.
Yeah? What has been the reaction? Or do you just mean in this thread?
Interesting. Only 38% of urban Swiss supported the ban, but rural regions had support in excess of 66%. Rednecks aren't relegated to merely the United States.
Quote from: Fate on November 30, 2009, 03:40:15 PM
Interesting. Only 38% of urban Swiss supported the ban, but rural regions had support in excess of 66%. Rednecks aren't relegated to merely the United States.
If by interesting you mean completely predictable then yes.
And yeah country people are country people the world over.
Quote from: Valmy on November 30, 2009, 03:41:24 PM
Quote from: Fate on November 30, 2009, 03:40:15 PM
Interesting. Only 38% of urban Swiss supported the ban, but rural regions had support in excess of 66%. Rednecks aren't relegated to merely the United States.
If by interesting you mean completely predictable then yes.
And yeah country people are country people the world over.
You would think if Islam is ready to take over Europe by force, then urbanites who live side by side with the majority of immigrants might have more first hand experience with the jihadi menace.
Quote from: Fate on November 30, 2009, 03:44:42 PM
You would think if Islam is ready to take over Europe by force, then urbanites who live side by side with the majority of immigrants might have more first hand experience with the jihadi menace.
It's always the way. According to polls in the UK immigration is more of a priority in constituencies with less experience of it. It's always mind-boggling to me when I go to visit my family in rural Dorset. If you get chatting in the pub and immigration or multi-culti or PC comes up you hear the most preposterously extreme views: the country's fucked because of foreigners, Islam's taken over and so on. In Dorset multi-culturalism means selling Cornish pasties.
But I live in a very ethnically, religiously, racially diverse area of London and to be honest my impression is that actually it's sort of working :mellow:
Same with diversity. Places like Spokane, WA or Wellesley, MA are less accepting of individuals from diverse backgrounds as they've no experience with them.
I find the muslims in my district to be better behaved than the white majority, they seem to be hardworking family-oriented people, you know.......their mosque doesn't even have a minaret :P
When reading the papers I find it impossible to reconcile the lurid accounts of Islam with my day-to-day reality. Of course it is harder for a denizen of Dorset to make such direct observations.
I generally like the Muslims (and I mean the ones that are actual Muslims not "Muslims" like the 2nd generation dude who is about as Muslim as Martinus is Christian) I know here, good peeps, but sometimes they say bizarre things that leave me thinking 'WTF?'.
'Yeah Europe had alot of great philosophers but really Islam makes all their ideas redundant.'
'Um...ok.' Yeah John Locke clearly had nothing to add after the Quran invented separation of powers but anywho.
However the Muslims around here are highly educated engineers and science types so they are probably not representative of the average Joe Muslim.
I generally like people (and I mean the ones that are actual People not "People" like a mass murderer or rapist who is about as People-like as Martinus is Christian) I know here, good peeps, but sometimes they say bizarre things that leave me thinking 'WTF?'.
'Yeah the music of the 80s made music today redundant. It's all just unoriginal copycatism.'
'Um...ok.' Yeah the 80s was the height of music and clearly there has been nothing to add after that decade but anywho.
Quote from: Fate on November 30, 2009, 01:43:44 PM
If you polled practicing Christians with respect to #1, I suspect the vast majority would say God's law is above that of the State's, especially when in disagreement. :mellow:
And follow God's law when it conflicts with civil law? Of course not.
Quote from: bogh on November 30, 2009, 05:47:36 AM
Very retarded.
Compromising on the principles of freedom of religion just to harrass a certain religion is very silly IMO.
I agree. Why stop at one when we can harass all of them?
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 30, 2009, 03:31:23 PM
In the meantime however the government has -against the will of the majority- decided to initiate another legalisation-drive that at best will result in about 150K new residents, and at worst 400K new residents. That's a rise equivalent to about 4% of the current population... all in a few months to a year. And then politicians wonder why the people are ill at ease.
I think Belgium (or rather Wallonia) should become a recruitment pool for the Quebec Immigration Ministry - rather than Absurdistan or Botswana. The french segment of the population is very close culturally to us and the country is perpetually on the verge of collapse when it's not overrun by 3rd worlders. :hug:
Similarly the european descendants in South Africa would be good candidates for England instead of endless streams of pakis.
G.
Quote from: garbon on November 30, 2009, 04:22:18 PM
I generally like people...
He has a point, grabon. My buddy's wife's family (all Indian Muslims) are all very well-educated & in most cases seem pretty down to earth. But the men in the family seem a bit prone to believe in conspiracy theories & whatnot. I really like her family, but I steer clear of certain topics when I'm around them.
Quote from: derspiess on November 30, 2009, 04:46:29 PM
He has a point, grabon. My buddy's wife's family (all Indian Muslims) are all very well-educated & in most cases seem pretty down to earth. But the men in the family seem a bit prone to believe in conspiracy theories & whatnot. I really like her family, but I steer clear of certain topics when I'm around them.
Sure. There are weird people in every group. :tinfoil:
Men on the black side of my family are more prone to rape and assault. :o
Quote from: garbon on November 30, 2009, 04:22:18 PM
I generally like people (and I mean the ones that are actual People not "People" like a mass murderer or rapist who is about as People-like as Martinus is Christian) I know here, good peeps, but sometimes they say bizarre things that leave me thinking 'WTF?'.
'Yeah the music of the 80s made music today redundant. It's all just unoriginal copycatism.'
'Um...ok.' Yeah the 80s was the height of music and clearly there has been nothing to add after that decade but anywho.
That is not comparable at all dude. You know what the music of the 80s is and you are familiar with it since you come from a common cultural context. I don't know nearly enough about Islam and its cultural context to even begin to understand those sort of statements that come from them from time to time. It puts me in a weird position of wanting to ask them but we usually end up going in circles when we do.
I mean unless they are comparing 80s music in Swahili to American music and pointing out how redundant it makes it.
So take an Islam appreciation class. :mellow:
Quote from: garbon on November 30, 2009, 05:09:13 PM
So take an Islam appreciation class. :mellow:
Take an anecdote appreciation class. :mellow:
You didn't get all pissy with Dick when he relayed his anecdotes so why are you all pissy with me? Because I noted one thing I felt was sorta funny and different?
Quote from: Valmy on November 30, 2009, 05:12:43 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 30, 2009, 05:09:13 PM
So take an Islam appreciation class. :mellow:
Take an anecdote appreciation class. :mellow:
You didn't get all pissy with Dick when he relayed his anecdotes so why are you all pissy with me?
Because you like Vince Young.
Quote from: derspiess on November 30, 2009, 04:46:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 30, 2009, 04:22:18 PM
I generally like people...
He has a point, grabon. My buddy's wife's family (all Indian Muslims) are all very well-educated & in most cases seem pretty down to earth. But the men in the family seem a bit prone to believe in conspiracy theories & whatnot. I really like her family, but I steer clear of certain topics when I'm around them.
Eh. How many Americans fear flu shots, think Bush destroyed the Twin Towers, or think Obama is a Kenyan?
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 30, 2009, 05:13:58 PM
Because you like Vince Young.
And any decent human being should.
Quote from: Faeelin on November 30, 2009, 05:15:41 PM
Eh. How many Americans fear flu shots, think Bush destroyed the Twin Towers, or think Obama is a Kenyan?
Way too many?
Point missed I guess.
Quote from: Grallon on November 30, 2009, 11:33:43 AM
Yes this ban represents discrimination against one particular group; but it is warranted by this group's actions around the world.
Do you even hear yourself? :bleeding:
Quote from: Faeelin on November 30, 2009, 05:15:41 PM
Eh. How many Americans fear flu shots, think Bush destroyed the Twin Towers, or think Obama is a Kenyan?
Relatively few among highly educated types.
Quote from: Valmy on November 30, 2009, 05:17:02 PM
Point missed I guess.
Your point seemed like "yeah they are generally nice people although there are some strange things about them." I'm sure they could probably say the same about you and your type.
Quote from: Grallon on November 30, 2009, 10:36:28 AM
No gay organizations or individuals call for holy war, murder, terror attacks in support of their 'religion' - muslims do.
Martinesian Jihad does.
Quote from: garbon on November 30, 2009, 05:55:11 PM
I'm sure they could probably say the same about you and your type.
Yeah, but only if he held similarly bizarre beliefs, like Europeans discovered algebra before teh mooselimbs, or something.
Stop trivializing his point.
Quote from: Faeelin on November 30, 2009, 05:15:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 30, 2009, 04:46:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 30, 2009, 04:22:18 PM
I generally like people...
He has a point, grabon. My buddy's wife's family (all Indian Muslims) are all very well-educated & in most cases seem pretty down to earth. But the men in the family seem a bit prone to believe in conspiracy theories & whatnot. I really like her family, but I steer clear of certain topics when I'm around them.
Eh. How many Americans fear flu shots, think Bush destroyed the Twin Towers, or think Obama is a Kenyan?
A far better question would be how many buddy's-brothers-in-law fear flu shots, think Bush destroyed the Twin Towers, or think Obama is a Kenyan. You seem to be confusing an anecdote about specific individuals with some general rule. That is always a logical error.
Quote from: garbon on November 30, 2009, 05:55:11 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 30, 2009, 05:17:02 PM
Point missed I guess.
Your point seemed like "yeah they are generally nice people although there are some strange things about them." I'm sure they could probably say the same about you and your type.
He was talking about specific people. What is Valmy's "type" that is the equivalent of his bud's bros-in-law?
Grumbly = teh funny.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 30, 2009, 04:09:37 PM
I find the muslims in my district to be better behaved than the white majority, they seem to be hardworking family-oriented people, you know.......their mosque doesn't even have a minaret :P
When reading the papers I find it impossible to reconcile the lurid accounts of Islam with my day-to-day reality. Of course it is harder for a denizen of Dorset to make such direct observations.
Yeah. A problem I always have when people bemoan the lack of moderate Muslims is that I think 'well I know the moderate Muslims. I went for a coffee with one of them last week.' So yeah I find it difficult to reconcile too.
Quote from: grumbler on November 30, 2009, 09:51:56 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on November 30, 2009, 05:15:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 30, 2009, 04:46:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 30, 2009, 04:22:18 PM
I generally like people...
He has a point, grabon. My buddy's wife's family (all Indian Muslims) are all very well-educated & in most cases seem pretty down to earth. But the men in the family seem a bit prone to believe in conspiracy theories & whatnot. I really like her family, but I steer clear of certain topics when I'm around them.
Eh. How many Americans fear flu shots, think Bush destroyed the Twin Towers, or think Obama is a Kenyan?
A far better question would be how many buddy's-brothers-in-law fear flu shots, think Bush destroyed the Twin Towers, or think Obama is a Kenyan. You seem to be confusing an anecdote about specific individuals with some general rule. That is always a logical error.
Valmy's comment was "The Muslims I know have some kooky beliefs," to which ders responded, "That's a valid point. Muslims I also know have some kooky beliefs." This does not suggest "anecdotally, this group of Muslims I know have kooky beliefs", but rather "I notice a pattern of Muslims having kooky beliefs."
So, yea.
Quote from: grumbler on November 30, 2009, 09:53:08 PM
He was talking about specific people. What is Valmy's "type" that is the equivalent of his bud's bros-in-law?
I guess dull, white people. Quirky in their own entirely unoriginal and boring way. :swiss:
Quote from: Faeelin on December 01, 2009, 12:54:56 AM
Valmy's comment was "The Muslims I know have some kooky beliefs," to which ders responded, "That's a valid point. Muslims I also know have some kooky beliefs." This does not suggest "anecdotally, this group of Muslims I know have kooky beliefs", but rather "I notice a pattern of Muslims having kooky beliefs."
So, yea.
Actually, even on its own I don't get the point of said anecdote. Some of the hipsters who hang out at the coffeeshop across the street are decent people although I've noticed that some have these strange beliefs about authenticity. Yay?
I didn't mean to jump on you, Valmy, it's just that what you posted if often the sort of thing you hear from people who dislike certain groups but don't want to share. In line with the "my best friend is black" crowd.
Quote from: Fate on November 30, 2009, 01:35:48 PM
Quote from: dps on November 30, 2009, 01:32:41 PM
Quote from: Fate on November 30, 2009, 12:45:12 PM
Bravo to Switzerland. Way to show that Europe has less religious tolerance than America. :thumbsup:
Not a bit of a surprise to me. Europe is to the left of America politically, and it's pretty obvious that there is a significant minority on the left that thinks that freedom of speach, conscience, etc., only means freedom for those who think like them.
It's a mistake to cast xenophobia and intolerance as a left or right issue.
Yeah, that was probably poorly worded.
I'd try to re-word it to better express what I was trying to get out, but I just got home from work and I'm tired, so fuck it.
Quote from: Fate on November 30, 2009, 12:45:12 PM
Bravo to Switzerland. Way to show that Europe has less religious tolerance than America. :thumbsup:
I don't think that has ever been a question. I mean, we sent our religious freaks over there in the first place, because we couldn't tolerate them here. :P
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 02:45:57 AM
Quote from: Fate on November 30, 2009, 12:45:12 PM
Bravo to Switzerland. Way to show that Europe has less religious tolerance than America. :thumbsup:
I don't think that has ever been a question. I mean, we sent our religious freaks over there in the first place, because we couldn't tolerate them here. :P
There's no "we" here. Your country was sending nobody to colonize anything.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 30, 2009, 12:58:32 PM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on November 30, 2009, 12:55:19 PM
The solution to the problem of Muslim immigration is to ban it entirely. If immigrants are needed take Vietnamese, Hindus, South Americans, etc.
Yeah, sure. The Poles have problems in the UK - they're white, Christian and overwhelmingly in work. They're model immigrants and people don't like them. I know a girl whose half-Cantonese half-French who left Paris (where she was born) because she didn't like the racism she received.
I think that while there is a problem with Muslim immigrants in terms of assimilation, that it's also fair to say that Europe generally has a problem with immigrants.
You guys should have banned the Royal Pavillion in Brighton. Now it's too late. :(
Quote from: Solmyr on November 30, 2009, 01:13:31 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2009, 01:00:19 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on November 30, 2009, 12:56:47 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2009, 12:52:15 PM
But clearly you have failed, since the cultural norms in the West include tolerance for other peoples religious views.
You should probably be shipped out.
Nonsense, since when is unconditional tolerance a part of Western culture? I tolerate other religious views up to the point where those views call for brutally murdering me.
Nonsense, since trying to stifle people religion who have no intention of brutally murdering you, or even gently murdering, or even brutally making fun of you, seems to be your goal.
If you are really all about stopping people from brutally murdering you (I assume this is some kind of major problem in Finland - lots of minaret builders brutally murdering people left and right?), you should consider passing some laws against brutal murder. That would work a lot better than your jihad against people who don't look just like you, or pray the way you pray, or whatever.
Where did I say anything about stifling religion of people different from me? My point was that I don't extend unconditional tolerance to every belief system out there in the name of equality, when such belief system includes aspects that are totally alien to Western cultural norms. Yes, I believe that at this point in time Western cultural values are superior to anything else available and anyone who hopes to live in a Western country should adapt to those values first and foremost.
Dude, you are a freaking Russian. If there is a country or civilization that is more hostile, alien and in a direct conflict with Western values than the Muslim one, it's Russia.
Quote from: dps on November 30, 2009, 01:32:41 PM
Quote from: Fate on November 30, 2009, 12:45:12 PM
Bravo to Switzerland. Way to show that Europe has less religious tolerance than America. :thumbsup:
Not a bit of a surprise to me. Europe is to the left of America politically, and it's pretty obvious that there is a significant minority on the left that thinks that freedom of speach, conscience, etc., only means freedom for those who think like them.
What the fuck are you talking about? The right wing parties supported the ban and the left wing parties opposed it - and it's the same situation vis-a-vis immigration and Muslim freedom of religion in pretty much all of Europe. So how the fuck is this a "left wing issue"?
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 02:52:19 AM
Dude, you are a freaking Russian. If there is a country or civilization that is more hostile, alien and in a direct conflict with Western values than the Muslim one, it's Russia.
But so are you...
Quote from: Valmy on November 30, 2009, 04:15:02 PM
I generally like the Muslims (and I mean the ones that are actual Muslims not "Muslims" like the 2nd generation dude who is about as Muslim as Martinus is Christian) I know here, good peeps, but sometimes they say bizarre things that leave me thinking 'WTF?'.
'Yeah Europe had alot of great philosophers but really Islam makes all their ideas redundant.'
'Um...ok.' Yeah John Locke clearly had nothing to add after the Quran invented separation of powers but anywho.
However the Muslims around here are highly educated engineers and science types so they are probably not representative of the average Joe Muslim.
Yeah but then I get the same idea when listening to Christians or Mormons, too.
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 02:57:14 AM
Quote from: dps on November 30, 2009, 01:32:41 PM
Quote from: Fate on November 30, 2009, 12:45:12 PM
Bravo to Switzerland. Way to show that Europe has less religious tolerance than America. :thumbsup:
Not a bit of a surprise to me. Europe is to the left of America politically, and it's pretty obvious that there is a significant minority on the left that thinks that freedom of speach, conscience, etc., only means freedom for those who think like them.
What the fuck are you talking about? The right wing parties supported the ban and the left wing parties opposed it - and it's the same situation vis-a-vis immigration and Muslim freedom of religion in pretty much all of Europe. So how the fuck is this a "left wing issue"?
Yeah, that was a really beautiful syllogism
A. All Europeans are lefties [because 'Europe is to the left of America politically', nuff said]
B. Xenophobes in Switzerland are Europeans
Ergo, Xenophobes in Switzerland are lefties.
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 02:52:19 AM
Dude, you are a freaking Russian. If there is a country or civilization that is more hostile, alien and in a direct conflict with Western values than the Muslim one, it's Russia.
In case anyone wonders what an
ad hominim fallacy looks like, look no further than this post. This is an almost perfect example.
Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2009, 01:21:11 AM
I didn't mean to jump on you, Valmy, it's just that what you posted if often the sort of thing you hear from people who dislike certain groups but don't want to share. In line with the "my best friend is black" crowd.
The Black guy I know best is probably
you.
I hate to think how this skews my perception of race. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on December 01, 2009, 09:19:56 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2009, 01:21:11 AM
I didn't mean to jump on you, Valmy, it's just that what you posted if often the sort of thing you hear from people who dislike certain groups but don't want to share. In line with the "my best friend is black" crowd.
The Black guy I know best is probably you.
I hate to think how this skews my perception of race. :lol:
garbon is the only black guy I know. :o
Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2009, 01:21:11 AM
I didn't mean to jump on you, Valmy, it's just that what you posted if often the sort of thing you hear from people who dislike certain groups but don't want to share. In line with the "my best friend is black" crowd.
Yeah sorry I was just relating experiences I felt were amusing. We do the same with all religions and their wacky beliefs on this board.
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 03:01:21 AM
Yeah but then I get the same idea when listening to Christians or Mormons, too.
If you are under the impression I like Mormons and Fundamentalist Christians you obviously have never read a post I have ever written. I actively dislike those groups because they have serious negative impacts on my country. Muslims are few and amusing and nothing else....so pointing this out makes no sense to me.
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2009, 09:40:31 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 03:01:21 AM
Yeah but then I get the same idea when listening to Christians or Mormons, too.
If you are under the impression I like Mormons and Fundamentalist Christians you obviously have never read a post I have ever written. I actively dislike those groups because they have serious negative impacts on my country. Muslims are few and amusing and nothing else....so pointing this out makes no sense to me.
Ok I am not sure what point you were making. I thought your point was that "Muslims are weird". I countered by saying Christians are weird too.
Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2009, 01:21:11 AM
Actually, even on its own I don't get the point of said anecdote. Some of the hipsters who hang out at the coffeeshop across the street are decent people although I've noticed that some have these strange beliefs about authenticity. Yay?
And if we were talking about hipsters in coffeeshops and you brought up these strange beliefs...wouldn't that fit in fine with the conversation?
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 09:41:32 AM
Ok I am not sure what point you were making. I thought your point was that "Muslims are weird". I countered by saying Christians are weird too.
Well what was Dick's point pointing out that the Muslims he knows are better hardworking people than the natives he knows? I said my experience was basically the same and then it reminded me of some bizarre experiences I had with them. I thought it was just that...a bizarre conversation (or rather series of them). I would certainly not hesitate bringing up similar anecdotes about others people I know.
Besides how is pointing out Christians are weird a counter to anything? I never said they weren't. I find it rather hilarious you, of all people, are upset I said I think Muslims I know are great but sometimes they believe wacky things while YOU on the other hand regularly attack all relgious people are evil or worse.
Well, the conversation went:
Dick: Muslims are hardworking.
Valmy: But Muslims are also weird.
Me: But Christians are also weird.
Valmy: How is it relevant?
:huh:
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 02:52:19 AM
Dude, you are a freaking Russian. If there is a country or civilization that is more hostile, alien and in a direct conflict with Western values than the Muslim one, it's Russia.
I'm about as Russian as you are German.
Quote from: Solmyr on December 01, 2009, 10:11:13 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 02:52:19 AM
Dude, you are a freaking Russian. If there is a country or civilization that is more hostile, alien and in a direct conflict with Western values than the Muslim one, it's Russia.
I'm about as Russian as you are German.
Shit, we also have Krauts here... :blink:
:P
Quote from: Razgovory on December 01, 2009, 02:47:55 AM
There's no "we" here. Your country was sending nobody to colonize anything.
I believe they colonized Chicago.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 01, 2009, 12:36:25 AM
Yeah. A problem I always have when people bemoan the lack of moderate Muslims is that I think 'well I know the moderate Muslims. I went for a coffee with one of them last week.' So yeah I find it difficult to reconcile too.
I'm starting to hate the phrase "moderate Muslim". I sure as hell wouldn't want to be called a "moderate Catholic". Can't we just call them Brits?
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 09:53:09 AM
Well, the conversation went:
Dick: Muslims are hardworking.
Valmy: But Muslims are also weird.
Me: But Christians are also weird.
Valmy: How is it relevant?
You tell me. How is other people being weird counter or contribute at all to some other people being weird? Besides I only mentioned this one small group of people I personally know and the discussion simply reminded me of it and I said I doubt they are typical of the average Muslim. I mean most people are not well read on western philosophy even westerners.
'I saw this light show the other day, it was bizarre they used so much blue'
'but my shoes are also blue!'
....so?
Quote from: Warspite on December 01, 2009, 10:19:57 AM
I'm starting to hate the phrase "moderate Muslim". I sure as hell wouldn't want to be called a "moderate Catholic". Can't we just call them Brits?
Are you a real Catholic, or a CDM/Martinus Catholic?
Quote from: Warspite on December 01, 2009, 10:19:57 AM
I'm starting to hate the phrase "moderate Muslim". I sure as hell wouldn't want to be called a "moderate Catholic". Can't we just call them Brits?
What purpose would that serve?
In the States at least it would make sense to refer to someone as a pro-choice Catholic or a progressive Catholic.
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2009, 09:47:55 AM
And if we were talking about hipsters in coffeeshops and you brought up these strange beliefs...wouldn't that fit in fine with the conversation?
Everyone is supposed to hate hipsters. :P
Actually I don't know what purpose it would serve. Like I said there is also some sub-group of a larger group that is weird. Who cares? Or as I'll repeat again, what was the purpose of your anecdote?
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 09:41:32 AM
Ok I am not sure what point you were making. I thought your point was that "Muslims are weird". I countered by saying Christians are weird too.
Except not, because Christians are us.
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 02:57:14 AM
Quote from: dps on November 30, 2009, 01:32:41 PM
Quote from: Fate on November 30, 2009, 12:45:12 PM
Bravo to Switzerland. Way to show that Europe has less religious tolerance than America. :thumbsup:
Not a bit of a surprise to me. Europe is to the left of America politically, and it's pretty obvious that there is a significant minority on the left that thinks that freedom of speach, conscience, etc., only means freedom for those who think like them.
What the fuck are you talking about? The right wing parties supported the ban and the left wing parties opposed it - and it's the same situation vis-a-vis immigration and Muslim freedom of religion in pretty much all of Europe. So how the fuck is this a "left wing issue"?
Look at people like Grallon who have posted here in favor of the ban. Are you claiming that he's a right-winger? Grallon? Granted, he's not a Euro, but he's certainly on the left.
Besides, I've already stated that my post was poorly worded. Basically, I was just pointing out that people on the left can be just as intolerant as people on the right.
Quote from: dps on December 01, 2009, 04:29:53 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 02:57:14 AM
Quote from: dps on November 30, 2009, 01:32:41 PM
Quote from: Fate on November 30, 2009, 12:45:12 PM
Bravo to Switzerland. Way to show that Europe has less religious tolerance than America. :thumbsup:
Not a bit of a surprise to me. Europe is to the left of America politically, and it's pretty obvious that there is a significant minority on the left that thinks that freedom of speach, conscience, etc., only means freedom for those who think like them.
What the fuck are you talking about? The right wing parties supported the ban and the left wing parties opposed it - and it's the same situation vis-a-vis immigration and Muslim freedom of religion in pretty much all of Europe. So how the fuck is this a "left wing issue"?
Look at people like Grallon who have posted here in favor of the ban. Are you claiming that he's a right-winger? Grallon? Granted, he's not a Euro, but he's certainly on the left.
Besides, I've already stated that my post was poorly worded. Basically, I was just pointing out that people on the left can be just as intolerant as people on the right.
I don't know what Grallon is. He holds conservative views on immigration. However, the political parties supporting the minaret ban in Switerzland were right wing and predominately rural.
Quote from: dps on December 01, 2009, 04:29:53 PM
Basically, I was just pointing out that people on the left can be just as intolerant as people on the right.
:yes:
Meet San Francisco.
We're rather intolerant in our tolerance.
Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2009, 04:52:14 PM
Quote from: dps on December 01, 2009, 04:29:53 PM
Basically, I was just pointing out that people on the left can be just as intolerant as people on the right.
:yes:
Meet San Francisco.
We're rather intolerant intolerable in our tolerance.
FYPFY
Quote from: grumbler on December 01, 2009, 05:31:38 PM
FYPFY
Maybe, although I don't have much of a problem with our tolerance (whatevs nudity, drugs and sex in the street). I do take issue with living in a supposedly tolerant place where churches and vehicles with Republican bumper stickers get attacked.
Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2009, 01:08:21 PM
Or as I'll repeat again, what was the purpose of your anecdote?
Amusment? Interest? I generally just post whatever comes to mind I had no grand point in mind. Dick posted his experiences and I posted mine.
Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2009, 05:48:08 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 01, 2009, 05:31:38 PM
FYPFY
Maybe, although I don't have much of a problem with our tolerance (whatevs nudity, drugs and sex in the street). I do take issue with living in a supposedly tolerant place where churches and vehicles with Republican bumper stickers get attacked.
It was just a cheap joke. I agree with your sentiments.
Quote from: grumbler on December 01, 2009, 05:51:52 PM
t was just a cheap joke. I agree with your sentiments.
Oh. :blush:
Quote from: dps on December 01, 2009, 04:29:53 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 02:57:14 AM
Quote from: dps on November 30, 2009, 01:32:41 PM
Quote from: Fate on November 30, 2009, 12:45:12 PM
Bravo to Switzerland. Way to show that Europe has less religious tolerance than America. :thumbsup:
Not a bit of a surprise to me. Europe is to the left of America politically, and it's pretty obvious that there is a significant minority on the left that thinks that freedom of speach, conscience, etc., only means freedom for those who think like them.
What the fuck are you talking about? The right wing parties supported the ban and the left wing parties opposed it - and it's the same situation vis-a-vis immigration and Muslim freedom of religion in pretty much all of Europe. So how the fuck is this a "left wing issue"?
Look at people like Grallon who have posted here in favor of the ban. Are you claiming that he's a right-winger? Grallon? Granted, he's not a Euro, but he's certainly on the left.
Besides, I've already stated that my post was poorly worded. Basically, I was just pointing out that people on the left can be just as intolerant as people on the right.
Intolerance is a psychological defense mechanism usually developed in response to threat/fear - which is why it is present on both sides of the political spectrum. That being said, I think the left is ideologically opposed to intolerance whereas the right embraces it as part of its ideology. Sure, there is often a widening gap between what one preaches and what one really does, but still leftists are intolerant despite their views, while many rightwingers are intolerant because of them.
Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2009, 05:48:08 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 01, 2009, 05:31:38 PM
FYPFY
Maybe, although I don't have much of a problem with our tolerance (whatevs nudity, drugs and sex in the street). I do take issue with living in a supposedly tolerant place where churches and vehicles with Republican bumper stickers get attacked.
I don't think gays would be intolerant of churches if the said churches didn't take away their civil rights in the first place. Again, the leftist agenda very rarely aims at taking away rights of the rightists - we are not trying to ban heterosexual marriage, prevent heterosexual couples from adopting or raid churches and arrest churchgoers. We defend against the rightwingers trying to do that to us.
While extremism on both sides is nasty, you cannot equate the victim and the attacker.
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 07:04:16 PM
I don't think gays would be intolerant of churches if the said churches didn't take away their civil rights in the first place. Again, the leftist agenda very rarely aims at taking away rights of the rightists - we are not trying to ban heterosexual marriage, prevent heterosexual couples from adopting or raid churches and arrest churchgoers. We defend against the rightwingers trying to do that to us.
While extremism on both sides is nasty, you cannot equate the victim and the attacker.
We have some very tolerant churches in SF. We even have actual gay churches (i.e. not gyms). In fact, a church that was recently vandalized by angry gays is a church near castro that is known for being quite liberal.
Would I have been an attacker with a McCain bumper sticker? :unsure:
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 07:04:16 PM
I don't think gays would be intolerant of churches if the said churches didn't take away their civil rights in the first place. Again, the leftist agenda very rarely aims at taking away rights of the rightists - we are not trying to ban heterosexual marriage, prevent heterosexual couples from adopting or raid churches and arrest churchgoers. We defend against the rightwingers trying to do that to us.
While extremism on both sides is nasty, you cannot equate the victim and the attacker.
I agree. The attacker is excercising his political rights, the victim is committing a crime.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 01, 2009, 07:45:01 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 07:04:16 PM
I don't think gays would be intolerant of churches if the said churches didn't take away their civil rights in the first place. Again, the leftist agenda very rarely aims at taking away rights of the rightists - we are not trying to ban heterosexual marriage, prevent heterosexual couples from adopting or raid churches and arrest churchgoers. We defend against the rightwingers trying to do that to us.
While extremism on both sides is nasty, you cannot equate the victim and the attacker.
I agree. The attacker is excercising his political rights, the victim is committing a crime.
Slave owners were exercising their property rights, John Brown was committing a crime.
The history didn't care for such technicalities when it decided who was right and who was wrong though.
Fortunately, history will be written by me.
Quote from: Neil on December 01, 2009, 07:53:27 PM
Fortunately, history will be written by me.
:lol: Dunno about the others, but I think your one-liners rank just below Teh Braim's. Thanks for being here.
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 07:47:15 PM
Slave owners were exercising their property rights, John Brown was committing a crime.
The history didn't care for such technicalities when it decided who was right and who was wrong though.
Actually the history cares quite a bit about the technicality of John Brown's crime. Just as it does about the rest of political violence committed in the name of the greater good. And I'm pretty sure that history's judgement will be that gay rights supporters who vandalize churches and cars of their opponenets were in the wrong.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 01, 2009, 07:57:29 PM
Actually the history cares quite a bit about the technicality of John Brown's crime. Just as it does about the rest of political violence committed in the name of the greater good. And I'm pretty sure that history's judgement will be that gay rights supporters who vandalize churches and cars of their opponenets were in the wrong.
:yes:
I hate Brown.
Quote from: grumbler on December 01, 2009, 07:56:44 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 01, 2009, 07:53:27 PM
Fortunately, history will be written by me.
:lol: Dunno about the others, but I think your one-liners rank just below Teh Braim's. Thanks for being here.
My pleasure.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 01, 2009, 08:40:59 PM
You don't want Brown to stick around?
Brown'll beat your ass. Just ask Whitney and Rihanna.
Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2009, 08:06:27 PM
I hate Brown.
I dunno, I've been told I look good in earth tones.
Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2009, 08:44:21 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 01, 2009, 08:40:59 PM
You don't want Brown to stick around?
Brown'll beat your ass. Just ask Whitney and Rihanna.
I'm not a bitch or a ho! :mad:
Quote from: Warspite on December 01, 2009, 10:19:57 AM
I'm starting to hate the phrase "moderate Muslim". I sure as hell wouldn't want to be called a "moderate Catholic". Can't we just call them Brits?
Yeah.
QuoteWhat purpose would that serve?
I think it makes it difficult for Muslims when we're saying the most important thing about you is your religion, that religion is shorthand for the entire person in the same way as colour used to be; you are to be understood on a sliding scale of moderation. But at the same time we're moaning about people defining themselves as Muslim.
It's like the criticism I read of Thomas Friedman's argument that the US spent the 90s helping Muslims. Basically we want them to be pan-Islamists when we talk about Kosovo but not when someone starts talking about Chechnya.
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 07:01:40 PM
That being said, I think the left is ideologically opposed to intolerance whereas the right embraces it as part of its ideology.
:lmfao:
It's so cute you believe that.
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 07:04:16 PM
Again, the leftist agenda very rarely aims at taking away rights of the rightists - we are not trying to ban heterosexual marriage, prevent heterosexual couples from adopting or raid churches and arrest churchgoers.
Judging by you as the sole voice of "the leftist agenda":
:yeahright:
Quote from: Barrister on December 02, 2009, 02:54:02 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 07:01:40 PM
That being said, I think the left is ideologically opposed to intolerance whereas the right embraces it as part of its ideology.
:lmfao:
It's so cute you believe that.
yes :D
Thel left is just intolerant on different grounds.
Quote from: Tamas on December 02, 2009, 04:22:50 AM
Thel left is just intolerant on different grounds.
Shut the fuck up <_<
I don't think the left is terribly intolerant. How could any movement that has Robespierre and Marat as founding fathers be intolerant? We're just rational.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2009, 01:52:03 AM
I think it makes it difficult for Muslims when we're saying the most important thing about you is your religion, that religion is shorthand for the entire person in the same way as colour used to be; you are to be understood on a sliding scale of moderation. But at the same time we're moaning about people defining themselves as Muslim.
We're not limited by a law of nature to applying only one descriptor to any individual. When I call you British no one thinks that's shorthand for your entire person. It's merely one piece of useful information among many.
Moderate Muslim is a useful shorthand for people with whom we can discuss problems of common concern, such as the propensity for people of that faith to blow things up and shoot people.
QuoteIt's like the criticism I read of Thomas Friedman's argument that the US spent the 90s helping Muslims. Basically we want them to be pan-Islamists when we talk about Kosovo but not when someone starts talking about Chechnya.
That criticism makes no sense. Friedman is trying to rebut the militant Muslim belief that the US is engaged in a war against all Islam. He's not putting forth the proposition that all Muslims owe the US a debt of grattitude.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 02, 2009, 07:52:16 AM
We're not limited by a law of nature to applying only one descriptor to any individual. When I call you British no one thinks that's shorthand for your entire person. It's merely one piece of useful information among many.
No, though even that depends on contexts. But I'd feel differently if the phrase used to describe me was gay because I'd wonder why that of all the details was the most relevant. So too a Muslim who is born and bred in Richmond might wonder why it's her faith that counts - and its moderation.
I have Muslim friends who I assume are moderate given that they have no problem with being friends with a fag like me. But it's a bit close to 'some of my best friends are black', the fact that you're highlighting that you have black friends suggests there's something wrong.
And when we're dealing with Brits I find the emphasis on 'moderate Muslims' also a bit weird because - to use another minority - it sounds a bit like 'I've got no problem with gays when they don't rub my face in it'. Rubbing your face in it by having a boyfriend, for example. Showing their extremism by growing a beard, or wearing a headscarf?
QuoteThat criticism makes no sense. Friedman is trying to rebut the militant Muslim belief that the US is engaged in a war against all Islam. He's not putting forth the proposition that all Muslims owe the US a debt of grattitude.
QuoteYes, after two decades in which U.S. foreign policy has been largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims or trying to help free them from tyranny— in Bosnia, Darfur, Kuwait, Somalia, Lebanon, Kurdistan, post-earthquake Pakistan, post-tsunami Indonesia, Iraq and Afghanistan — a narrative that says America is dedicated to keeping Muslims down is thriving.
Basically Muslims need to realise that America's actually got their best interests at heart - as they'd remember if they only thought about the help the US gave the umma in Bosnia, Darfur (?), Kuwait, Somalia (?) and so on. They shouldn't however remember that the US is generally supportive of keeping Muslims down in Chechnya and supports regimes that do that in Kuwait, Saudi, Egypt, Morocco and so on. On the one hand think of your brothers and sisters of the faith, on the other hand, don't.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2009, 08:10:17 AM
No, though even that depends on contexts. But I'd feel differently if the phrase used to describe me was gay because I'd wonder why that of all the details was the most relevant. So too a Muslim who is born and bred in Richmond might wonder why it's her faith that counts - and its moderation.
I have Muslim friends who I assume are moderate given that they have no problem with being friends with a fag like me. But it's a bit close to 'some of my best friends are black', the fact that you're highlighting that you have black friends suggests there's something wrong.
And when we're dealing with Brits I find the emphasis on 'moderate Muslims' also a bit weird because - to use another minority - it sounds a bit like 'I've got no problem with gays when they don't rub my face in it'. Rubbing your face in it by having a boyfriend, for example. Showing their extremism by growing a beard, or wearing a headscarf?
Showing their extremism by blowing up subways and flying planes into buildings, among other things. Your Richmond Muslim should care because, in the absence of additional information I would be correct in assigning some probability to her brothers or sons being connected to political violence.
QuoteBasically Muslims need to realise that America's actually got their best interests at heart -
If you set up the false dichotomy that the only two options are waging war on Islam and having every Muslims best interests at heart, sure.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 02, 2009, 08:18:54 AM
Showing their extremism by blowing up subways and flying planes into buildings, among other things.
I thought we were talking day-to-day social interaction.
QuoteYour Richmond Muslim should care because, in the absence of additional information I would be correct in assigning some probability to her brothers or sons being connected to political violence.
That doesn't explain why she should be first introduced or understood as a Muslim and a moderate one at that.
Surely if the goal is integration into British society there has to be a point where someone isn't a 'moderate Muslim' or 'black' or 'gay' but that they're British.
QuoteIf you set up the false dichotomy that the only two options are waging war on Islam and having every Muslims best interests at heart, sure.
Friedman's dichotomy was that the past two decades have been ones 'in which U.S. foreign policy has been largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims or trying to help free them from tyranny'. He then has a list of examples. The other answer is that the Americans want to keep Muslims down. Now I think neither's the case and the first is shockingly naive and the latter too selective a view of American foreign policy.
But the problem is that for you to buy into Friedman's redemptive narrative Muslims have not only to care about their brethren many miles and cultures away in Bosnia, Lebanon, Somalia and Indonesia but also to forget their brethren in Pakistan, Egypt, Morocco and Saudi Arabia.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2009, 08:33:35 AM
I thought we were talking day-to-day social interaction.
....
That doesn't explain why she should be first introduced or understood as a Muslim and a moderate one at that.
Surely if the goal is integration into British society there has to be a point where someone isn't a 'moderate Muslim' or 'black' or 'gay' but that they're British.
Do people introduce their friends as moderate Muslims at cocktail parties? I agree, that's boneheaded. The overwhelming majority of the time I read or hear the term it's in reference to some Muslim organization head or this or that influential imam.
QuoteFriedman's dichotomy was that the past two decades have been ones 'in which U.S. foreign policy has been largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims or trying to help free them from tyranny'. He then has a list of examples. The other answer is that the Americans want to keep Muslims down. Now I think neither's the case and the first is shockingly naive and the latter too selective a view of American foreign policy.
The first is not shockingly naive, it's empirical. Put help to Muslims in the numerator, put all foreign adventures in the denominator, it's a high percentage.
QuoteBut the problem is that for you to buy into Friedman's redemptive narrative Muslims have not only to care about their brethren many miles and cultures away in Bosnia, Lebanon, Somalia and Indonesia but also to forget their brethren in Pakistan, Egypt, Morocco and Saudi Arabia.
No, I accept Friedman's point as rebuttal of the Muslim narrative that the US is working to fuck Muslims. I don't demand that Muslims in Saudi Arabia care about Bosnians, but since they profess to care then it's worthwhile to point out based on their own assumptions their conclusions are wrong.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2009, 04:33:49 AM
How could any movement that has Robespierre and Marat as founding fathers be intolerant?
:yes: :contract:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 02, 2009, 08:46:04 AM
The first is not shockingly naive, it's empirical. Put help to Muslims in the numerator, put all foreign adventures in the denominator, it's a high percentage.
So US foreign policy has been 'largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims'? I think the naivete comes from ignoring any possibility of American national interest.
QuoteNo, I accept Friedman's point as rebuttal of the Muslim narrative that the US is working to fuck Muslims. I don't demand that Muslims in Saudi Arabia care about Bosnians, but since they profess to care then it's worthwhile to point out based on their own assumptions their conclusions are wrong.
Okay, but why shouldn't the Muslim in Bosnia then care that Saudis are kept under a US-backed, deeply oppressive and unpleasant regime?
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2009, 08:33:35 AM
That doesn't explain why she should be first introduced or understood as a Muslim and a moderate one at that.
If she's wearing a Hijab she's deliberately introducing herself as a Muslim.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2009, 08:56:30 AM
So US foreign policy has been 'largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims'? I think the naivete comes from ignoring any possibility of American national interest.
And do you think the inclusion of American interests in the equation (which seem pretty sparse in places like Bosnia anyway) somehow weakens the rebuttal of the "fuck all Muslims" narrative?
QuoteOkay, but why shouldn't the Muslim in Bosnia then care that Saudis are kept under a US-backed, deeply oppressive and unpleasant regime?
The Bosnian Muslim can care about anything he wants to. But if he professes to oppose US backing (whatever that means) of Saudi Arabia because he favors democratic liberalization, then I expect his arguments to be consistent with those principles. Likewise if he favors a more truly Muslim state in SA.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 02, 2009, 09:13:08 AM
And do you think the inclusion of American interests in the equation (which seem pretty sparse in places like Bosnia anyway) somehow weakens the rebuttal of the "fuck all Muslims" narrative?
I think it makes the idea that American foreign policy has been 'largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims' less feasible.
QuoteThe Bosnian Muslim can care about anything he wants to. But if he professes to oppose US backing (whatever that means) of Saudi Arabia because he favors democratic liberalization, then I expect his arguments to be consistent with those principles. Likewise if he favors a more truly Muslim state in SA.
But we're not talking about principles. We're talking about 'rescuing Muslims' or keeping Muslims down. So the opposition on Saudi would be because the US is supporting a regime that keeps Muslims down and a common feeling for those Muslims, just as much as opposition to Milosevic by the US rescued Muslims and, again, a common feeling.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2009, 08:33:35 AM
Surely if the goal is integration into British society there has to be a point where someone isn't a 'moderate Muslim' or 'black' or 'gay' but that they're British.
The goal isn't really integration into British society.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2009, 09:44:12 AM
I think it makes the idea that American foreign policy has been 'largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims' less feasible.
Yes Shelf, if your interpretation of Friedman is correct, that he believes the organizing principle of US foreign policy in the 90s was to help Muslims whenever and whereever possible, then Friedman is an imbecile.
QuoteBut we're not talking about principles. We're talking about 'rescuing Muslims' or keeping Muslims down. So the opposition on Saudi would be because the US is supporting a regime that keeps Muslims down and a common feeling for those Muslims, just as much as opposition to Milosevic by the US rescued Muslims and, again, a common feeling.
We ended up talking about principles. If our Bosnian is angry about keeping Muslims down, then I also want him to be thankful for pulling Muslims up.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 02, 2009, 09:56:23 AM
Yes Shelf, if your interpretation of Friedman is correct, that he believes the organizing principle of US foreign policy in the 90s was to help Muslims whenever and whereever possible, then Friedman is an imbecile.
That wasn't my argument - though, hyperbole aside, I don't understand how else you can interpret 'US foreign policy was largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims or trying to help free them from tyranny' - my argument was that he's depending on a pan-Islamic view of the world from Muslims in response to the US's good policies but, presumably, would rather they didn't think pan-Islamically about the rest.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2009, 10:06:34 AM
That wasn't my argument - though, hyperbole aside, I don't understand how else you can interpret 'US foreign policy was largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims or trying to help free them from tyranny' - my argument was that he's depending on a pan-Islamic view of the world from Muslims in response to the US's good policies but, presumably, would rather they didn't think pan-Islamically about the rest.
I think we've already been over these points.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2009, 10:06:34 AM
That wasn't my argument - though, hyperbole aside, I don't understand how else you can interpret 'US foreign policy was largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims or trying to help free them from tyranny' - my argument was that he's depending on a pan-Islamic view of the world from Muslims in response to the US's good policies but, presumably, would rather they didn't think pan-Islamically about the rest.
I think you are reversing his actual argument: that he would wish for the same pan-Islamic reaction to the god the US has done for Muslims as we see for the bad. He isn't trying to wish away the bad at all (he mentions some of it), just to point out that, on balance, he thinks the good far outweighs the bad.
Quote from: grumbler on December 02, 2009, 10:27:43 AM
I think you are reversing his actual argument: that he would wish for the same pan-Islamic reaction to the god the US has done for Muslims as we see for the bad. He isn't trying to wish away the bad at all (he mentions some of it), just to point out that, on balance, he thinks the good far outweighs the bad.
I see what you mean.
My view is that pan-Islamism's a relatively recent development practically speaking (that is popular sentiment away from official rhetoric) and that so far I'm not convinced that it's been a very good one. I think we should focus on the very local. So I'd rather the Bosnian didn't notice Saudi and if that means the Saudi ignores Bosnia then it's worth it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2009, 10:51:37 AM
I see what you mean.
My view is that pan-Islamism's a relatively recent development practically speaking (that is popular sentiment away from official rhetoric) and that so far I'm not convinced that it's been a very good one. I think we should focus on the very local. So I'd rather the Bosnian didn't notice Saudi and if that means the Saudi ignores Bosnia then it's worth it.
I agree that Friedman is simplifying to the verge of uselessness, but I think that we have to recognize that there is a "narrative" that is much as he describes and which is accepted by a large number of Muslims. What we would rather is beside the point.
Quote from: grumbler on December 02, 2009, 10:56:52 AM
I agree that Friedman is simplifying to the verge of uselessness, but I think that we have to recognize that there is a "narrative" that is much as he describes and which is accepted by a large number of Muslims. What we would rather is beside the point.
I agree. But I suppose that I think the way to counter that argument isn't to encourage the thinking behind it by saying look at what we did over there, but to focus relentlessly on the local. So in Bosnia talk about Bosnia; in Pakistan talk about the earthquake and US aid that's spent on education and so on.
Generally I just really dislike Friedman :blush:
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2009, 11:01:36 AM
I agree. But I suppose that I think the way to counter that argument isn't to encourage the thinking behind it by saying look at what we did over there, but to focus relentlessly on the local. So in Bosnia talk about Bosnia; in Pakistan talk about the earthquake and US aid that's spent on education and so on.
Agree. The "narrative" isn't about logic and cannot be countered on its terms; it has to be countered, as you say, at the local level. When local Muslims see that their own experiences are counter to what "the narrative" tells them, the narrative will lose its power.
QuoteGenerally I just really dislike Friedman :blush:
He stimulates conversation, so i don't mind him.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2009, 08:33:35 AM
That doesn't explain why she should be first introduced or understood as a Muslim and a moderate one at that.
Surely if the goal is integration into British society there has to be a point where someone isn't a 'moderate Muslim' or 'black' or 'gay' but that they're British.
And if they themselves identify as primarily Muslim? At least here in Finland the immigrant Somali community identify themselves as Muslims, not Finnish (or even Somali). What should our reaction to this be?
Or to take a non-Muslim example, the immigrant "ethnic Finnish" Ingrian community (who are really Russians) don't identify themselves as Finnish at all, to the point of refusing to learn the language and demanding that government services are provided in Russian.
Quote from: Solmyr on December 02, 2009, 12:31:02 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2009, 08:33:35 AM
That doesn't explain why she should be first introduced or understood as a Muslim and a moderate one at that.
Surely if the goal is integration into British society there has to be a point where someone isn't a 'moderate Muslim' or 'black' or 'gay' but that they're British.
And if they themselves identify as primarily Muslim? At least here in Finland the immigrant Somali community identify themselves as Muslims, not Finnish (or even Somali). What should our reaction to this be?
I fail to see why there is any need for any reaction at all.
Quote from: Solmyr on December 02, 2009, 12:31:02 PM
What should our reaction to this be?
Unadulterated rage.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 30, 2009, 12:40:53 PM
It is not a solution though, it is a nasty petty-minded move that can only be counter-productive.
Far better for Swiss citizens to press for their laws to be applied equally and fairly to all.
Doesn't the law apply to everyone? Christians or Jews can't build a minaret either as of now.
Quote from: DGuller on December 02, 2009, 06:15:01 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 30, 2009, 12:40:53 PM
It is not a solution though, it is a nasty petty-minded move that can only be counter-productive.
Far better for Swiss citizens to press for their laws to be applied equally and fairly to all.
Doesn't the law apply to everyone? Christians or Jews can't build a minaret either as of now.
Truly equal protection under the law. :D
Quote from: Solmyr on December 02, 2009, 12:31:02 PM
Or to take a non-Muslim example, the immigrant "ethnic Finnish" Ingrian community (who are really Russians) don't identify themselves as Finnish at all, to the point of refusing to learn the language and demanding that government services are provided in Russian.
Nobody in their right mind would voluntarily learn Finnish.
Quote from: DGuller on December 02, 2009, 06:15:01 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 30, 2009, 12:40:53 PM
It is not a solution though, it is a nasty petty-minded move that can only be counter-productive.
Far better for Swiss citizens to press for their laws to be applied equally and fairly to all.
Doesn't the law apply to everyone? Christians or Jews can't build a minaret either as of now.
I bet they even have a law preventing everyone - including rich people - from sleeping under bridges too.
Quote from: DGuller on December 02, 2009, 06:15:01 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 30, 2009, 12:40:53 PM
It is not a solution though, it is a nasty petty-minded move that can only be counter-productive.
Far better for Swiss citizens to press for their laws to be applied equally and fairly to all.
Doesn't the law apply to everyone? Christians or Jews can't build a minaret either as of now.
Actually I was wondering how did they define 'minaret'... if they have outlawed tall structures in religious buildings, bell towers are included. If they have been more specific and defined them as tall structures used to call the congregation then there are none in Switzerland and very probably none in Europe, they aren't used for that if only because anti-noise regulations (many bell towers aren't used anymore for the same reason).
Quote from: Solmyr on December 02, 2009, 12:31:02 PM
And if they themselves identify as primarily Muslim? At least here in Finland the immigrant Somali community identify themselves as Muslims, not Finnish (or even Somali). What should our reaction to this be?
I don't think there should be a reaction and everyone should be treated individually. Again this is something that I'm personally rather laissez-faire on. I think it comes with time. Identity is something that you don't just switch. My parents have lived in this country for 50 years and would still consider themselves Irish and would be surprised that I view myself as British.
QuoteOr to take a non-Muslim example, the immigrant "ethnic Finnish" Ingrian community (who are really Russians) don't identify themselves as Finnish at all, to the point of refusing to learn the language and demanding that government services are provided in Russian.
In that case I don't know the status of Russian in Finland, but my view for immigrants is that we have to support their languages within a process of learning ours. The truth is that recently arrived immigrants aren't necessarily going to be confident or competent - so I think hospitals in areas with, say, a high Arab population would benefit from having some translators, especially women. I think in schools you should provide support for kids in their mother tongue to help them learn Finnish or English because if they don't speak it at home then they're going to need extra help to really get the most out of their education and more successfully integrate into Finnish society.
Quote from: dps on December 02, 2009, 05:52:05 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 02, 2009, 05:41:21 PM
I prefer a little adultery with my rage. :perv:
So guys, should we tell his wife? :)
His wife is the one who is pissed off.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 02, 2009, 06:21:40 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 02, 2009, 06:15:01 PM
Doesn't the law apply to everyone? Christians or Jews can't build a minaret either as of now.
I bet they even have a law preventing everyone - including rich people - from sleeping under bridges too.
:D
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 03, 2009, 03:59:39 AM
In that case I don't know the status of Russian in Finland, but my view for immigrants is that we have to support their languages within a process of learning ours. The truth is that recently arrived immigrants aren't necessarily going to be confident or competent - so I think hospitals in areas with, say, a high Arab population would benefit from having some translators, especially women. I think in schools you should provide support for kids in their mother tongue to help them learn Finnish or English because if they don't speak it at home then they're going to need extra help to really get the most out of their education and more successfully integrate into Finnish society.
These are not recently arrived immigrants, these are people who've lived in the country for 20 years.
Quote from: Solmyr on December 03, 2009, 04:41:29 PM
These are not recently arrived immigrants, these are people who've lived in the country for 20 years.
The Ingrians? I thought they were more or less native to Finland.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 03, 2009, 05:18:29 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on December 03, 2009, 04:41:29 PM
These are not recently arrived immigrants, these are people who've lived in the country for 20 years.
The Ingrians? I thought they were more or less native to Finland.
The Ingrians were allowed to move to Finland from Russia in the last 20 years, since they are supposed to be "ethnic Finns".
Is their native language Ingrish?
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 03, 2009, 09:58:35 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 02, 2009, 06:21:40 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 02, 2009, 06:15:01 PM
Doesn't the law apply to everyone? Christians or Jews can't build a minaret either as of now.
I bet they even have a law preventing everyone - including rich people - from sleeping under bridges too.
:D
This is the line of reasoning used by bigots when they say that gays demand "special rights" to be able to marry people of the same sex.
Jon Stewart's take on the issue:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/257633/thu-december-3-2009-michael-specter
I like John Oliver's asking the Swiss UN ambassador about WW2 neutrality best. :lol:
Quote from: Syt on December 04, 2009, 11:48:36 AM
Jon Stewart's take on the issue:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/257633/thu-december-3-2009-michael-specter
I like John Oliver's asking the Swiss UN ambassador about WW2 neutrality best. :lol:
Is this neutral anger or real anger?
:lmfao:
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 03, 2009, 05:18:29 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on December 03, 2009, 04:41:29 PM
These are not recently arrived immigrants, these are people who've lived in the country for 20 years.
The Ingrians? I thought they were more or less native to Finland.
The Finno-Uralic Peoples are the "native" inhabitants of all the lands from NW Sweden to the Urals, as their name suggests. A lot of Russian place and river names outside of the area near the Ukraine and Belarus are originally Finno-Uralic.
Of course, native is relative. The Indo-European pre-Urheimat (so a long, long, long, long time ago) was in that area, pretty far north too.
Saw this, and the section I bolded caught my eye. Is that true? :yeahright:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2009/12/iran-outrage-and-warnings-over-swiss-vote-banning-minarets.html
Quote
IRAN: Outrage, and a warning, over Swiss vote to ban minarets
December 5, 2009 | 1:07 pm
An East-West clash over a Swiss referendum last week banning the construction of mosque minarets heated up today as Iran's foreign minister warned of unspecified "consequences" if the ban were enforced.
Manouchehr Mottaki spoke on the phone with his Swiss counterpart Micheline Calmy-Rey. Switzerland and Iran generally have good relations. The Swiss serve as Washington's representative in the Iranian capital in the absence of formal relations between America and the Islamic Republic, giving them exalted status in Tehran's diplomatic circles.
But Mottaki had harsh words for Switzerland, saying enforcement of the ban on new minarets was "against the prestige of a country which claims to be an advocate of democracy and human rights" and would "damage Switzerland's image as a pioneer of respecting human rights among Muslims' public opinion," according to a report by the official Islamic Republic News Agency, or IRNA.
The Swiss ban on minarets, a feature of Islamic mosques, has roiled the Muslim world. The Swiss government has said it would abide by the vote even though the government and parliament had opposed the referendum.
Iran's population is 90% Shiite Muslim. But it permits construction of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, though some Sunni Muslims have complained they have a tough time building houses of worship in some parts of the country.
"Values such as tolerance, dialogue and respecting others' religions should never be put to referendum," Mottaki told his Swiss counterpart. He expressed hope that Bern would soon "take necessary steps and find a constitutional way to prevent imposition of the ban."
An Iranian cleric today also condemned the minaret ban. Ayatollah Hossein Nouri-Hamadani, said the move was "at odds with the protection of Muslim citizens' civil rights and will hurt the feelings of Muslims across the world," according to Iran's state television.
Calmy-Rey told Mottaki her government would "use all its means to support Muslims rights," according to IRNA.
-- Borzou Daragahi in New York
Photo: A minaret stands illuminated over the Khadija mosque in Berlin. Credit: Andreas Rentz/Getty Images
Well Tim with the revolutionary guard and other assholes around, I am pretty sure that you are permitted to build churches, you would be just an idiot to do so.
Much like the way we had parlaimentary elections between the world wars: sure, you could had voted socialist, nobody stopped you from doing so, it's only that the vote was not secret, you told the offical who you are voting on, and the local police officer was behind him, listening.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christians_in_Iran#Current_situation
Nothing about churches, but it doesn't seem very tolerant.
I wonder who would care what would be allowed in Iran or what Ahmadinejad has to say on the matter. A basic level of tolerance could be expected from a European nation. My expectations regarding Iran are justone step above North Korea.
If they didnt let people build churches and synagogues, wouldnt they eventually run out of such buildings to burn down?
Quote from: syk on December 06, 2009, 05:39:13 AM
I wonder who would care what would be allowed in Iran or what Ahmadinejad has to say on the matter. A basic level of tolerance could be expected from a European nation. My expectations regarding Iran are justone step above North Korea.
And clearly European nations are wrong to be so tolerant.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 06, 2009, 04:49:09 AM
Saw this, and the section I bolded caught my eye. Is that true? :yeahright:
Yes. Iran's got the largest regional population of Jews outside of Israel (I believe around 30 000) and I think there's a few tens of thousands of Oriental Christians too. It's not terribly repressive of Jews and Christians - it's the Bahai and Zoroastrians who draw most of their ire in terms of religious oppression. But Iran is better than, say, Saudi or most of the Gulf for monotheistic religious minorities.
Anyway, there are talks of the referendum results being invalidated by either the Swiss supreme court or the European Court of Human Rights.
An interesting point of view from 'The Economist' blog 'Democracy in America'
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/12/impressions_of_islam
A few snippets
Quote
Very few Americans know much about the Swiss minaret ban, with 60% saying they've heard nothing about the referendum. But among those who have heard something about the Swiss measure, 41% would vote to allow minarets, and 41% would vote to outlaw them.
Quote
Those under 30 would vote to allow minarets by a margin of 49% to 11%. Those 65 and older would vote to outlaw them by a margin of 43% to 25%. College graduates would allow minarets, high school graduates would not. Republicans and Democrats have different opinions: by three to one, Democrats would allow minarets; by three to one, Republicans would not.
Not a big surprise. Republicans pander to ignorance and intolerance, and that's unfortunately just a statement of fact, and not partisan rhetoric.
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2009, 06:44:49 AM
Anyway, there are talks of the referendum results being invalidated by either the Swiss supreme court or the European Court of Human Rights.
Which would radicalize the population even more. That would be excellent. Maybe they can also convince the Swiss to destroy gays as well.
Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2009, 07:13:00 AM
Not a big surprise. Republicans pander to ignorance and intolerance, and that's unfortunately just a statement of fact, and not partisan rhetoric.
:lol:
I would love to hear the partisan rhetoric version. :D
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2009, 09:00:24 AM
I would love to hear the partisan rhetoric version. :D
When it comes to characterization of Republicans on issues like these, it's hard to think of a partisan rhetoric that's too detached from reality. Sorry, unique moderate snowflakes, sometimes the truth isn't in the middle.
Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2009, 09:16:00 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2009, 09:00:24 AM
I would love to hear the partisan rhetoric version. :D
When it comes to characterization of Republicans on issues like these, it's hard to think of a partisan rhetoric that's too detached from reality. Sorry, unique moderate snowflakes, sometimes the truth isn't in the middle.
Precisely. Both sides are "intolerant" when it comes to people holding opposite views, but beyond that, when it comes to intolerance that is not based on politics, but on race, ethnicity, creed or sexual orientation, it is quite clear that Republicans focus on this much more than Democrats.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2009, 09:00:24 AM
I would love to hear the partisan rhetoric version. :D
Could you give examples of political measures championed by Democrats that are based on intolerance? I am not saying that individual Democrats are not intolerant of people holding different views - that's human nature - but what would be the Democratic equivalent to causes popular on the right, such as anti-immigration, anti-abortion or anti-gay-rights movement?
I am so glad the Constitution forbids votes like that so some stupid county or city or state would not leave us with egg on our face.
Is tolerance a good thing all of the sudden?
Quote from: Valmy on December 07, 2009, 09:31:29 AM
I am so glad the Constitution forbids votes like that so some stupid county or city or state would not leave us with egg on our face.
Well, it didn't forbid vote on Prop 8. <_<
Quote from: Neil on December 07, 2009, 09:34:06 AM
Is tolerance a good thing all of the sudden?
Noone is necessarily saying it is. People with leftists views usually think it is; conservatives not so much.
It's just that grumbler and yi seem to think this is not the case and that both sides embrace tolerance equally - something you and me appear to disagree with.
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2009, 09:38:54 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 07, 2009, 09:34:06 AM
Is tolerance a good thing all of the sudden?
Noone is necessarily saying it is. People with leftists views usually think it is; conservatives not so much.
It's just that grumbler and yi seem to think this is not the case and that both sides embrace tolerance equally - something you and me appear to disagree with.
I think what they were laughing at is the characterization of the issue as "Republicans pander to ignorance and intolerance" combined with the idea that said characterization is a "statement of fact" rather than "political rhetoric".
Which is pretty funny.
Here is a little hint: Any time you are going to characterize your political opponents position, as in "XXXX are like YYYY" if in fact your opponent would not agree with the characterization, it is probably a statement of "political rhetoric" rather than a "statement of fact".
It is like saying "Pro-lifers love to make children live in poverty! This is a statement of fact, not political rhetoric!" or "Pro-choicers get wood off of butchering fetuses! FACT! NOT OPINION!"
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2009, 09:28:32 AM
Could you give examples of political measures championed by Democrats that are based on intolerance? I am not saying that individual Democrats are not intolerant of people holding different views - that's human nature - but what would be the Democratic equivalent to causes popular on the right, such as anti-immigration, anti-abortion or anti-gay-rights movement?
Just because I think DGuller's "plain facts" are comical doesn't mean I think the opposite is true, but I'll answer anyway.
Anti *illegal* immigration cuts both ways. Just take a look at the vote on McCain's bill to see. I don't see how you can paint abortion as a tolerance issue.
The Democrats are the party that is that is "intolerant" of wealth and of business.
And in foreign affairs Republicans are generally more intolerant of the enemies of the US than Democrats are.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2009, 09:47:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2009, 09:28:32 AM
Could you give examples of political measures championed by Democrats that are based on intolerance? I am not saying that individual Democrats are not intolerant of people holding different views - that's human nature - but what would be the Democratic equivalent to causes popular on the right, such as anti-immigration, anti-abortion or anti-gay-rights movement?
Just because I think DGuller's "plain facts" are comical doesn't mean I think the opposite is true, but I'll answer anyway.
Anti *illegal* immigration cuts both ways. Just take a look at the vote on McCain's bill to see. I don't see how you can paint abortion as a tolerance issue.
The Democrats are the party that is that is "intolerant" of wealth and of business.
And in foreign affairs Republicans are generally more intolerant of the enemies of the US than Democrats are.
Of course abortion is a tolerance issue.
Democrat position is that of tolerance - we leave people a choice when it comes to planned parenting and birth control. Republicans want to ban that - they do not tolerate the position in which some people are making a choice to have an abortion. The other end of the non-tolerance spectrum is a position in which abortions would be forced on people who meet certain criteria (e.g. forcible abortion for pregnant people with genetic disabilities, or having too many children, etc.)
Having a choice (in abortion, gay marriage, etc.) is a position of tolerance - we accept and tolerate the fact that some people may make some choices and others may make different choices. We can still believe that some choices are better than others (I don't think you would find many pro-choicers who think that abortion is an optimal solution) but nonetheless we tolerate people's right to choose.
I am a tad concerned that the Economist poll doesn't say how that study was conducted. But I am also perplexed at how everyone's response to it was to attack Dguller, and not ask why Republicans polled were more willing to ban minarets.
I also can't see how Democrats are "intolerant" of wealth or business. Communists were intolerant of wealth or business - they put wealthy people in gulags, they banned private ownership of businesses, etc.
Attempting to strike a balance between individual rights of different people is a middle ground position - not one of intolerance. In fact, while some left-leaning Democrats may be not too happy about businesses and wealthy people - they are remarkably tolerant of them, unlike Republicans who want to ban everything they dislike.
I hate the use of tolerance when very often what we mean is equality before the law. I always loved Tom Paine's attack on tolerance because he points out, I think rightly, that it suggests those in power deigning to allow people to live as they wish. He said in matters of religion that intolerance is the burning stake but that tolerance is the selling of indulgences.
Speaking anecdotally, I've found 'leftists' and 'rightists' to be more or less equally intolerant - albeit often of (ostensibly) different things - depending on the situation and individuals involved. To suggest otherwise is usually just partisan fantasy.
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2009, 09:36:27 AM
Well, it didn't forbid vote on Prop 8. <_<
For the very good reason there is nothing about marriage in the Constitution.
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2009, 09:52:02 AM
Of course abortion is a tolerance issue.
Democrat position is that of tolerance - we leave people a choice when it comes to planned parenting and birth control. Republicans want to ban that - they do not tolerate the position in which some people are making a choice to have an abortion. The other end of the non-tolerance spectrum is a position in which abortions would be forced on people who meet certain criteria (e.g. forcible abortion for pregnant people with genetic disabilities, or having too many children, etc.)
Having a choice (in abortion, gay marriage, etc.) is a position of tolerance - we accept and tolerate the fact that some people may make some choices and others may make different choices. We can still believe that some choices are better than others (I don't think you would find many pro-choicers who think that abortion is an optimal solution) but nonetheless we tolerate people's right to choose.
That's a good summation of the pro-choice talking points. But the fact is pro-lifers are just that: trying to preserve what they consider to be human life. They're not furiously plotting different ways to limit female freedom of choice. It's like saying death penalty advocates are intolerant of people's freedom to murder.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 07, 2009, 09:58:59 AM
I hate the use of tolerance when very often what we mean is equality before the law.
Yep.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 07, 2009, 09:58:59 AM
I hate the use of tolerance when very often what we mean is equality before the law. I always loved Tom Paine's attack on tolerance because he points out, I think rightly, that it suggests those in power deigning to allow people to live as they wish. He said in matters of religion that intolerance is the burning stake but that tolerance is the selling of indulgences.
I don't think I agree. I think the concept of tolerance is important because it informs the "equality under law" in a way that is consistent with our modern sensibilities. If you remove the concept of tolerance from "equality under law", it can be used to justify even the most restrictive laws, as long as they are applied equally (for example, a death penalty for anal sex - whether engaged in by straight or gay couples - would be a measure fulfilling the "equality under law" requirement).
Quote from: Valmy on December 07, 2009, 10:00:31 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2009, 09:36:27 AM
Well, it didn't forbid vote on Prop 8. <_<
For the very good reason there is nothing about marriage in the Constitution.
Wow, what a retarded response. Seriously.
Valmy: I'm glad the Constitution prevents people from adopting an anti-freedom measure A.
Me: Pity it does not prevent people from adopting an anti-freedom measure B, though.
Valmy: And for a good reason, since it doesn't say anything about B.
Seriously, why do you sometimes come with something so retarded like this is beyond me. Is it too early in the morning or what?
Well as a good lefty I prefer the concept of solidarity by all minority groups and from within the majority. My problem with tolerance is that it's the powerful 'tolerating' a minority and that doesn't sit well with me (neither does Edith Sitwell <_<).
Edit: I think I suppose I think that the restriction of rights from one group weakens all rights. Implicit within our 'rights' is that we are the guarantors of each others' freedom - that is the responsibility that comes with every right that we defend not just our own but all others.
[quote author=Martinus link=topic=2894.msg155584#msg155584 date=1260197522]
Democrat position is that of tolerance - we [/quote]
:yeahright:
The irony is strong in this thread.
Or at least the last page or two.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 07, 2009, 10:09:32 AM
Well as a good lefty I prefer the concept of solidarity by all minority groups and from within the majority. My problem with tolerance is that it's the powerful 'tolerating' a minority and that doesn't sit well with me (neither does Edit Sitwell <_<).
I don't see it that way, at least not necessarily. For me tolerance means different groups tolerating each other, even if they do not agree with each other or make different lifestyle choices. Solidarity implies a need for some cooperation - which in turn can lead to exclusion of groups that are, for various reasons, seen as not contributing to the "solidarity".
After all, nazism could be very well defended as a system based on the solidarity concept - with only those groups that are seen as harmful or non-productive being sent to extermination.
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2009, 10:12:47 AM
I don't see it that way, at least not necessarily. For me tolerance means different groups tolerating each other, even if they do not agree with each other or make different lifestyle choices. Solidarity implies a need for some cooperation - which in turn can lead to exclusion of groups that are, for various reasons, seen as not contributing to the "solidarity".
Soldarity is, I would say, the thing you have with someone like Peter Tatchell - who is a gay rights activist who vociferously argues for other minority groups so that they become secondary advocates for the gays and so on.
Tolerance is by it's very nature from someone in a position in power, it's not equal in any way, and has within it a hint of loathing. Non-smokers tolerate their smoking brethren - solidarity is when the smokers give up smoking or the non-smokers go and stand in the cold :P
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2009, 10:08:52 AM
Wow, what a retarded response. Seriously.
Valmy: I'm glad the Constitution prevents people from adopting an anti-freedom measure A.
Me: Pity it does not prevent people from adopting an anti-freedom measure B, though.
Valmy: And for a good reason, since it doesn't say anything about B.
Seriously, why do you sometimes come with something so retarded like this is beyond me. Is it too early in the morning or what?
That is not what you said. You said that it didn't prevent anti-freedom measure B and there is a perfectly good reason for that. If you had actually said pity it did not prevent anti-freedom measure B then I would have agreed.
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2009, 09:56:45 AM
I also can't see how Democrats are "intolerant" of wealth or business. Communists were intolerant of wealth or business - they put wealthy people in gulags, they banned private ownership of businesses, etc.
By that definition of tolerance Republicans are tolerant of gays too, since we don't have any gulags for gays.
QuoteAttempting to strike a balance between individual rights of different people is a middle ground position - not one of intolerance. In fact, while some left-leaning Democrats may be not too happy about businesses and wealthy people - they are remarkably tolerant of them, unlike Republicans who want to ban everything they dislike.
Really? Where is your evidence for that tolerance? Where is your evidence that Republicans want to ban everything they dislike?
Quote from: Valmy on December 07, 2009, 10:18:19 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2009, 10:08:52 AM
Wow, what a retarded response. Seriously.
Valmy: I'm glad the Constitution prevents people from adopting an anti-freedom measure A.
Me: Pity it does not prevent people from adopting an anti-freedom measure B, though.
Valmy: And for a good reason, since it doesn't say anything about B.
Seriously, why do you sometimes come with something so retarded like this is beyond me. Is it too early in the morning or what?
That is not what you said. You said that it didn't prevent anti-freedom measure B and there is a perfectly good reason for that. If you had actually said pity it did not prevent anti-freedom measure B then I would have agreed.
Ok that's what I meant.
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2009, 10:21:59 AM
Ok that's what I meant.
In that case what I meant was 'yep that is a pity'. :P
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2009, 09:38:54 AM
It's just that grumbler and yi seem to think this is not the case and that both sides embrace tolerance equally - something you and me appear to disagree with.
I was laughing at (and thus, I thought, encouraging) what I thought was a deliberate
bon mot on DGuller's part.
It never occurred to me that he was serious.
I have never stated that "sides embrace tolerance equally" and would, in fact, contend that there are far more than two "sides" when it comes to tolerance.
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2009, 09:52:02 AM
Having a choice (in abortion, gay marriage, etc.) is a position of tolerance - we accept and tolerate the fact that some people may make some choices and others may make different choices. We can still believe that some choices are better than others (I don't think you would find many pro-choicers who think that abortion is an optimal solution) but nonetheless we tolerate people's right to choose.
I have no idea why you use the word "we" when referring to tolerance. You are extremely intolerant when it comes to the religious, for instance. I would certainly argue that Berkut is
far more tolerant than you.
So, if you really mean "tolerant like you" than you mean "intolerant except on a few pet issues" as far as I can tell.
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2009, 10:08:52 AM
Wow, what a retarded response. Seriously.
(snip)
Seriously, why do you sometimes come with something so retarded like this is beyond me. Is it too early in the morning or what?
There you have the self-proclaimed voice of "tolerance," people! :lmfao:
Quote from: grumbler on December 07, 2009, 10:39:08 AM
I was laughing at (and thus, I thought, encouraging) what I thought was a deliberate bon mot on DGuller's part.
It never occurred to me that he was serious.
I have never stated that "sides embrace tolerance equally" and would, in fact, contend that there are far more than two "sides" when it comes to tolerance.
I was expressing an honest sentiment in a slightly exaggerated language. Whenever there is a disputed issue that's close to 50/50, and that issue has a pretty undisputed retarded and non-retarded side, you can be very sure that those identifying themselves as Republicans will make up the bulk of the retarded side. I can't think of one issue off the top of my head where Democrats fall on the retarded end of the spectrum.
Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2009, 10:58:59 AM
I was expressing an honest sentiment in a slightly exaggerated language. Whenever there is a disputed issue that's close to 50/50, and that issue has a pretty undisputed retarded and non-retarded side, you can be very sure that those identifying themselves as Republicans will make up the bulk of the retarded side. I can't think of one issue off the top of my head where Democrats fall on the retarded end of the spectrum.
If you are a Democrat,
I can think of one off the top of my head! :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2009, 09:38:54 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 07, 2009, 09:34:06 AM
Is tolerance a good thing all of the sudden?
Noone is necessarily saying it is. People with leftists views usually think it is; conservatives not so much.
:mad:
Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2009, 10:58:59 AM
I was expressing an honest sentiment in a slightly exaggerated language. Whenever there is a disputed issue that's close to 50/50, and that issue has a pretty undisputed retarded and non-retarded side, you can be very sure that those identifying themselves as Republicans will make up the bulk of the retarded side. I can't think of one issue off the top of my head where Democrats fall on the retarded end of the spectrum.
Love of the Soviet Union.
9/11 Truthers.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2009, 02:55:59 PM
Love of the Soviet Union.
Really?
Quote9/11 Truthers.
I'll give you that, for the most part. Though I suspect there'd actually be a surprisingly large group of truthers who are also birthers. They are, as Ron Paul supporters, really outside the mainstream :P
Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2009, 10:58:59 AM
Whenever there is a disputed issue that's close to 50/50, and that issue has a pretty undisputed retarded and non-retarded side,
x = ~x?
Quote from: grumbler on December 07, 2009, 10:44:35 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2009, 09:52:02 AM
Having a choice (in abortion, gay marriage, etc.) is a position of tolerance - we accept and tolerate the fact that some people may make some choices and others may make different choices. We can still believe that some choices are better than others (I don't think you would find many pro-choicers who think that abortion is an optimal solution) but nonetheless we tolerate people's right to choose.
I have no idea why you use the word "we" when referring to tolerance. You are extremely intolerant when it comes to the religious, for instance. I would certainly argue that Berkut is far more tolerant than you.
So, if you really mean "tolerant like you" than you mean "intolerant except on a few pet issues" as far as I can tell.
Tolerance doesn't mean I have to like it, or be polite or nice. I have a big dislike of religion and I do not hide it. I think religion is the scourge of the earth, and a source of much hate and wrong. But this thread, if anything, proves I'm tolerant - because I find this measure (anti-minaret ban) wrong and unacceptable, even though it strikes at those I strongly dislike.
That's what tolerance is all about.
Quote from: grumbler on December 07, 2009, 10:46:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2009, 10:08:52 AM
Wow, what a retarded response. Seriously.
(snip)
Seriously, why do you sometimes come with something so retarded like this is beyond me. Is it too early in the morning or what?
There you have the self-proclaimed voice of "tolerance," people! :lmfao:
Again, tolerance does not involve being nice or polite. Tolerance is an ideological/political stance, not an emotional or social one.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2009, 02:55:59 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2009, 10:58:59 AM
I was expressing an honest sentiment in a slightly exaggerated language. Whenever there is a disputed issue that's close to 50/50, and that issue has a pretty undisputed retarded and non-retarded side, you can be very sure that those identifying themselves as Republicans will make up the bulk of the retarded side. I can't think of one issue off the top of my head where Democrats fall on the retarded end of the spectrum.
Love of the Soviet Union.
9/11 Truthers.
Were either of those issues ever close to being 50/50 in society? I qualified myself for a reason, because I only wanted to talk about "mainstream retardations". Of course there are going to be fringe retardations on both the right or the left.
Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2009, 03:09:27 PM
Were either of those issues ever close to being 50/50 in society? I qualified myself for a reason, because I only wanted to talk about "mainstream retardations". Of course there are going to be fringe retardations on both the right or the left.
Point taken. What 50/50 splits do you see as being retard-right? I was going to grant creationism, but I don't think that's a 50/50 split.
Quote from: Dorsey4GullerWhenever there is a disputed issue that's close to 50/50, and that issue has a pretty undisputed retarded and non-retarded side,
That makes no sense at all.
basically you are saying "Hey, whenever there is an issue under dispute, it is MY side that is not retarded! This, btw, is not partisan rhetoric!"
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2009, 03:11:40 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2009, 03:09:27 PM
Were either of those issues ever close to being 50/50 in society? I qualified myself for a reason, because I only wanted to talk about "mainstream retardations". Of course there are going to be fringe retardations on both the right or the left.
Point taken. What 50/50 splits do you see as being retard-right? I was going to grant creationism, but I don't think that's a 50/50 split.
Gay marriage.
Quote from: Berkut on December 07, 2009, 03:12:01 PM
Quote from: Dorsey4GullerWhenever there is a disputed issue that's close to 50/50, and that issue has a pretty undisputed retarded and non-retarded side,
That makes no sense at all.
basically you are saying "Hey, whenever there is an issue under dispute, it is MY side that is not retarded! This, btw, is not partisan rhetoric!"
Ok, so name one political issue on which the official Democrat party stance is retarded.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2009, 03:11:40 PM
Point taken. What 50/50 splits do you see as being retard-right? I was going to grant creationism, but I don't think that's a 50/50 split.
Actually, that's one of the things I thought of. The actual issue isn't a belief in creationism, though, but rather desire to teach it in school. I don't know the level of support for that one, but if it's supported widely enough, then it's a prime example.
Another example is linking Saddam and 9/11. Frighteningly enough, lots and lots of people believed it back in 2003.
Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2009, 03:21:03 PM
Actually, that's one of the things I thought of. The actual issue isn't a belief in creationism, though, but rather desire to teach it in school. I don't know the level of support for that one, but if it's supported widely enough, then it's a prime example.
Another example is linking Saddam and 9/11. Frighteningly enough, lots and lots of people believed it back in 2003.
We just went through 10 years of a Republican controlled White House and Congress. Don't you think if teaching creationism were a 50/50 split they would have done something about it?
I may be mistaken but I think belief in Saddam9/11 was pretty ecumenical.
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2009, 03:13:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 07, 2009, 03:12:01 PM
Quote from: Dorsey4GullerWhenever there is a disputed issue that's close to 50/50, and that issue has a pretty undisputed retarded and non-retarded side,
That makes no sense at all.
basically you are saying "Hey, whenever there is an issue under dispute, it is MY side that is not retarded! This, btw, is not partisan rhetoric!"
Ok, so name one political issue on which the official Democrat party stance is retarded.
I can name a lot that *I* think are retarded, but so what?
Demand to bail on Afghanistan
Demand to bail on Iraq RIGHTNOW!
No blood for oil
Yanking support for Poland and kissing ass to the Russians instead
Spending trillions on bullshit that has nothing to do with stimulus
I mean, I could go on, but all I am doing is listing things where I think the Dems by and large are wrong. I would not presume to declare my views are "facts" though.
Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2009, 03:21:03 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2009, 03:11:40 PM
Point taken. What 50/50 splits do you see as being retard-right? I was going to grant creationism, but I don't think that's a 50/50 split.
Actually, that's one of the things I thought of. The actual issue isn't a belief in creationism, though, but rather desire to teach it in school. I don't know the level of support for that one, but if it's supported widely enough, then it's a prime example.
Another example is linking Saddam and 9/11. Frighteningly enough, lots and lots of people believed it back in 2003.
Not a 50-50 split at all though, and I bet a lot of people who believed it were not Republicans.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2009, 02:55:59 PM
Love of the Soviet Union.
9/11 Truthers.
AIDS Conspiracies
2000 election stealers
"The Bush administration never wanted to capture Bin Laden, it wanted to use him to..."
Bush "shadow government"
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2009, 03:08:42 PM
Again, tolerance does not involve being nice or polite. Tolerance is an ideological/political stance, not an emotional or social one.
I think this is just one of those cases where the English word doesn't mean what you think it does. I am not sure what word you are looking for, but "wow, what a retarded response!" is not an example of "tolerant." Maybe you can get some Polish friend with a better grasp of English to help you find it.
Quote from: Berkut on December 07, 2009, 03:28:58 PM
Yanking support for Poland and kissing ass to the Russians instead
That was a positive.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2009, 03:08:36 PM
What's your objection?
I think it's an inaccurate characterisation of Cold War politics. To the best of my knowledge the USSR-lovers never did well in elections. I mean looking at the Presidents I'd say that Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Carter weren't particularly USSR-loving, neither, to the best of my understanding were Democrat Representatives or Senators for the most part.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 07, 2009, 04:16:57 PM
I think it's an inaccurate characterisation of Cold War politics. To the best of my knowledge the USSR-lovers never did well in elections. I mean looking at the Presidents I'd say that Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Carter weren't particularly USSR-loving, neither, to the best of my understanding were Democrat Representatives or Senators for the most part.
To clarify, when I answered I was focusing on the part of DGuller's statement about where the bulk of the retards were.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2009, 02:55:59 PM
9/11 Truthers.
Stating that 9/11 Truthers are full of shit will not cause you to lose the Democrat primary.
Stating that man evolved from a pile of goo consisting of ribonucleotides and lipid membranes will cause you to lose the Republican primary in a landslide.
Quote from: Fate on December 07, 2009, 04:29:36 PM
Stating that 9/11 Truthers are full of shit will not cause you to lose the Democrat primary.
Stating that man evolved from a pile of goo consisting of ribonucleotides and lipid membranes will cause you to lose the Republican primary in a landslide.
If you were to dial it down by a factor of 10 I would probably agree. Maybe 100.
Quote from: Fate on December 07, 2009, 04:29:36 PM
Stating that man evolved from a pile of goo consisting of ribonucleotides and lipid membranes will cause you to lose the Republican primary in a landslide.
It will also cause you to lose the Democrat primary in a landslide. Primary voters are not the sharpest tools in the shed, and your primary opponent would use such egghead talk to crush you.
I think the primaries' system is one of the reasons why American politics is so polarized. You guys need to get rid of it. :P
Quote from: grumbler on December 07, 2009, 05:27:46 PM
Quote from: Fate on December 07, 2009, 04:29:36 PM
Stating that man evolved from a pile of goo consisting of ribonucleotides and lipid membranes will cause you to lose the Republican primary in a landslide.
It will also cause you to lose the Democrat primary in a landslide. Primary voters are not the sharpest tools in the shed, and your primary opponent would use such egghead talk to crush you.
Incorrect. All you have to do is preface the statement with hope, conclude it with change, and then victory is guaranteed.
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2009, 05:31:20 PM
I think the primaries' system is one of the reasons why American politics is so polarized. You guys need to get rid of it. :P
Well, it is a party thing, not a public thing, so I cannot think of any way to get rid of it. The conventions are worse, but the primary system sure isn't good.
Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2009, 10:58:59 AM
Quote from: grumbler on December 07, 2009, 10:39:08 AM
I was laughing at (and thus, I thought, encouraging) what I thought was a deliberate bon mot on DGuller's part.
It never occurred to me that he was serious.
I have never stated that "sides embrace tolerance equally" and would, in fact, contend that there are far more than two "sides" when it comes to tolerance.
I was expressing an honest sentiment in a slightly exaggerated language. Whenever there is a disputed issue that's close to 50/50, and that issue has a pretty undisputed retarded and non-retarded side, you can be very sure that those identifying themselves as Republicans will make up the bulk of the retarded side. I can't think of one issue off the top of my head where Democrats fall on the retarded end of the spectrum.
Playoffs in college football?
Quote from: grumbler on December 07, 2009, 03:56:24 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2009, 03:08:42 PM
Again, tolerance does not involve being nice or polite. Tolerance is an ideological/political stance, not an emotional or social one.
I think this is just one of those cases where the English word doesn't mean what you think it does. I am not sure what word you are looking for, but "wow, what a retarded response!" is not an example of "tolerant." Maybe you can get some Polish friend with a better grasp of English to help you find it.
I asked a Polish friend who lived in the US for four years and he confirmed my understanding, and not yours.
Could anyone else who is not a fucking retard (read: grumbler, Berkut) weigh in on this please?
Quote from: grumbler on December 07, 2009, 10:46:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2009, 10:08:52 AM
Wow, what a retarded response. Seriously.
(snip)
Seriously, why do you sometimes come with something so retarded like this is beyond me. Is it too early in the morning or what?
There you have the self-proclaimed voice of "tolerance," people! :lmfao:
:face:
Quote from: Martinus on December 08, 2009, 06:13:33 AM
Could anyone else who is not a fucking retard (read: grumbler, Berkut) weigh in on this please?
You can stop tolerating Berk and grumbler. Tell us how you really feel.
Quote from: Martinus on December 08, 2009, 06:13:33 AM
I asked a Polish friend who lived in the US for four years and he confirmed my understanding, and not yours.
Maybe it is a genetic thing that polacks cannot understand the word, because so far Poles are 0 for 2 on the topic.
here is Princeton's Wordnet on "Tolerant" (my bold, showing how you fail each possible meaning):
Quote* showing respect for the rights or opinions or practices of others
* kind: tolerant and forgiving under provocation; "our neighbor was very kind about the window our son broke"
* broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"
Suggestion: stop deluding yourself into thinking that you are tolerant, and move on.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tolerance
Quotetol⋅er⋅ance
/ˈtɒlərəns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [tol-er-uhns] Show IPA
Use tolerance in a Sentence
See web results for tolerance
See images of tolerance
–noun
1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.
3. interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.
4. the act or capacity of enduring; endurance: My tolerance of noise is limited.
5. Medicine/Medical, Immunology.
a. the power of enduring or resisting the action of a drug, poison, etc.: a tolerance to antibiotics.
b. the lack of or low levels of immune response to transplanted tissue or other foreign substance that is normally immunogenic.
6. Machinery.
a. the permissible range of variation in a dimension of an object. Compare allowance (def. 8).
b. the permissible variation of an object or objects in some characteristic such as hardness, weight, or quantity.
7. Also called allowance. Coining. a permissible deviation in the fineness and weight of coin, owing to the difficulty of securing exact conformity to the standard prescribed by law.
Origin:
1375–1425; late ME < L tolerantia. See tolerant, -ance
Synonyms:
1, 2. patience, sufferance, forbearance; liberality, impartiality, open-mindedness. Tolerance, toleration agree in allowing the right of something that one does not approve. Tolerance suggests a liberal spirit toward the views and actions of others: tolerance toward religious minorities. Toleration implies the allowance or sufferance of conduct with which one is not in accord: toleration of graft.
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tolerant
Quotetol⋅er⋅ant
/ˈtɒlərənt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [tol-er-uhnt] Show IPA
Use tolerant in a Sentence
See web results for tolerant
See images of tolerant
–adjective
1. inclined or disposed to tolerate; showing tolerance; forbearing: tolerant of errors.
2. favoring toleration: a tolerant church.
3. Medicine/Medical, Immunology.
a. able to endure or resist the action of a drug, poison, etc.
b. lacking or exhibiting low levels of immune response to a normally immunogenic substance.
Origin:
1770–80; < L tolerant- (s. of tolerāns), prp. of tolerāre to bear. See tolerate, -ant
Related forms:
tol⋅er⋅ant⋅ly, adverb
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.
Quote from: Martinus on December 08, 2009, 06:13:33 AM
I asked a Polish friend who lived in the US for four years and he confirmed my understanding, and not yours.
Could anyone else who is not a fucking retard (read: grumbler, Berkut) weigh in on this please?
In a non-political context you could say "I tolerate the raccoons who fuck up my garbage because they are so cute."
In a political context you're not supposed to say "I tolerate those goddamn fags sucking each other's dicks down at the gay bar because I'm such a tolerant person."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 08, 2009, 09:45:10 AM
In a non-political context you could say "I tolerate the raccoons who fuck up my garbage because they are so cute."
In a political context you're not supposed to say "I tolerate those goddamn fags sucking each other's dicks down at the gay bar because I'm such a tolerant person."
[Marti the Tolerant] That's not the answer I want, so you are a fucking retard.
Could anyone else who is not a fucking retard (read: Yi, grumbler, Berkut) weigh in on this please? [/Marti the Tolerant]
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 08, 2009, 09:45:10 AM
In a non-political context you could say "I tolerate the raccoons who fuck up my garbage because they are so cute."
In a political context you're not supposed to say "I tolerate those goddamn fags sucking each other's dicks down at the gay bar because I'm such a tolerant person."
:lol: I agree. I don't know what the dictionary says, but the common use of "tolerant" includes not being overly derogatory. That doesn't mean that you can't voice your personal disapproval in a poite way, however.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 08, 2009, 09:45:10 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 08, 2009, 06:13:33 AM
I asked a Polish friend who lived in the US for four years and he confirmed my understanding, and not yours.
Could anyone else who is not a fucking retard (read: grumbler, Berkut) weigh in on this please?
In a non-political context you could say "I tolerate the raccoons who fuck up my garbage because they are so cute."
In a political context you're not supposed to say "I tolerate those goddamn fags sucking each other's dicks down at the gay bar because I'm such a tolerant person."
Ok, ok. But then we are talking about "tolerance" in a legal/ideological context, not a political one. I think that means "I tolerate those goddamn fags marrying each other, adopting kids, teaching at schools, serving in the military and not being discriminated against even if I think sucking dicks is disgusting." could be seen as an expression of tolerance.
Quote from: DGuller on December 08, 2009, 10:12:43 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 08, 2009, 09:45:10 AM
In a non-political context you could say "I tolerate the raccoons who fuck up my garbage because they are so cute."
In a political context you're not supposed to say "I tolerate those goddamn fags sucking each other's dicks down at the gay bar because I'm such a tolerant person."
:lol: I agree. I don't know what the dictionary says, but the common use of "tolerant" includes not being overly derogatory. That doesn't mean that you can't voice your personal disapproval in a poite way, however.
Well I agree that in practice, it is often difficult to separate the two (i.e. being tolerant in terms of equality under law/equal protection and not being rude), and having derogatory public discourse often leads to increasing intolerance, but in a purely hypothetical/theoretical level, I don't see how you can't be tolerant while being rude and abrasive. :P
Quote from: Martinus on December 08, 2009, 10:20:12 AM
Well I agree that in practice, it is often difficult to separate the two (i.e. being tolerant in terms of equality under law/equal protection and not being rude), and having derogatory public discourse often leads to increasing intolerance, but in a purely hypothetical/theoretical level, I don't see how you can't be tolerant while being rude and abrasive. :P
Subtext and connotation. If you describe yourself as tolerant people will have expectations.
Quote from: DGuller on December 08, 2009, 10:12:43 AM
:lol: I agree. I don't know what the dictionary says, but the common use of "tolerant" includes not being overly derogatory. That doesn't mean that you can't voice your personal disapproval in a poite way, however.
[Marti the Tolerant] That's not the answer I want, so you are a fucking retard.
Could anyone else who is not a fucking retard (read: DGuller, Yi, grumbler, Berkut) weigh in on this please? [/Marti the Tolerant]
I do see your point, and I think it's a valid one. The basic principle of tolerance is not imposing your beliefs on others, and being verbally abusive doesn't impose anything on others except your own rudeness. I guess another reason you mentioned, that derogatory discourse leads to intolerance, is why the word "tolerance" is interpreted the way it is.
Well, being tolerant is hard when one is surrounded by fucking retards. :P
Anyway, let's change the subject. :lol:
Edit: it was in response to grumbler. :P
Quote from: Martinus on December 08, 2009, 10:29:27 AM
Well, being tolerant is hard when one is surrounded by fucking retards. :P
This is why I never liked the whole concept of being tolerant of things.
I tolerate Michigan fans. Michigan State and Marshall fans, not so much.
Quote from: Martinus on December 08, 2009, 10:29:27 AM
Well, being tolerant is hard when one is surrounded by fucking retards. :P
Anyway, let's change the subject. :lol:
Although grumbler and his semantic playlets can be irritating, it so hard to admit you were wrong?
G.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 08, 2009, 10:34:57 AM
Marshall fans,
Be *very* glad you didn't spend time in Huntington during the 90s. The level of idiocy & delusion amongst Herd fans when they were winning Division IAA championships was truly something to behold.
Ironically, I sort of miss it. As irritating as they are, they're also quite entertaining when they're winning.
Anyone seen that movie We Are Marshall? And was it any good?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 08, 2009, 12:31:59 PM
Anyone seen that movie We Are Marshall? And was it any good?
It's decent. Don't plan your life around seeing it.
It's on my bucket list. Another movie I haven't seen. :D
Quote from: Martinus on December 08, 2009, 10:29:27 AM
Well, being tolerant is hard when one is surrounded by fucking retards. :P
Anyway, let's change the subject. :lol:
[DGuller] Also notice how conveniently
grumbler Marti stops addressing the matter once
people after Brain Yi starts confirming
my recollection grumbler's point about the meaning of the word. [/DGuller] :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 08, 2009, 12:35:41 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 08, 2009, 12:31:59 PM
Anyone seen that movie We Are Marshall? And was it any good?
It's decent. Don't plan your life around seeing it.
It's a decent movie but there's not as much actual football in it as you'd think. Unfortunately, a lot of the story had to be fictionalized to make it more interesting. A few examples:
*The "famous" pie at the diner (and the diner itself) had to be made-up, because Huntington doesn't have any local food or restaurant in its history worth mentioning. A minor nitpick, but from a native's perspective, it was funny to see them throw that in.
*The pivotal moment of the movie never occurred-- there was no high-level hearing to decide the fate of the football program, and there certainly wasn't a huge crowd gathered outside chanting "We Are Marshall"
*The "We Are Marshall" chant never even existed until the mid to late 1980s. I guess they had to come up with
something to name the movie, but it seems a bit awkward.
*WVU and Marshall were not rivals, as was alluded to in the movie. But that shouldn't take anything away from how WVU (and Bobby Bowden in particular) went out of their way to show sympathy & help out.
You know what? I was thinking of Remember the Titans, never seen We are Marshall. :lol:
FAIL