INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Walkie on November 17, 2016, 12:18:23 PM
-
I didn't want to hijack the Trump thread with this. Nor overwhelm my British issues thread too much. Islam is highly relevantt in Britain, but it's not the only issue. if anyone wants to check what's been said over there, here's the link to the thread (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,24109.0.html). And if anyone wants to link to other previous discussions, or copy-and-paste from them, do go ahead.
I'm gonnajust take it from here:
And Walkie--I defend Islam because few others seem to. I believe in freedom of religion. I believe they have the same right to believe in whatever they want as do the rest of us. I believe the idea that blaming millions of people for the crimes of a group of fanatics is preposterous. A lot of bad things have been done in the name of religion, be it Christianity, Islam or something else, but I would blame the Muslims for ISIS as little as I would blame the medieval peasants for the Crusaders.
As for believing, I don't. I think this is it, it's what we get. When we are gone, we are gone for good.
/steps down from the soapbox
I'm sure most of us believe in freedom of religion. The modern day problem with Islam is that all-too-many practicitioners don't believe in freedom of religion , nor any of the other freedoms we cherish, and they are willing to back up their beliefs with extreme violence.
It's not a question of "Who do we blame?" but "What's the solution?" We need to anayse this situation , pin down whatever psycho-socio-political forces are creating it, and find a peaceful soluution to the problem...fast. But we can't even have a dialogue about it without seriously putting forward the obvious pri=oposition that islam, itself, is a cause of the proplem. Maybe that;'s wrong, Odeon, but tearing into people with strawman arguments like "You can't blame millions of people for the crimes of a group of fanatics " is -to use your word- preposterous. That's to stall the discussion, not push it forward.
And it's not a "group of fanatics" , it's numerous littl;e pockets of fanatics all over the world, who seemingly have nothing in common with each other besides self-identifying as Muslim. If they all buggerered off and joined ISIS, that might simplify things, but they don't. Indeed, our (British) authorities are actively preventing the British ones from doing so.
I don't have the exact statistics, but I'm sure the people who've ben murdered by Muslims just for being non-Muslim, the wrong sort of Muslim, Muslim apostate, Christian, etc have far exceeded the Muslims who've been murdered just for being Muslim. The rest of us have, to the greatest extent you could expect, remained peaceful, tolerant, and completely cognisant and respectful of the fact that not all Muslim people are the same
Prejudice against Muslims is not the problem. Muslim prejudice against everybody else is the problem.
I don't know what the solution is, but if if it turned out to entail restricting the religion freedom of Muslims, I would reluctantly accept that as far better than the alternative of doing nothing at all. Can you, Odeon come up with a better solution? All you've done so far is deny there's a problem, in effect. I don't think you're doing the moderat Muslims any favours . A lot of those moderate Muslims are living in fear of their lives; and not just in the Middle East , but in the peaceful tolerant countries they run to for refuge, because guess what? The intolerant sort of Muslims just follow them in through the door.
-
Yes, I do have a better solution:
Let's not act as recruiters for ISIS and other nutters by polarising the situation to "us" and "them". It's what they want, it's how they grow in numbers. There was a time not too long ago when another group of people was similarly used by populist leaders; the whole thing ended with millions of people murdered.
And it's not a strawman, and it's not just me saying it. Historians and sociologists have been pointing it out for years--the similarities are scary, to say the least, which is why I do think this discussion does belong in the Trump topic. Topics derail here all the time, but this one actually didn't.
I tell you what is a stawman, though:
Prejudice against Muslims is not the problem. Muslim prejudice against everybody else is the problem.
You don't present any evidence or numbers whatsoever, you simply postulate the above and go from there, suggesting that that pretty much the only thing that keeps you safe, relatively speaking, is MI5.
Here's a graphic that pains a slightly different picture (for the drama, I picked on showing people killed in terrorist attacks in western Europe since 1970):
(http://www.datagraver.com/thumbs/1300x1300r/2016-07/jihadist2016-1.png)
While "Islam inspired" terrorism appears to dominate the last few years, I find it difficult to accept your strawman because it would imply that Islam has changed radically in the last few years. Didn't that Muslim prejudice exist before or did they just not know how to build bombs?
Me, I would say that something happened. If I were a historian, I would suggest things like the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, that helped radicalise some Muslims and explain the change. Does this mean that the whole religion has changed? No. Look at the big blue areas from 1970 and onwards. What happened there? I'm not going to be patronising here--I'm sure you know your recent history as well as I do.
Usually, the the populist websites provide data stating how this or that number of Muslims think violence against civilians can or cannot be justified; the interwebz are full of them. Me, I always ask myself, how many westerners think the same, and so I had to google it. It turns out the numbers are about the same--approximately the same percentage of Muslims and Americans reject the use of violence against civilians in any situation, according to Gallup data studied by American professor John Esposito.
Oh, and while googling, I found another interesting little tidbit about Islam: Did you know that 5 of the last 12 Nobel Peace Prize laureates were Muslim?
-
Ok It will prolly take me some considerable time to work through all my responses to your argument , Odeon (cos that's how my mind works with this sort of thing-and just about anything else indeed- slowly and carefully and haltingly- trying to plot all the trees in relation to the wood- then equally slowly trying to figure out how best to express it)
Some of your observations are inarguable. It's more a case of your map of the forest missing some highly signifant trees; though I'm sure you'd think the same of mine. At least you said enough this time to make me feel I could learn something (but nothing to suggest that you're gonna bring me round to agreeing with your conclusions).
Let's start with something simple and trivial (just to clear it out of the way, I hope)
I tell you what is a stawman, though:
Prejudice against Muslims is not the problem. Muslim prejudice against everybody else is the problem.
If you repeatedly bang on about people's prjudice againsst Muslims (which you do, to the best of my understanding) , it's not a strawman to explicitly contradict that. A strawman argument, on my side, would falsely put words into your mouth, wouldn't it?
I'm a bit perplexed as to what could be happening here? I don't think you're quite disingenouus enough to falsely accuse me of using strawmen; a sort of meta strawman , or mega strawman, or Babooshka-freaking-doll -of-strawmen. But I don't know. The only other explanation would seem to be that we have different conceptions of what prejudice means, or something like that?
So let's try:
So you've not been saying that prejudice against Muslims is a problem? Can you please explain the difference between what you have been saying and my phrasing of it?
Or alternatively: are we having actually having a serious discussion here, and saying what we mean, or are we just scoring points, any which way we can?
If it's the latter, i think i'll bow out, because I actually am very serious, very concerned about this subject, and i don't really want to arse around playing clever little games with it, not even here.
Back to you on that.
-
Yes, I do have a better solution:
Let's not act as recruiters for ISIS and other nutters by polarising the situation to "us" and "them". It's what they want, it's how they grow in numbers. There was a time not too long ago when another group of people was similarly used by populist leaders; the whole thing ended with millions of people murdered.
That is not a solution. That is virtue signalling and you deflecting. Its you saying IF you do not do anything, you are "good" and are not creating an "us" and them and if you do something you are creating/perpetuating an "us" and "them".
Its a pretty weak way to say any action is tantamount to bigotry and only in doing nothing are you virtuous. Is pretty fucking weak. Answer the fucking question and stop deflecting.
See this is the Odeon I like. He is being a clown for our amusement.
"I stick up for Muslims being no one else does. I believe people have a right to their religious beliefs."
See it sounds very moral and virtuous but prod this moral grandstanding a bit and what happens? Want me to try?
Me: "Okay, sure Odeon, but who on here is questioning anyone's right to have their own religious beliefs or railing on Muslims or blaming the actions of a few on all Muslims?"
Odeon: "YOU have! You clearly have. You are a bigot and have done exactly that. You always say terrible things about Muslims and support Trump"
Me: "Actually I have not done any of that and only a drooling idiot could draw that conclusion. I have at every conceivable point underlined the fact that Muslim radical extremists are very definitely a threat and not all Muslims are Muslim radical extremists, but that it is difficult to identify any radical Muslim extremists coming into a country without identification OR from failed states where there is no viable infrastructure or database to check any identification that they may produce for inspection. In Australia, this means we do not accept these people into our waters. America seems to similarly support a freeze on such people that cannot be identified for whatever threat that they may bring with them as a result of poor identification."
Odeon: "That is a bigoted position. You are critical of them because of their religion."
Me: "No, because the "them" in your statement is false. If the "them" is radical Muslim extremists, then I am concerned with their rabid ideology and fanaticism NOT their religion, and if "them" is your ordinary run of the mill moderate Muslim, I have no issue and would wish them very well. In either case the ONLY tie between them is that the Islamic faith is shared by both groups and that all the radical Muslim extremists are found in the larger Muslim demographic. The only quandary is how to accurately differentiate good from bad. This is a vetting problem and thus a border and national security problem"
Odeon: "THAT'S RACIST!!!"
Me: "No. Furthermore, APART from - let in people you cannot vet because hopefully most will be okay and any damage the ones that are not okay will do hopefully will be minor - what is your suggestion"
Odeon: "Well sure, you cannot vet everyone and maybe some will be bad but we can't discriminate..."
Me: "So that IS your big solution?"
Odeon: "I am more moral than you. You are a bigot"
Me: " ...and you fool and ideologically skewed to a point that reason does not even see sunlight"
Odeon: "Bigot!!!" :bigcry:
There and without us having to even thrash it out. The irony is he thinks he is a better person for this lack of critical reasoning and believes it make him a moral defender of the defenceless. Its a healthy step to either ignorance or insanity. I am not sure which. Ideological blinkers are a strange thing to behold.
-
PS. Thing is, I might not have put it that way, but I actually decided this worth a new thread because I took the statement I quoted as sincere. I therefore anticipated a sincere argument, and thus far, I feel pretty damned disappointed , but I'm willing to think that A) perhaps I asked for it? and B) it's recoverable?
-
PS. Thing is, I might not have put it that way, but I actually decided this worth a new thread because I took the statement I quoted as sincere. I therefore anticipated a sincere argument, and thus far, I feel pretty damned disappointed , but I'm willing to think that A) perhaps I asked for it? and B) it's recoverable?
There is nothing wrong with what you asked.
If there is a national security threat and it is impossible to identify who in a group of people is carrying this threat (but just that it resides within this group somewhere) then the answer is not "Meh, its probably not a big threat anyway".
Yes intolerant Muslims will follow through tolerant Muslims.
No, it is not unreasonable to want only the tolerant Muslims in the country.
Yes, it is perfectly sound to hold off on bringing in people you cannot identify, until such time that you can.
Yes, the citizens of other country do not trump the rights of the citizens of their prospective host country.
Yes everything ought to be done to limit the effects of ISIS and other radical terrorist groups to a country.
None of this is unreasonable.
However saying a suggestion of bigotry out to have a chilling effect on being able to protect border and national security is either insane, dangerous, ideologically skewed, dishonest and most likely a combination of all the above.
The true test of Odeon's implication of bigotry is this simple question. "If all the Muslims coming into your country were guaranteed not to be associated with radical Muslim extremists such as ISIS, would you have ANY issue? If you, like I, say "No, no issue at all" Then Odeon's bigotry narrative and his apparent moral soapbox falls flat.
-
*nod to Al*
yep, you're making pretty fair points about Odeon's debating style, Al
I believe he can be bigger than that, when he chooses. But it looks like I picked the wrong subject, if I want that effect :(
-
*nod to Al*
yep, you're making prety fair points about Odeon's debating style, Al
I believe he can be bigger than that, when he chooses. But it looks like I picked the wrong subject, if I want that effect :(
Odeon of old was a lot better than that. I obviously am at the point with him that I have come to expect a level of dishonesty from him.
-
I pretty much have zero experience with anyone Muslim. We're not too culturally diverse here south of Pittsburgh. Basically my beliefs are in religious freedom and tolerance...but have zero experience with anything you describe Walkie, so I can't say how it would make me feel or whether it would make me change my mindset.
I'm the American "trailer-trash" you mentioned in the other thread. Minus the trailer, with a thing for vinyl wallpaper only in my closets (the gaudy or mega floral patterns normally). :LOL:
I've lived the rural lifestyle all my life, sometimes driving $300 rust buckets, and picking trash, anything else is unimaginable and would probably suck the life right out of me at this stage in my life. :dunno:
-
Ah! thanks, IQ. OK , maybe you don't have a lot to add , but t least that looks like a genuine, just saying-what-I -mean comment :)
Hey, Al! Maybe we can just talk as if Odeon's not here? No ned to address him, if he's not playing ball, is there?
-
Oh! And no need to apologise, IQ. Me, I'm a piece of benefit-sucking too-overprivileged-to-know-what-poor-means, white, English Trash. *shake*
One thing I want to examine is the growing prejudice against people like ourselves, which somebody said doesn''t even exist. Not only do I think it exists, i think it's being deliberately whipped up, in some quaters. And the infinitely foolish SJWs are helping to whip it up.
What's the opoint of that exercise?
No, i'm not trying to induce paranoia, I'm just trying to look a little way beneath the surface, and to refuse to jump to all the obvious conclusions. I smell shit, not sure exactly what colour or variety , nor exactly what kind of animal shat it , nor how to avoid stepping in the stuff, but there's a definite whiff of shit in the air.
I think we need to carefully examine all our prejudices , not just the usual ones that we all know how to whisk out by the scruff off their neck and jump up and down on , exultantly.
-
There definitely is a prejudice against people on benefits, it's pretty bad. People act immediately judgemental and huffy and ask why you don't have a job, as if what you're doing is deliberate and malicious. The nutritionist I saw ages ago (they're shit, BTW) said to me immediately upon introduction, "I don't know what autism is but even if you have it, you should be in work". I was an emotional wreck at the time and burst out crying at the end and she was a lot more understanding.
The worst example was when this landlord had the knack to go to me, "How do I know you're not going to grow marijuana and make a mess?"
Others, well, people immediately have no sympathy for you. Even my ex when he started at me, I immediately hit back at him saying, "You got support for getting into your job, I didn't. You can't have a go at others like me who haven't had the support either." He got my point. In fact that goes for a lot of people, they have their own support network of family and friends also, some have better social skills, others better circumstances.
I have another bad example at my old college where the tutor went along with it and another with a group of SJWs (FTR, I hate Southend and its people. They can all go f*ck themselves) but I don't even want to remember. I can't talk a lot about painful things now. They weren't even as painful before, it's just everything is too much, I'm so tired of it. I just want to pretend these things don't even exist and never happened.
-
Ah! thanks, IQ. OK , maybe you don't have a lot to add , but t least that looks like a genuine, just saying-what-I -mean comment :)
Hey, Al! Maybe we can just talk as if Odeon's not here? No ned to address him, if he's not playing ball, is there?
Ive gone around the mulberry bush a few times with the fool, over this and happy enough to do it again
-
There definitely is a prejudice against people on benefits, it's pretty bad. People act immediately judgemental and huffy and ask why you don't have a job, as if what you're doing is deliberate and malicious. The nutritionist I saw ages ago (they're shit, BTW) said to me immediately upon introduction, "I don't know what autism is but even if you have it, you should be in work". I was an emotional wreck at the time and burst out crying at the end and she was a lot more understanding.
The worst example was when this landlord had the knack to go to me, "How do I know you're not going to grow marijuana and make a mess?"
Others, well, people immediately have no sympathy for you. Even my ex when he started at me, I immediately hit back at him saying, "You got support for getting into your job, I didn't. You can't have a go at others like me who haven't had the support either." He got my point. In fact that goes for a lot of people, they have their own support network of family and friends also, some have better social skills, others better circumstances.
I have another bad example at my old college where the tutor went along with it and another with a group of SJWs (FTR, I hate Southend and its people. They can all go f*ck themselves) but I don't even want to remember. I can't talk a lot about painful things now. They weren't even as painful before, it's just everything is too much, I'm so tired of it. I just want to pretend these things don't even exist and never happened.
I hear you, JC. And I hope Graelwyn's reading this too, cos she's had it so bad she's introjected it, and now beats herself up about it. (have you read her posts?) . and ofc she's not the only one, not by a long chalk. And, what's more, out]r Government and our media have deliberately whipped up that prejudice , as I hope to make crystal clear on the Brit thread (already alluded to that once or twice; by example; do fel free to add all the "grist to the mill" you like) .
-
I pretty much have zero experience with anyone Muslim. We're not too culturally diverse here south of Pittsburgh. Basically my beliefs are in religious freedom and tolerance...but have zero experience with anything you describe Walkie, so I can't say how it would make me feel or whether it would make me change my mindset.
Same here. In Australia, religion is seen as a personal thing and does not realy touch on the greater society. There is a bit of a live and let live attitude to it.
Like most, as long as I am not having it forced on me or it doesn't endanger me, I could not care
-
Has anyone uttered a word why Muslims might be 'prejudiced' against non-Muslims? Does anyone actually think they hate us 'becozzz werrr freeee'? We've been destroying the Middle East for decades, blocking democracy and supporting brutal regimes as well as stealing their resources and blowing them up. But when we do it, we don't call it terrorism. Does anyone actually believe the narrative that we went into Afghanistan to 'liberate women', to find Bin Laden and knock out Al Qaeda and the Taliban? When the US supported Jihadists in the 80's that threw acid into women's faces, they never charged Bin Laden with 9/11 and the US supports Al Qaeda. Or went into Iraq because Saddam had connections with Al Qaeda, and because he was a horrible person and because we love democracy so much? When this was all a lie spewed out from Israeli intelligence, and we supported Saddam through his worst crimes.
Did anyone think it would be a good idea to flood the West with people from the Middle East while we destroyed the Middle East?
The establishment have done this intentionally, they're not that stupid. They want people to support their wars against the Muslim world and support Israel.
-
Walkie: I have not read Graelwyn's posts...in all honesty I don't want to, not because I'm not supportive, but reading that sort of thing makes me so upset and angry...it's why I don't watch the news. I can't take it, it's so depressing and makes me feel down. I totally get that the media is behind it. What makes it worse is that people who work, especially poor people, love their "Oh woe is me, I have to work so hard while these bastards leech off me, I'm such a better and decent moral person". i.e. putting others down to boost themselves, arseholes.
-
Ok It will prolly take me some considerable time to work through all my responses to your argument , Odeon (cos that's how my mind works with this sort of thing-and just about anything else indeed- slowly and carefully and haltingly- trying to plot all the trees in relation to the wood- then equally slowly trying to figure out how best to express it)
Some of your observations are inarguable. It's more a case of your map of the forest missing some highly signifant trees; though I'm sure you'd think the same of mine. At least you said enough this time to make me feel I could learn something (but nothing to suggest that you're gonna bring me round to agreeing with your conclusions).
Let's start with something simple and trivial (just to clear it out of the way, I hope)
I tell you what is a stawman, though:
Prejudice against Muslims is not the problem. Muslim prejudice against everybody else is the problem.
If you repeatedly bang on about people's prjudice againsst Muslims (which you do, to the best of my understanding) , it's not a strawman to explicitly contradict that. A strawman argument, on my side, would falsely put words into your mouth, wouldn't it?
I'm a bit perplexed as to what could be happening here? I don't think you're quite disingenouus enough to falsely accuse me of using strawmen; a sort of meta strawman , or mega strawman, or Babooshka-freaking-doll -of-strawmen. But I don't know. The only other explanation would seem to be that we have different conceptions of what prejudice means, or something like that?
So let's try:
So you've not been saying that prejudice against Muslims is a problem? Can you please explain the difference between what you have been saying and my phrasing of it?
Or alternatively: are we having actually having a serious discussion here, and saying what we mean, or are we just scoring points, any which way we can?
If it's the latter, i think i'll bow out, because I actually am very serious, very concerned about this subject, and i don't really want to arse around playing clever little games with it, not even here.
Back to you on that.
A strawman is something that is not founded in backed-up numbers or anything verifiable--it's just an opinion, really--but what you nevertheless state as a prerequisite for the rest of your argument. Because A, B follows, and all that, when A is not in any way verified.
And of course the prejudice against Muslims is a problem. It's a huge problem because it enables the likes of Trump and it does more to recruit cannon fodder to ISIS than anything else they can do. And that's a strawman, by the way, because I can't prove it, but it serves well to increase the gap between "us" and "them". The westerners are all against us, look at what they are doing to us in the US, join us.
But unless you backed it up and I somehow missed it entirely, this is a strawman:
Prejudice against Muslims is not the problem. Muslim prejudice against everybody else is the problem.
"Muslim prejudice against everybody."
How do you know? Where is your proof?
Make no mistake here, Walkie. This is not a game, this is not not me arsing around playing clever games. It is me defending Islam any way I know how, though, because nobody else is, here, yet they are no worse than the others. They are not better, either, but that's just part of the human condition. There are assholes in every religion and every culture.
I sometimes wonder is this sort of discussion is taking place in a Muslim country, too, with some poor defender of Christianity and western values stating that that lot isn't any worse than we are.
-
Yes, I do have a better solution:
Let's not act as recruiters for ISIS and other nutters by polarising the situation to "us" and "them". It's what they want, it's how they grow in numbers. There was a time not too long ago when another group of people was similarly used by populist leaders; the whole thing ended with millions of people murdered.
That is not a solution. That is virtue signalling and you deflecting. Its you saying IF you do not do anything, you are "good" and are not creating an "us" and them and if you do something you are creating/perpetuating an "us" and "them".
Its a pretty weak way to say any action is tantamount to bigotry and only in doing nothing are you virtuous. Is pretty fucking weak. Answer the fucking question and stop deflecting.
See this is the Odeon I like. He is being a clown for our amusement.
"I stick up for Muslims being no one else does. I believe people have a right to their religious beliefs."
See it sounds very moral and virtuous but prod this moral grandstanding a bit and what happens? Want me to try?
Me: "Okay, sure Odeon, but who on here is questioning anyone's right to have their own religious beliefs or railing on Muslims or blaming the actions of a few on all Muslims?"
Odeon: "YOU have! You clearly have. You are a bigot and have done exactly that. You always say terrible things about Muslims and support Trump"
Me: "Actually I have not done any of that and only a drooling idiot could draw that conclusion. I have at every conceivable point underlined the fact that Muslim radical extremists are very definitely a threat and not all Muslims are Muslim radical extremists, but that it is difficult to identify any radical Muslim extremists coming into a country without identification OR from failed states where there is no viable infrastructure or database to check any identification that they may produce for inspection. In Australia, this means we do not accept these people into our waters. America seems to similarly support a freeze on such people that cannot be identified for whatever threat that they may bring with them as a result of poor identification."
Odeon: "That is a bigoted position. You are critical of them because of their religion."
Me: "No, because the "them" in your statement is false. If the "them" is radical Muslim extremists, then I am concerned with their rabid ideology and fanaticism NOT their religion, and if "them" is your ordinary run of the mill moderate Muslim, I have no issue and would wish them very well. In either case the ONLY tie between them is that the Islamic faith is shared by both groups and that all the radical Muslim extremists are found in the larger Muslim demographic. The only quandary is how to accurately differentiate good from bad. This is a vetting problem and thus a border and national security problem"
Odeon: "THAT'S RACIST!!!"
Me: "No. Furthermore, APART from - let in people you cannot vet because hopefully most will be okay and any damage the ones that are not okay will do hopefully will be minor - what is your suggestion"
Odeon: "Well sure, you cannot vet everyone and maybe some will be bad but we can't discriminate..."
Me: "So that IS your big solution?"
Odeon: "I am more moral than you. You are a bigot"
Me: " ...and you fool and ideologically skewed to a point that reason does not even see sunlight"
Odeon: "Bigot!!!" :bigcry:
.There and without us having to even thrash it out. The irony is he thinks he is a better person for this lack of critical reasoning and believes it make him a moral defender of the defenceless. Its a healthy step to either ignorance or insanity. I am not sure which. Ideological blinkers are a strange thing to behold.
Can't be arsed too read your effort but I'm sure it is a fine post. I'm betting there are a few hypotheticals, all of them failed, an attack or two on my person, and some thinly veiled bigotry.
Next.
-
PS. Thing is, I might not have put it that way, but I actually decided this worth a new thread because I took the statement I quoted as sincere. I therefore anticipated a sincere argument, and thus far, I feel pretty damned disappointed , but I'm willing to think that A) perhaps I asked for it? and B) it's recoverable?
In what way do you think my reply was anything less than sincere?
-
*nod to Al*
yep, you're making pretty fair points about Odeon's debating style, Al
I believe he can be bigger than that, when he chooses. But it looks like I picked the wrong subject, if I want that effect :(
Not reading Al's posts, knowing his views already, but please do address my points. Or, for that matter, my debating style. Cos right now I'm thinking that you're big on words but light on substance, Walkie. What is wrong with disagreeing with your post and your basic premise?
-
*nod to Al*
yep, you're making prety fair points about Odeon's debating style, Al
I believe he can be bigger than that, when he chooses. But it looks like I picked the wrong subject, if I want that effect :(
Odeon of old was a lot better than that. I obviously am at the point with him that I have come to expect a level of dishonesty from him.
This one was short and so this one I read. I shouldn't have bothered. You have nothing to contribute.
-
Ah! thanks, IQ. OK , maybe you don't have a lot to add , but t least that looks like a genuine, just saying-what-I -mean comment :)
Hey, Al! Maybe we can just talk as if Odeon's not here? No ned to address him, if he's not playing ball, is there?
I posted in this thread yesterday and again today. But feel free to ignore me if you only want friendly nods instead of actual discussion.
-
Has anyone uttered a word why Muslims might be 'prejudiced' against non-Muslims? Does anyone actually think they hate us 'becozzz werrr freeee'? We've been destroying the Middle East for decades, blocking democracy and supporting brutal regimes as well as stealing their resources and blowing them up. But when we do it, we don't call it terrorism. Does anyone actually believe the narrative that we went into Afghanistan to 'liberate women', to find Bin Laden and knock out Al Qaeda and the Taliban? When the US supported Jihadists in the 80's that threw acid into women's faces, they never charged Bin Laden with 9/11 and the US supports Al Qaeda. Or went into Iraq because Saddam had connections with Al Qaeda, and because he was a horrible person and because we love democracy so much? When this was all a lie spewed out from Israeli intelligence, and we supported Saddam through his worst crimes.
Did anyone think it would be a good idea to flood the West with people from the Middle East while we destroyed the Middle East?
The establishment have done this intentionally, they're not that stupid. They want people to support their wars against the Muslim world and support Israel.
What a shame. I found myself agreeing with some of your post until you sawed off the branch you were sitting on.
-
You have curious sense of "us and them" Benji
Has anyone uttered a word why Muslims might be 'prejudiced' against non-Muslims? Does anyone actually think they hate us 'becozzz werrr freeee'? We've been destroying the Middle East for decades, blocking democracy and supporting brutal regimes as well as stealing their resources and blowing them up. But when we do it, we don't call it terrorism. Does anyone actually believe the narrative that we went into Afghanistan to 'liberate women', to find Bin Laden and knock out Al Qaeda and the Taliban? When the US supported Jihadists in the 80's that threw acid into women's faces, they never charged Bin Laden with 9/11 and the US supports Al Qaeda. Or went into Iraq because Saddam had connections with Al Qaeda, and because he was a horrible person and because we love democracy so much? When this was all a lie spewed out from Israeli intelligence, and we supported Saddam through his worst crimes.
Did anyone think it would be a good idea to flood the West with people from the Middle East while we destroyed the Middle East?
I added the bold, to show how you clearly identify yourself as one of the people who did these things.
But then you say
The establishment have done this intentionally, they're not that stupid. They want people to support their wars against the Muslim world and support Israel.
And now suddenly you are dissociating yourself from the people who did these things. It wasn't you, it was "the establishment",
I'm not really specifically picking on you here, Benji. The way yopu're talking is utterly typical of the way we English people tallk about things like this. We don't feel we ever got a say regarding Britain's role in the Middle East, There have been no refererundums, Protersts have simply been ignored. Amnd , given a choice between one rifght -wing party and another, a lot of British people don;t even feel they get a vote worth squat. And you can add to that the growing feeling that politicians are relatively powerless any way: policies are tailored to suit the interests of Big industry and the super Rich.
So, on the one hand , we quite naturally share in the burden of guilt for out Government's actions, whilst , on the other hand feling that it really has nothing to do with us; we're just another bunch pawns in whatever kind of power-game is going on.
I don't claim to know exactly who the powers-that-be really are, nor exactly what their agenda really is, besides making the entirely logical assumption that wealth is a very strong factor in defining both . We all know that "wealth is power" don't we? And for myself, i think we're dangerously close to a situation where wealth is only power left in the world.
Any rehetoric that basically serves to blames the poor and pwerless is at best a red herring, and at worst an attempt to dehumanise some population groups, and thus justify the next batch of atrocities .
So, I think that insofar as we identify we with the poor and powerless of the world, we need to adopt a mindset and rhetoric that reflects that; a quite different concept of "us and them" than the usual bollocks. Such a concept would put the average poor white Brit in the same group as the average poor Muslim. Just that initself, might ease some of the prejudice and mutual antagonism, of course. But the main point of it would be to clarify our thinking, and sharpen our analysis.
As the SJWs never tire of pointing out, our habits of language can actually have a profound affect upon our thinking . Let's not let our loathing for the SJws blind us to the truths they sometimnes get hold of. We ned to think about how the language we use, and the language that the press and politicians use m encapsulates and deepens our prejudices...and sometimes our guilt and self-loathing too. Not with an agenda of blaming ourselves, but rather of mentally liberating ourselves., because it's pointless and silly, and often destructive, joining in the blame game.
Personally I think the assumption that the vast majority of people are innocent is both more accurate and more powerful. We need to start using language in a way that reflects that.
Also, I really I do believe there's a problem with Islam. The rhetoric of Islam is being used to desttructive purposes. But every time I (or anybody else ) says something like that , we;re jumped on , and( metaphorically) beaten up, bound and gagged by a bunch of howling SJWs , all repeating the mantra that "You casn't blame Muslim peope for Muslim atrocities". Not that I ever, actually have actually blamed the Muslim people. iIve blamed "Islam" (hypothetically) at most. But that response seems to have become an universally accepted straw man. One that people actually believe in.
Clearly , i also believe that our more familiar Western rhetoric is being used to destructive purposes. It's relatively OK to voice that idea, (cos you're supposedly blaming the "white man" now. Valid target) until you actually challenge the more destructive and divisive aspects , eg as above.
I don't believe we can usefully seperate out the Islam problem from these other issues.
And I do believe it's silly (and again destructive) to attack other people on the grounds that they're "prejudiced" . All humabn beings are prejudiced, in obe way or another. if you make "prejudice " itself into sin, then you only discourage the kind of self-reflection that enables people to identify, and escape their prejudices . There's a very real prejudice against poor whites , these dauys , that's every bit as destructive, potentially, asd all the usual prejudices that the SJWs bang on about. Actually, it's all the more dangeropus at present for rarely being identified as "prejudice" but rather largely accepted as fact.
I said on one thread that "disabled people are the new Jews" in Britain and that was instantly disnmissed as nonsense. I could have gone on to present some really convincing and really shocking evidence to the effect that disabled people are the victims of a systematic prop[aganda campaig n on the part of the British Giovernmeb=nt and Britaish Media to dehumanise benefits claimants , followed by a series of human rights abuses that has actually led to multiple deaths ...but my usual problems with being a disabled spazz intervened there so I never followed up (maybe somebody else here will collate and present that evidence? cos I don't trust myself to ever get around to it at that rate)
Still, that was a bit of hyperbole. We;re clearly not the only jews, not by a long chalk, and they haven't built the death camps yet (probably no ned, we concveniently suicide, usually) but it's really not hard to justify to justify that that statement,to peoplwe who are willing to entertain that notion (which is not that many, as yet, admittedly). The main problem is that most disabled people in Britain are white native Brits , of course , which means of course we're not the victims of prejudie, we're the evil disseminators of prejudice instead. No, no, no, no that idea makes us doubly the victims of prejudice in reality. Heck, it really is time to change the record, change the dialogue
*gets down off soapbox*
-Walkie
-
Ahhh. :heart: If nothing will bring people together, you can always rely on politics.
I don't want my friend to die. :'( He works alongside MPs. I don't want him to die. :'(
-
Actually, Walkie, Muslims are the new Jews, not the disabled. How many populist politicians do you see trying to ban the disabled from entering the country or accuse them of taking our jobs? Where are the disabled in the headlines? The sad fact is that the disabled just aren't that important.
-
Walkie: I have not read Graelwyn's posts...in all honesty I don't want to, not because I'm not supportive, but reading that sort of thing makes me so upset and angry...it's why I don't watch the news. I can't take it, it's so depressing and makes me feel down. I totally get that the media is behind it. What makes it worse is that people who work, especially poor people, love their "Oh woe is me, I have to work so hard while these bastards leech off me, I'm such a better and decent moral person". i.e. putting others down to boost themselves, arseholes.
I understand your feelings, but don't think they're actually arseholes , just the usual variety of weak, more-or-less-well-intentioned human beings, caught up in the vice of impossible tensions. They are shit-scared of becoming you; and putting you down is , amongst other things, one way of convincing themselves that the worst won't happen to them.
I'm speaking as somebody as somebody who's worked alongside such people , I hasten to add, in the highly uncomfortable position of a member of the hated Agency Staff. (I seem to have been most of the people that this Society is prejudiced against by turns *sigh*) If you're a white English agency worker, then the regular staff have no inhibition at all against telling you exactly what they think of you. You are stealing their work, undermining their wages, and undermining their (nigh-on-non-exiostent) job security. A significant proportion of them are going to hate you for that. And It really is true, so you fel like a "scab" doing that sort of work; but, inxcreasingly, that's the only sort of work available. They'd also hate you (though not quite so much) if you didn't have a job at all.
I got along pretty well with most of them, maybe because I don't let such shit get on top of me and deform me; and i can and do sympathise with their position, as well as with my own. When one line-manager( looking at at my sketches of workmates) opined that I was "wasted here" my instantaneous, heartfelt response was "We're all wasted here" -prompting an instant murmer of agreement from the rest :LOL:
Nobody, but nobody is having a fun time. Somehow we need to ovecome the effectys of the propaganda that divides the British working class against itself. Much more easily said than done, but I don't want to deepen it by labelling working people as bastards.
-
Oh dear. I didn't say working people were bastards, it's just some of their attitudes. It's all so "Woe is me" and in order to get along you have to be moany like them about their positions. I don't get it. It's so negative. When I went to college in East London, it was nothing like that. People talked about being on benefits and having jobs, they didn't keep their benefits a secret, they didn't slag anyone off. They were like, "Oh yeh, I'm looking for a part time job in so and so, I can recommend you" etc, and the attitudes were totally relaxed, like Jamaicans. No whining or judgement whatsoever, they just accepted reality and were totally cool with it.
-
Oh dear. I didn't say working people were bastards, it's just some of their attitudes. It's all so "Woe is me" and in order to get along you have to be moany like them about their positions. I don't get it. It's so negative. When I went to college in East London, it was nothing like that. People talked about being on benefits and having jobs, they didn't keep their benefits a secret, they didn't slag anyone off. They were like, "Oh yeh, I'm looking for a part time job in so and so, I can recommend you" etc, and the attitudes were totally relaxed, like Jamaicans. No whining or judgement whatsoever, they just accepted reality and were totally cool with it.
Ah OK :) Mind you, i wouldn't blame you for your prejudice (if that's what it was) any more than I blamne them for theirs. i meant what I said about all that. Just sticking my oar in, as usual :LOL: That said, I don't often stick my oar in with racial rants (uless against whites) cos that's done to death already, and nastily , too. Fact is, disadvantaged people use colourful languge against whatever group they (rightly or wrongly) believe to be oppressing them. So long as it stops at colourful language, that's not necessarily a bad thing. I've seen some shocking stuff on disability ewebsites , now and then , mind (eg venonomous rants against buggys pushers who take the wheelchair -users spaceon the bus ) that have thoroughly pissed me off (fact is, as a parent, i know the system is to blame, not the buggy-pushers; and single parents as a group really don;'t need any more slagging off than they already get). But you're nowhere near pressing my buttons there, :LOL:
-
I sometimes wonder is this sort of discussion is taking place in a Muslim country, too, with some poor defender of Christianity and western values stating that that lot isn't any worse than we are.
My French teacher is a recent Afghan immigrant, and in service of practicing the language we've actually been talking a lot about politics and him telling stories about growing up in an Afghan village.
It's pretty surprising. He dresses like a Westerner, he's not religious, he seems as cultured and educated as any local WASP. He spent a few years in France before coming to North America, but that doesn't seem like enough to drastically change a person's core values.
He has no liking of the Taliban. He thinks his people have a rich history but the current generation are acting like animals. Today he showed us the space where a huge ancient monument to Buddha used to stand in the side of a mountain. It used to be a pilgrimage site for Buddhists from Korea, China and other eastern countries, but the Taliban blew it up about 15 years ago. He talked about how there's been a movement to rebuild it but just as vocal a movement to leave it as it is - not because they agree with the Taliban but because it stands as a testament to the danger and destruction of fanaticism. Its remains have become a part of the history of the country too.
He's not a city person either, he grew up barefoot running in the mountains and chasing goats.
I don't know what his opinion on Christianity is, but I should ask.
-
Oh dear. I didn't say working people were bastards, it's just some of their attitudes. It's all so "Woe is me" and in order to get along you have to be moany like them about their positions. I don't get it. It's so negative. When I went to college in East London, it was nothing like that. People talked about being on benefits and having jobs, they didn't keep their benefits a secret, they didn't slag anyone off. They were like, "Oh yeh, I'm looking for a part time job in so and so, I can recommend you" etc, and the attitudes were totally relaxed, like Jamaicans. No whining or judgement whatsoever, they just accepted reality and were totally cool with it.
Ah OK :) Mind you, i wouldn't blame you for your prejudice (if that's what it was) any more than I blamne them for theirs. i meant what I said about all that. Just sticking my oar in, as usual :LOL: That said, I don't often stick my oar in with racial rants (uless against whites) cos that's done to death already, and nastily , too. Fact is, disadvantaged people use colourful languge against whatever group they (rightly or wrongly) believe to be oppressing them. So long as it stops at colourful language, that's not necessarily a bad thing. I've seen some shocking stuff on disability ewebsites , now and then , mind (eg venonomous rants against buggys pushers who take the wheelchair -users spaceon the bus ) that have thoroughly pissed me off (fact is, as a parent, i know the system is to blame, not the buggy-pushers; and single parents as a group really don;'t need any more slagging off than they already get). But you're nowhere near pressing my buttons there, :LOL:
At the end of the day, I understand more about people than I make out, I just get bored with people not bothering to see my or other peoples' POV...and well, when those people have got very personal with me, it makes me hate them. I understand a lot of what drives people to hate is fear and lack of understanding, but I overestimate people to be more rational than the animalistic mindset we all share. Basically I want everybody to train themselves out of their natural state and become superior to all that animalistic behaviour. That idea is obviously BS, cos we're all just animals and nothing more, and becoming superior to that mindset, as much as I'd love it, so long as we all have emotions we're all still going to continue acting as animals. It's just a mindset I have, like peoples' various views on politics and religion...my will on others is to force them to question themselves and stop being so fucking hypocritical...and I see the irony in what I just said too.
I've also become lazy with writing in recent years, I used to appear more rational, but I also think life is too short to hold back what you think. Sometimes I provoke a bit too, cos being rational on its own is boring. It's like a standard I used to live up to and still sort of view it that way, but I also think fuck it and lots of people insist the other person takes the punishment in whatever dispute and makes the other person feel bad for it.
I realise saying exactly what I think and feel makes me appear a lot less rational and a bit crazier, but I think it makes me more interesting, and it's a release for me. I'm still very much all there and willing to reason. I'm less likely to reason if it's obvious, too. A lot of outcomes of debates and arguments are obvious, to me. It's all a waste of time, and arguing and debating, even if you get the truth out and it's very well written, nobody listens anyway and will try to detract from the point and so it's mostly pointless. It's mostly pointless anyway since nobody's making an impact that's gonna last forever. It's just another way of wasting time like any activity.
-
Actually, Walkie, Muslims are the new Jews, not the disabled. How many populist politicians do you see trying to ban the disabled from entering the country or accuse them of taking our jobs? Where are the disabled in the headlines? The sad fact is that the disabled just aren't that important.
Excuse me for "ignoring" some earlier posts. This one as a little bit meat to it , whilst remaining short and sweet enough that I can dissect the spurious assumptions, without writing an encyclopedia...I think.
Muslims are the new Jews..you could certyainly make a case for that, and I would take that case seriously, if only you didn't assume that excludes other people from sharing that dubious honour. One could also make a case for the same old Jews being the new Jews. I'm quite disturbed by that one, cos it's relatively neglected; and a rise in Islamist power surely entails a corresponding rise in Anti semitism? (Methinks the Germans have created a rather paraxoxical situation for themselves, by taking in horfdes of anti-Semites in their desperate efforts to avoid repeating previous mistakes . It's hilarious right now, but I'm not sure it will go on being quite so funny)
As for the case of disabled British people, this really hinges on prejudive against "benefits scroungers" , as I said. Not many people are prejudiced against the disabled as such , but the vast majority of us are only pretending to be disabled , so we can sponge off the State instead of working , don't you know? This logic, in turn, justifies a savage series of" Welfare reforms" which put all disabled people in an increasingly difficult (to understate it)position. Hence the numerous suicides.
As in Nazi Germnany,m every body knows aone "deserving" genuinely disabled , just as everybody knew one "decent Jew" . Equally, as in Nazi Germany, everybody knows any number of "underserving" cases who serve to justify that harsh treatment (i actually said the bit in bold to someone the other day , and they said "oh! yes, and went off on a rant against the evil scroungers. i had to call them to a halt, and say "i didn't mean that the undeserving are really underserving, ;it's just prejudice , that;'s all. But given that said person already knew about the prejudice I'd faced to that effect, I was shocked. That goes to show how very deeply that response is ingrained)
I know that anecdotal evidence isn't your favourite sort of evidence , odeon, and I understand the reasons. But anyone can haul out relevant stats, inasmuch as they're available. I think my personal strength is my store of personal experience , and only I can draw on that. So I'll carry on doing so. I;'ve already asked if others will handle the stats side of it, and i'll be sursprised if there's nobody here who is willing to do that.
In the meantime maybe I should link you with DPAC (http://dpac.uk.net/) ? There is loads of info there, and you can surely expect it to have a predictable bias. But it's considerably better than nothing, I should think. And, hanfg on, you could equally expect my own selection to be biased, huh?
It's absurdly easy to dismiss disabled people as frauds. The standard model disabled person has a set of wheels underneath himn...and he'd better not be seen getting out of that chair. My ex had that problem, before he became permanently wheelchair bound (as the result of a very slow, erratic, degenerative process, as usual) . We heard neighbours loudly opine "He ain't disabled. I've seen him wealking about"...meaning that they'd seen him hobble the 50 yard to his parked motability car, for instance" that was 20-odd years ago. Nowadays he would never have got that motability vehicle. His ability to hobble 50 yards most days would have totally destroyed his clain for enhanced Mobility allowance. People like him mostly stay indoors now, because said ability isn't that useful without private transport. Not that losing their vehicles is the worst thing, that just goes to illustrate how unreasonable things have become. You don't even have to have what one would normally call a "hidden disability" for that disabilty to be effectively invisible . People make facile judgments based on fleeting impressions and disinterest. Neurological disablity? - alcoholic/junkie (that's the one I've very often had thrown at me. And when tyou're facing eviction due to having your bebnefits stopped, that's the thing that stings deepest:Not your utterly bleak future prospects, but the venom you hrear from your neighbours, and the prejudice you hear on the evening news) ,
So, OK, hopefuully that also demonstrates (if you're troubling to read) how banning people from entering a country or accusing them of taking jobs isn;'t the only form that prejudice takes?
Indeed I'd quibble with both of thosde as soloid evidence of prejudice at all. It all depends. i'bve bben part of a group (Agency wokers) who really were taking people's jobs. That statemebnt is not based on prejudice. You call surely call some of the treatment I received as "prejuduiced " though. Want to cast around for somthing to blame? Don't blame the statement. the statement is innocent. You could credibly blame "Free movemebnt iof labour" as an inflammatory factor. Oh ! but hang on that's to talk about banning people from entering the country , isn't it? Which is racist , isn;t it? Do you begin to se how discussing real uissues, and the search for real solutions is impeded by that thoughtless anti- discrimination rhetoric?
There are all sorts of reasons for people wanting immigration control;s. Prejudice mif=ght sometimes be one of them , But you've just made a typical , spurious equation bwetween the two , as do too many people. One reason in Britain is shortage of housing, and too many people living on the streets already. It's pretty natural and logical that more people coming in will mean more people living on the street as well as more people losing their jobs. Never mind which specific groupp of people are getting// losing the houses and the jobs. That's pretty much irrelevant. And just because some people see some groups as having an advantage in that respect, that's no reason at all to slur the whole population as "prejudiced" Nor to think that you know exactly what the prejudice is all about.
Oh! one last thing. You do know don't you that disabled people went into those death camps along with the Jews? Autistic people, even? we didn't matter much back then , either. Indeed, we matter so little that history barely ever pauses to recall that. you think not mattering will save us>? :LOL:
-
PS. Thing is, I might not have put it that way, but I actually decided this worth a new thread because I took the statement I quoted as sincere. I therefore anticipated a sincere argument, and thus far, I feel pretty damned disappointed , but I'm willing to think that A) perhaps I asked for it? and B) it's recoverable?
In what way do you think my reply was anything less than sincere?
I know...I know...because you are ideologically criticising with the intent to win and shoutdown rather than to actually understand the position of your opponent. You have already cast Walkie and me and others as anti-Muslim and as you as the only defender and so anything we say will be misrepresented in your ideologically skewed pea brain , into an anti-Muslim slur that you will defend. There is no sincerity in that.
Ah! thanks, IQ. OK , maybe you don't have a lot to add , but t least that looks like a genuine, just saying-what-I -mean comment :)
Hey, Al! Maybe we can just talk as if Odeon's not here? No ned to address him, if he's not playing ball, is there?
I posted in this thread yesterday and again today. But feel free to ignore me if you only want friendly nods instead of actual discussion.
You are not making "actual discussion" you are too busy "defending Muslims" here when no one is attacking Muslims. That is not a discussion because an actual discussion needs both party NOT to talk at cross purposes. I know the thought of being a moral defender gives you a thrill up your leg BUT it is redundant in "actual discussions".
-
Yes, I do have a better solution:
Let's not act as recruiters for ISIS and other nutters by polarising the situation to "us" and "them". It's what they want, it's how they grow in numbers. There was a time not too long ago when another group of people was similarly used by populist leaders; the whole thing ended with millions of people murdered.
That is not a solution. That is virtue signalling and you deflecting. Its you saying IF you do not do anything, you are "good" and are not creating an "us" and them and if you do something you are creating/perpetuating an "us" and "them".
Its a pretty weak way to say any action is tantamount to bigotry and only in doing nothing are you virtuous. Is pretty fucking weak. Answer the fucking question and stop deflecting.
See this is the Odeon I like. He is being a clown for our amusement.
"I stick up for Muslims being no one else does. I believe people have a right to their religious beliefs."
See it sounds very moral and virtuous but prod this moral grandstanding a bit and what happens? Want me to try?
Me: "Okay, sure Odeon, but who on here is questioning anyone's right to have their own religious beliefs or railing on Muslims or blaming the actions of a few on all Muslims?"
Odeon: "YOU have! You clearly have. You are a bigot and have done exactly that. You always say terrible things about Muslims and support Trump"
Me: "Actually I have not done any of that and only a drooling idiot could draw that conclusion. I have at every conceivable point underlined the fact that Muslim radical extremists are very definitely a threat and not all Muslims are Muslim radical extremists, but that it is difficult to identify any radical Muslim extremists coming into a country without identification OR from failed states where there is no viable infrastructure or database to check any identification that they may produce for inspection. In Australia, this means we do not accept these people into our waters. America seems to similarly support a freeze on such people that cannot be identified for whatever threat that they may bring with them as a result of poor identification."
Odeon: "That is a bigoted position. You are critical of them because of their religion."
Me: "No, because the "them" in your statement is false. If the "them" is radical Muslim extremists, then I am concerned with their rabid ideology and fanaticism NOT their religion, and if "them" is your ordinary run of the mill moderate Muslim, I have no issue and would wish them very well. In either case the ONLY tie between them is that the Islamic faith is shared by both groups and that all the radical Muslim extremists are found in the larger Muslim demographic. The only quandary is how to accurately differentiate good from bad. This is a vetting problem and thus a border and national security problem"
Odeon: "THAT'S RACIST!!!"
Me: "No. Furthermore, APART from - let in people you cannot vet because hopefully most will be okay and any damage the ones that are not okay will do hopefully will be minor - what is your suggestion"
Odeon: "Well sure, you cannot vet everyone and maybe some will be bad but we can't discriminate..."
Me: "So that IS your big solution?"
Odeon: "I am more moral than you. You are a bigot"
Me: " ...and you fool and ideologically skewed to a point that reason does not even see sunlight"
Odeon: "Bigot!!!" :bigcry:
.There and without us having to even thrash it out. The irony is he thinks he is a better person for this lack of critical reasoning and believes it make him a moral defender of the defenceless. Its a healthy step to either ignorance or insanity. I am not sure which. Ideological blinkers are a strange thing to behold.
Can't be arsed too read your effort but I'm sure it is a fine post. I'm betting there are a few hypotheticals, all of them failed, an attack or two on my person, and some thinly veiled bigotry.
Next.
Nope.
Interesting though that after the big fuss you made about how not reading someone's posts but posting anyhow was intellectually dishonest, here you are doing exactly that. In which way are you NOT a hypocrite.
The answer of course is that you are....unless you are reading when you respond, in which case you are a liar. Let's see if you read anything of mine, after this to counter this narrative
Not reading Al's posts, knowing his views already, but please do address my points. Or, for that matter, my debating style. Cos right now I'm thinking that you're big on words but light on substance, Walkie. What is wrong with disagreeing with your post and your basic premise?
No, Walkie is just being rational and you are very light on substance. This is your substance.
"The conversation of whether to do anything that impacts Muslims collectively on the basis of trying to protect a larger community from very dangerous hidden radicalised elements within that group cannot happen. This includes the inability of National security and Border Control being unable to turn away Muslims who cannot identify themselves and thus may be an increased risk of being an unidentified risk. It is literally unlocking your doors and inviting all strangers through, knowing most will not seek you harm because most people are good people AND being willing to risk the chance of the danger from the indecent people within those groups of strangers"
None of us believe that ALL Muslims or MOST Muslims are bad. No one has said this. You are defending against positions we do not hold. We DO believe that there needs to be a conversation about this to explore options and your reaction is "NO CONVERSATION. Conversation that does not meekly accept everyone should be let into any country with or without proper identification and without scrutiny or profiling because doing so is bigotry"
That is petulant and moronic.
Having and discussing and looking at multiple viewpoints is NOT bigoted.
*nod to Al*
yep, you're making prety fair points about Odeon's debating style, Al
I believe he can be bigger than that, when he chooses. But it looks like I picked the wrong subject, if I want that effect :(
Odeon of old was a lot better than that. I obviously am at the point with him that I have come to expect a level of dishonesty from him.
This one was short and so this one I read. I shouldn't have bothered. You have nothing to contribute.
You do, lies, hypocrisy, strawmen, snark, and smug condescension for those who seem to be outpacing you in the conversation. You seem to keep returning to redundant talking points rather than actually meet them on the same playing field. Its embarrassing.
-
Had to plus Al for
A) noticing that I'm struggling to keep up, and answering some snarks on my behalf ( pretty well too!)
B) well, if this is a point-scoring exercise instead of a discussion, Al's actually scoring way more points in terms cogent, honest, to the-the-point. You can only reallty fault him on grammar and style, as usual (which is not exactly fair)
So , that's very much appreciated , Al :)
As for Odeon, seems to be that his basic position is stated elsewhere on this board, and comprises a number of complaints about how intensely tedious his job is just lately (had to sypathise there) culminating in:
Thinking I have less tolerance for idiots today than I did yesterday.
Bearing all that in mind , I 've resisted reacting to his snarks ...ummm, more often than not, that is. But what the heck, we're human too, :hitler:
It's a futile exercise, mind. Ya can;'t discuss things with somebody with somebody who's gonna lose patience with you 23.805 times per day (Post stats) :LOL:
-
Has anyone uttered a word why Muslims might be 'prejudiced' against non-Muslims? Does anyone actually think they hate us 'becozzz werrr freeee'? We've been destroying the Middle East for decades, blocking democracy and supporting brutal regimes as well as stealing their resources and blowing them up. But when we do it, we don't call it terrorism. Does anyone actually believe the narrative that we went into Afghanistan to 'liberate women', to find Bin Laden and knock out Al Qaeda and the Taliban? When the US supported Jihadists in the 80's that threw acid into women's faces, they never charged Bin Laden with 9/11 and the US supports Al Qaeda. Or went into Iraq because Saddam had connections with Al Qaeda, and because he was a horrible person and because we love democracy so much? When this was all a lie spewed out from Israeli intelligence, and we supported Saddam through his worst crimes.
Did anyone think it would be a good idea to flood the West with people from the Middle East while we destroyed the Middle East?
The establishment have done this intentionally, they're not that stupid. They want people to support their wars against the Muslim world and support Israel.
What a shame. I found myself agreeing with some of your post until you sawed off the branch you were sitting on.
I don't care whether you agree with me or not. Obviously it's going to be difficult for you to agree with stuff that goes over your head.
-
Has anyone uttered a word why Muslims might be 'prejudiced' against non-Muslims? Does anyone actually think they hate us 'becozzz werrr freeee'? We've been destroying the Middle East for decades, blocking democracy and supporting brutal regimes as well as stealing their resources and blowing them up. But when we do it, we don't call it terrorism. Does anyone actually believe the narrative that we went into Afghanistan to 'liberate women', to find Bin Laden and knock out Al Qaeda and the Taliban? When the US supported Jihadists in the 80's that threw acid into women's faces, they never charged Bin Laden with 9/11 and the US supports Al Qaeda. Or went into Iraq because Saddam had connections with Al Qaeda, and because he was a horrible person and because we love democracy so much? When this was all a lie spewed out from Israeli intelligence, and we supported Saddam through his worst crimes.
Did anyone think it would be a good idea to flood the West with people from the Middle East while we destroyed the Middle East?
The establishment have done this intentionally, they're not that stupid. They want people to support their wars against the Muslim world and support Israel.
What a shame. I found myself agreeing with some of your post until you sawed off the branch you were sitting on.
I don't care whether you agree with me or not. Obviously it's going to be difficult for you to agree with stuff that goes over your head.
Personally found it to be one of your best posts.
-
Walkie- Yes, we let the wars in the Middle East happen, only the people can stop this all. And the establishment have played tricks on the people. It is true though that people ought to wise up and see through the propaganda.
Muslims have it the worst at the moment. Millions of people across the Middle East and Africa have been killed because of our war on Islam. Disabled people have been the most persecuted people throughout history, they were being persecuted long before Judaism was established. Jews are generally disliked because of their actions, well as a whole because of the actions of some or many of them. Disabled people were put in death camps by the Nazis and there's evidence that there was an extermination policy against the disabled under Nazi rule.
-
Has anyone uttered a word why Muslims might be 'prejudiced' against non-Muslims? Does anyone actually think they hate us 'becozzz werrr freeee'? We've been destroying the Middle East for decades, blocking democracy and supporting brutal regimes as well as stealing their resources and blowing them up. But when we do it, we don't call it terrorism. Does anyone actually believe the narrative that we went into Afghanistan to 'liberate women', to find Bin Laden and knock out Al Qaeda and the Taliban? When the US supported Jihadists in the 80's that threw acid into women's faces, they never charged Bin Laden with 9/11 and the US supports Al Qaeda. Or went into Iraq because Saddam had connections with Al Qaeda, and because he was a horrible person and because we love democracy so much? When this was all a lie spewed out from Israeli intelligence, and we supported Saddam through his worst crimes.
Did anyone think it would be a good idea to flood the West with people from the Middle East while we destroyed the Middle East?
The establishment have done this intentionally, they're not that stupid. They want people to support their wars against the Muslim world and support Israel.
What a shame. I found myself agreeing with some of your post until you sawed off the branch you were sitting on.
I don't care whether you agree with me or not. Obviously it's going to be difficult for you to agree with stuff that goes over your head.
Personally found it to be one of your best posts.
:hug:
-
Thanks. Now stop touching me.
-
Thanks. Now stop touching me.
Awwww so fiesty! :stick: :laugh:
-
Thanks. Now stop touching me.
Awwww so fiesty! :stick: :laugh:
:laugh:
-
Thanks. Now stop touching me.
:bigcry:
-
I sometimes wonder is this sort of discussion is taking place in a Muslim country, too, with some poor defender of Christianity and western values stating that that lot isn't any worse than we are.
My French teacher is a recent Afghan immigrant, and in service of practicing the language we've actually been talking a lot about politics and him telling stories about growing up in an Afghan village.
It's pretty surprising. He dresses like a Westerner, he's not religious, he seems as cultured and educated as any local WASP. He spent a few years in France before coming to North America, but that doesn't seem like enough to drastically change a person's core values.
He has no liking of the Taliban. He thinks his people have a rich history but the current generation are acting like animals. Today he showed us the space where a huge ancient monument to Buddha used to stand in the side of a mountain. It used to be a pilgrimage site for Buddhists from Korea, China and other eastern countries, but the Taliban blew it up about 15 years ago. He talked about how there's been a movement to rebuild it but just as vocal a movement to leave it as it is - not because they agree with the Taliban but because it stands as a testament to the danger and destruction of fanaticism. Its remains have become a part of the history of the country too.
He's not a city person either, he grew up barefoot running in the mountains and chasing goats.
I don't know what his opinion on Christianity is, but I should ask.
You should ask and be ready for a surprise.
Way back in 2001 we barely had decent dial-up internet around here, but I remember watching that destruction and thinking that those assholes had done something inhuman to the entire planet.
It seemed like a small thing to most everyone, but I asked what if some band of idiots blew up the London Bridge or the Eiffel Tower or the Statue Of Liberty or the Sistine Chapel? Everyone was all about wtf are you even talking about, some goat fuckers blew up a rock, so what!?!
They did not realize the importance of an icon like that to a large sector of people in that part of the world, nor could I make them care.
I had already decided that most of my world was populated by idiotic morons, but this bit of non-chalantness was very telling to me.
Our twin towers had not yet been hit at that time.
-
I don't know if direct stats are available on this, but the kind of stats that would really interst me, are not "terrorism" stats as such but something more along the lines of "Acts of aggression against feedom of speech, freedom of religion etc"
Obviously, some Islamist terrorist attacks would equally come under that heading eg the attack on Charlie Hebdo
Blowing up that statue of Buddha would count
The fatwa against Salman Rushdie would count.
And bviously a lot of of acts by other religious groups would count too.
IMO, the Islamist terror attacks have been very different from the IRA terror attacks on England. The IRA message was "Withdraw your troops from Northern Ireland". There was actually a lot of sympathy for their cause amongst the English, if not for the methods. ( I know. I was there. I had Irish Catholic friends with IRA sympathies. A lot of people did. ) . It put the English on the horns of one hellova dilemma, but it was (arguably) a reasonable demand
Where there's been a discernible message from Islamist terrorists, it's usually been more along the lines of "Stop disrespecting the Prophet". It;s that demand makes the attacks so deeply threatening , not the number of people killed. We've been reminded ad nauseam that our chance of being killed in a terror attack is minute, compared to our chances of being killed crossing the road. and I alway think, so what? The cars and trucks are not threatening my freedom .
That's why so many people all over the world stood up and declared "I am Charlie" . We were all saying : we will not be intimidated into giving up any of our freedoms. And the freedom to mock a religion is every bit as important as the freedom to practice that religion.
I think Tim Minchin expressed that better than anyone (if you can't get along with his style of comedy , do skip to the serious part of the monologue , starting around 4.15)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpOkQejc9rI
-
Actually, Walkie, Muslims are the new Jews, not the disabled. How many populist politicians do you see trying to ban the disabled from entering the country or accuse them of taking our jobs? Where are the disabled in the headlines? The sad fact is that the disabled just aren't that important.
Excuse me for "ignoring" some earlier posts. This one as a little bit meat to it , whilst remaining short and sweet enough that I can dissect the spurious assumptions, without writing an encyclopedia...I think.
Muslims are the new Jews..you could certyainly make a case for that, and I would take that case seriously, if only you didn't assume that excludes other people from sharing that dubious honour. One could also make a case for the same old Jews being the new Jews. I'm quite disturbed by that one, cos it's relatively neglected; and a rise in Islamist power surely entails a corresponding rise in Anti semitism? (Methinks the Germans have created a rather paraxoxical situation for themselves, by taking in horfdes of anti-Semites in their desperate efforts to avoid repeating previous mistakes . It's hilarious right now, but I'm not sure it will go on being quite so funny)
As for the case of disabled British people, this really hinges on prejudive against "benefits scroungers" , as I said. Not many people are prejudiced against the disabled as such , but the vast majority of us are only pretending to be disabled , so we can sponge off the State instead of working , don't you know? This logic, in turn, justifies a savage series of" Welfare reforms" which put all disabled people in an increasingly difficult (to understate it)position. Hence the numerous suicides.
As in Nazi Germnany,m every body knows aone "deserving" genuinely disabled , just as everybody knew one "decent Jew" . Equally, as in Nazi Germany, everybody knows any number of "underserving" cases who serve to justify that harsh treatment (i actually said the bit in bold to someone the other day , and they said "oh! yes, and went off on a rant against the evil scroungers. i had to call them to a halt, and say "i didn't mean that the undeserving are really underserving, ;it's just prejudice , that;'s all. But given that said person already knew about the prejudice I'd faced to that effect, I was shocked. That goes to show how very deeply that response is ingrained)
I know that anecdotal evidence isn't your favourite sort of evidence , odeon, and I understand the reasons. But anyone can haul out relevant stats, inasmuch as they're available. I think my personal strength is my store of personal experience , and only I can draw on that. So I'll carry on doing so. I;'ve already asked if others will handle the stats side of it, and i'll be sursprised if there's nobody here who is willing to do that.
In the meantime maybe I should link you with DPAC (http://dpac.uk.net/) ? There is loads of info there, and you can surely expect it to have a predictable bias. But it's considerably better than nothing, I should think. And, hanfg on, you could equally expect my own selection to be biased, huh?
It's absurdly easy to dismiss disabled people as frauds. The standard model disabled person has a set of wheels underneath himn...and he'd better not be seen getting out of that chair. My ex had that problem, before he became permanently wheelchair bound (as the result of a very slow, erratic, degenerative process, as usual) . We heard neighbours loudly opine "He ain't disabled. I've seen him wealking about"...meaning that they'd seen him hobble the 50 yard to his parked motability car, for instance" that was 20-odd years ago. Nowadays he would never have got that motability vehicle. His ability to hobble 50 yards most days would have totally destroyed his clain for enhanced Mobility allowance. People like him mostly stay indoors now, because said ability isn't that useful without private transport. Not that losing their vehicles is the worst thing, that just goes to illustrate how unreasonable things have become. You don't even have to have what one would normally call a "hidden disability" for that disabilty to be effectively invisible . People make facile judgments based on fleeting impressions and disinterest. Neurological disablity? - alcoholic/junkie (that's the one I've very often had thrown at me. And when tyou're facing eviction due to having your bebnefits stopped, that's the thing that stings deepest:Not your utterly bleak future prospects, but the venom you hrear from your neighbours, and the prejudice you hear on the evening news) ,
So, OK, hopefuully that also demonstrates (if you're troubling to read) how banning people from entering a country or accusing them of taking jobs isn;'t the only form that prejudice takes?
Indeed I'd quibble with both of thosde as soloid evidence of prejudice at all. It all depends. i'bve bben part of a group (Agency wokers) who really were taking people's jobs. That statemebnt is not based on prejudice. You call surely call some of the treatment I received as "prejuduiced " though. Want to cast around for somthing to blame? Don't blame the statement. the statement is innocent. You could credibly blame "Free movemebnt iof labour" as an inflammatory factor. Oh ! but hang on that's to talk about banning people from entering the country , isn't it? Which is racist , isn;t it? Do you begin to se how discussing real uissues, and the search for real solutions is impeded by that thoughtless anti- discrimination rhetoric?
There are all sorts of reasons for people wanting immigration control;s. Prejudice mif=ght sometimes be one of them , But you've just made a typical , spurious equation bwetween the two , as do too many people. One reason in Britain is shortage of housing, and too many people living on the streets already. It's pretty natural and logical that more people coming in will mean more people living on the street as well as more people losing their jobs. Never mind which specific groupp of people are getting// losing the houses and the jobs. That's pretty much irrelevant. And just because some people see some groups as having an advantage in that respect, that's no reason at all to slur the whole population as "prejudiced" Nor to think that you know exactly what the prejudice is all about.
Oh! one last thing. You do know don't you that disabled people went into those death camps along with the Jews? Autistic people, even? we didn't matter much back then , either. Indeed, we matter so little that history barely ever pauses to recall that. you think not mattering will save us>? :LOL:
I'm not saying the disabled aren't getting the short end of the stick. Of course they are. Yes, they were in the death camps, too, as were Gypsies, homosexuals and pretty much any other group the Nazis wanted to get rid of.
I'm not saying they aren't treated bad, at all, because they are. I am saying, however, that they are a far cry from being the new Jews. They don't have the visibility or the importance of a useful group to be blamed for society's misfortunes, so they won't be primary targets.
Muslims, on the other hand, are being targeted all over the western world.
-
PS. Thing is, I might not have put it that way, but I actually decided this worth a new thread because I took the statement I quoted as sincere. I therefore anticipated a sincere argument, and thus far, I feel pretty damned disappointed , but I'm willing to think that A) perhaps I asked for it? and B) it's recoverable?
In what way do you think my reply was anything less than sincere?
I know...I know...because you are ideologically criticising with the intent to win and shoutdown rather than to actually understand the position of your opponent. You have already cast Walkie and me and others as anti-Muslim and as you as the only defender and so anything we say will be misrepresented in your ideologically skewed pea brain , into an anti-Muslim slur that you will defend. There is no sincerity in that.
You've been completely unable to question your own views and ideologies ever since I first had enough of your intellectual dishonesty against Zegh, so you should probably shut up and keep a low profile. Pot kettle and all that. But this is the one thing you will always be unable to do because you simply lack the open-mindedness that is required.
And I mean that quite literally. You lack both "open" and "mind".
Undoubtedly you will now produce another one of your failed hypotheticals, so have at it. We all need a laugh.
Ah! thanks, IQ. OK , maybe you don't have a lot to add , but t least that looks like a genuine, just saying-what-I -mean comment :)
Hey, Al! Maybe we can just talk as if Odeon's not here? No ned to address him, if he's not playing ball, is there?
I posted in this thread yesterday and again today. But feel free to ignore me if you only want friendly nods instead of actual discussion.
You are not making "actual discussion" you are too busy "defending Muslims" here when no one is attacking Muslims. That is not a discussion because an actual discussion needs both party NOT to talk at cross purposes. I know the thought of being a moral defender gives you a thrill up your leg BUT it is redundant in "actual discussions".
In a bigot's world, it's never about attacking, is it? So yeah, it's obvious that you don't see it.
-
Had to plus Al for
A) noticing that I'm struggling to keep up, and answering some snarks on my behalf ( pretty well too!)
B) well, if this is a point-scoring exercise instead of a discussion, Al's actually scoring way more points in terms cogent, honest, to the-the-point. You can only reallty fault him on grammar and style, as usual (which is not exactly fair)
So , that's very much appreciated , Al :)
As for Odeon, seems to be that his basic position is stated elsewhere on this board, and comprises a number of complaints about how intensely tedious his job is just lately (had to sypathise there) culminating in:
Thinking I have less tolerance for idiots today than I did yesterday.
Bearing all that in mind , I 've resisted reacting to his snarks ...ummm, more often than not, that is. But what the heck, we're human too, :hitler:
It's a futile exercise, mind. Ya can;'t discuss things with somebody with somebody who's gonna lose patience with you 23.805 times per day (Post stats) :LOL:
I thought you wanted "another argument about Islam", but maybe I was wrong? As for having Al speak for you, I would advise against that because I don't take his opinions seriously and I skip most of his longer posts because they just aren't worth the trouble. He is far too verbose and he doesn't argue well, mostly because he isn't as smart as he thinks he is.
If you have something to say about Islam, say it yourself. Address my points.
-
Has anyone uttered a word why Muslims might be 'prejudiced' against non-Muslims? Does anyone actually think they hate us 'becozzz werrr freeee'? We've been destroying the Middle East for decades, blocking democracy and supporting brutal regimes as well as stealing their resources and blowing them up. But when we do it, we don't call it terrorism. Does anyone actually believe the narrative that we went into Afghanistan to 'liberate women', to find Bin Laden and knock out Al Qaeda and the Taliban? When the US supported Jihadists in the 80's that threw acid into women's faces, they never charged Bin Laden with 9/11 and the US supports Al Qaeda. Or went into Iraq because Saddam had connections with Al Qaeda, and because he was a horrible person and because we love democracy so much? When this was all a lie spewed out from Israeli intelligence, and we supported Saddam through his worst crimes.
Did anyone think it would be a good idea to flood the West with people from the Middle East while we destroyed the Middle East?
The establishment have done this intentionally, they're not that stupid. They want people to support their wars against the Muslim world and support Israel.
What a shame. I found myself agreeing with some of your post until you sawed off the branch you were sitting on.
I don't care whether you agree with me or not. Obviously it's going to be difficult for you to agree with stuff that goes over your head.
Personally found it to be one of your best posts.
He had the makings of a good post but the tinfoil hat is hard to ignore.
-
Walkie- Yes, we let the wars in the Middle East happen, only the people can stop this all. And the establishment have played tricks on the people. It is true though that people ought to wise up and see through the propaganda.
Muslims have it the worst at the moment. Millions of people across the Middle East and Africa have been killed because of our war on Islam. Disabled people have been the most persecuted people throughout history, they were being persecuted long before Judaism was established. Jews are generally disliked because of their actions, well as a whole because of the actions of some or many of them. Disabled people were put in death camps by the Nazis and there's evidence that there was an extermination policy against the disabled under Nazi rule.
Proof?
-
I don't know if direct stats are available on this, but the kind of stats that would really interst me, are not "terrorism" stats as such but something more along the lines of "Acts of aggression against feedom of speech, freedom of religion etc"
http://economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Global-Terrorism-Index-2015.pdf
Some of the things you are looking for are there, but as you point out yourself, most wouldn't be classified as terrorism. Charlie Hebdo, Salman Rushdie and the like are a mere footnote when compared to the systematic repression of free speech in many parts of the world.
Obviously, some Islamist terrorist attacks would equally come under that heading eg the attack on Charlie Hebdo
Blowing up that statue of Buddha would count
The fatwa against Salman Rushdie would count.
And bviously a lot of of acts by other religious groups would count too.
IMO, the Islamist terror attacks have been very different from the IRA terror attacks on England. The IRA message was "Withdraw your troops from Northern Ireland". There was actually a lot of sympathy for their cause amongst the English, if not for the methods. ( I know. I was there. I had Irish Catholic friends with IRA sympathies. A lot of people did. ) . It put the English on the horns of one hellova dilemma, but it was (arguably) a reasonable demand
I see where you're coming from but would argue that groups like Al Qaeda have similar messages (i.e. GTFO of the Middle East), and actually, so do ISIS, even though their idea seems to be to expand to a worldwide caliphate. The differences between them and IRA are in how they define and allow the use of political violence.
Where there's been a discernible message from Islamist terrorists, it's usually been more along the lines of "Stop disrespecting the Prophet".
I disagree. The main message is still "GTFO of the Middle East" with some variations. The nutjobs who want to behead people for drawing the prophet are relatively few but highly visible, and they, too, enact the political violence as "authorised" by the radical groups they claim allegiance to.
It;s that demand makes the attacks so deeply threatening , not the number of people killed. We've been reminded ad nauseam that our chance of being killed in a terror attack is minute, compared to our chances of being killed crossing the road. and I alway think, so what? The cars and trucks are not threatening my freedom .
And neither are the Muslims, even though that is the message brought to you by the populist politicians and media.
That's why so many people all over the world stood up and declared "I am Charlie" . We were all saying : we will not be intimidated into giving up any of our freedoms. And the freedom to mock a religion is every bit as important as the freedom to practice that religion.
And I fully agree. But where is their support when less visible but far more serious threats against these freedoms pop up in places like Poland, Hungary, France or (obviously) Russia?
In all fairness, when Trump was elected, protests erupted because enough people see through him. In all fairness, it's why some Jews now say they will register as Muslims if Trump goes ahead with the Muslim database.
I think Tim Minchin expressed that better than anyone (if you can't get along with his style of comedy , do skip to the serious part of the monologue , starting around 4.15)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpOkQejc9rI
I'll watch it later. I don't tend to watch videos posted here when I'm posting.
-
Had to plus Al for
A) noticing that I'm struggling to keep up, and answering some snarks on my behalf ( pretty well too!)
B) well, if this is a point-scoring exercise instead of a discussion, Al's actually scoring way more points in terms cogent, honest, to the-the-point. You can only reallty fault him on grammar and style, as usual (which is not exactly fair)
So , that's very much appreciated , Al :)
As for Odeon, seems to be that his basic position is stated elsewhere on this board, and comprises a number of complaints about how intensely tedious his job is just lately (had to sypathise there) culminating in:
Thinking I have less tolerance for idiots today than I did yesterday.
Bearing all that in mind , I 've resisted reacting to his snarks ...ummm, more often than not, that is. But what the heck, we're human too, :hitler:
It's a futile exercise, mind. Ya can;'t discuss things with somebody with somebody who's gonna lose patience with you 23.805 times per day (Post stats) :LOL:
I thought you wanted "another argument about Islam", but maybe I was wrong? As for having Al speak for you, I would advise against that because I don't take his opinions seriously and I skip most of his longer posts because they just aren't worth the trouble. He is far too verbose and he doesn't argue well, mostly because he isn't as smart as he thinks he is.
If you have something to say about Islam, say it yourself. Address my points.
OK I'm only gonna give this kind of post my attention every so often, cos I'm just not naturally prolific, like some, and I don't wanna get tied up in tedious self-justification etc.
As I said, I thought maybe I asked for some snarking responses from you. By which I meant that my approach was probably too combative. That approach was really tongue -in-cheek, on my part , as is the title of this thread, though I more than half expect it to be an accurate.descriptor. Indeed, it is a more than halfway accurate descriptor already :LOL: but an Aspie being tongue-in-cheek on an Aspie forum ? weeeell they are taking one heck of a risk there, OFC
As you maybe noticed (?) I generally do prefer discussion to debate, and I'm really not at inclined to make an exception of this issue, though in all probability it will just go up in flames , ofc. C'est la Vie . I figure we might manage to sneak a little bit off civilised discussion in, anyway. Still aiming for that. By civilised discussion I mean something that has more than two sides to it. I find the traditional debate format (and all it's offshoots) so freaking artificial, it's hard to get it to seriously reflect real life.
In real life, the truth matters whole lot more than who exactly says it, and the truth has a thousand different facets. So, if Al or anyone responds to a snark on my behalf, i think "Good, that's the really pointless bit out of the way" (if only it were quite that easy). But credit where credit's due , he did it well and scored more points than you, if I'm any judge. If you can't be arsed with reading Al's posts, that's really not my problem.
I have aimed to answer your points, where the points were relevant and interesting. I haven't coveered everything, but hey! there's a whole forum full of people here, and it's clearly not all down to me. This is not a call-out, though i do concede that it might have looked rather too much like a call-out.
Is that enough of the mea culpa stuff now? :LOL:
-
obviously , I posted the above, prior to finding Odeon's thoughtful, closely-reasoned post above it.
:plus: for that one, Odeon. This thread is improving :)
-
Has anyone uttered a word why Muslims might be 'prejudiced' against non-Muslims? Does anyone actually think they hate us 'becozzz werrr freeee'? We've been destroying the Middle East for decades, blocking democracy and supporting brutal regimes as well as stealing their resources and blowing them up. But when we do it, we don't call it terrorism. Does anyone actually believe the narrative that we went into Afghanistan to 'liberate women', to find Bin Laden and knock out Al Qaeda and the Taliban? When the US supported Jihadists in the 80's that threw acid into women's faces, they never charged Bin Laden with 9/11 and the US supports Al Qaeda. Or went into Iraq because Saddam had connections with Al Qaeda, and because he was a horrible person and because we love democracy so much? When this was all a lie spewed out from Israeli intelligence, and we supported Saddam through his worst crimes.
Did anyone think it would be a good idea to flood the West with people from the Middle East while we destroyed the Middle East?
The establishment have done this intentionally, they're not that stupid. They want people to support their wars against the Muslim world and support Israel.
What a shame. I found myself agreeing with some of your post until you sawed off the branch you were sitting on.
I don't care whether you agree with me or not. Obviously it's going to be difficult for you to agree with stuff that goes over your head.
Personally found it to be one of your best posts.
He had the makings of a good post but the tinfoil hat is hard to ignore.
My tinfoil hat has fashion and flair. :M
-
PS. Thing is, I might not have put it that way, but I actually decided this worth a new thread because I took the statement I quoted as sincere. I therefore anticipated a sincere argument, and thus far, I feel pretty damned disappointed , but I'm willing to think that A) perhaps I asked for it? and B) it's recoverable?
In what way do you think my reply was anything less than sincere?
I know...I know...because you are ideologically criticising with the intent to win and shoutdown rather than to actually understand the position of your opponent. You have already cast Walkie and me and others as anti-Muslim and as you as the only defender and so anything we say will be misrepresented in your ideologically skewed pea brain , into an anti-Muslim slur that you will defend. There is no sincerity in that.
You've been completely unable to question your own views and ideologies ever since I first had enough of your intellectual dishonesty against Zegh, so you should probably shut up and keep a low profile. Pot kettle and all that. But this is the one thing you will always be unable to do because you simply lack the open-mindedness that is required.
And I mean that quite literally. You lack both "open" and "mind".
Undoubtedly you will now produce another one of your failed hypotheticals, so have at it. We all need a laugh.
I should shut up. Hate to burst your bubble, but that is not going to happen and your opinion in respect to this and your judgment is hardly with a snort of derision, much less actual consideration.
The amount of projection here in this reply is outstanding. Ironic.
Even now when I point out your hypocrisy (and bold it to try and handhold and lead you to it) you stumble over it and past it and project your faults on me. Its not cute nor is it upsetting. It is damning only on you. All I will do at these moments is shine a torch on it.
Odeon the Projectionist.
Ah! thanks, IQ. OK , maybe you don't have a lot to add , but t least that looks like a genuine, just saying-what-I -mean comment :)
Hey, Al! Maybe we can just talk as if Odeon's not here? No ned to address him, if he's not playing ball, is there?
I posted in this thread yesterday and again today. But feel free to ignore me if you only want friendly nods instead of actual discussion.
You are not making "actual discussion" you are too busy "defending Muslims" here when no one is attacking Muslims. That is not a discussion because an actual discussion needs both party NOT to talk at cross purposes. I know the thought of being a moral defender gives you a thrill up your leg BUT it is redundant in "actual discussions".
In a bigot's world, it's never about attacking, is it? So yeah, it's obvious that you don't see it.
It could well be being that I am not a bigot and presumably neither are any of the people here talking about radical Muslim extremism or Muslims in general, you have really failed to make a point. Who amoung us have been critical of Islam? Who has said that Muslims are all rasdicalised and dangerous? For God's sake, what position do you think you are actually defending and from whom?
-
I the "Indians" had given the pilgrims a donkey instead of a turkey, then we might all enjoy a piece of ass during this season.
:cbc:
(seemed to fit)
-
I don't know if direct stats are available on this, but the kind of stats that would really interst me, are not "terrorism" stats as such but something more along the lines of "Acts of aggression against feedom of speech, freedom of religion etc"
http://economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Global-Terrorism-Index-2015.pdf
Some of the things you are looking for are there, but as you point out yourself, most wouldn't be classified as terrorism. Charlie Hebdo, Salman Rushdie and the like are a mere footnote when compared to the systematic repression of free speech in many parts of the world.
The problem in what you are saying (which superficially looks fine btw) is your use of "many parts of the world". In Thailand, try saying anything aloud disrespectful of the King. You will have your right to free speech respected. That is THEIR custom.
So how is that different to Radical Muslim extremists? They also would not respect free speech to criticise Muhammad.
So what will the Thai people (or indeed any subset or groups within the Thai people) do to you in YOUR country if you criticise or parody their King? Now make the same argument for what radicalised Muslim extremists will do for criticising or parodying Muhammed. If you are struggling, start with Charlie Hebdo and go from there.
When Walkie talks about the threat of free speech and you seem to agree in principle and then talk about other places in the world, it waters down entirely what she is talking about and I think you do this deliberately. There is no direct equivalence in threat to free speech from the Thais nor the Russians nor any group within such countries that absolutely have recognisable inhibitions on free speech. Let's stick to where the problems ACTUALLY lay.
Obviously, some Islamist terrorist attacks would equally come under that heading eg the attack on Charlie Hebdo
Blowing up that statue of Buddha would count
The fatwa against Salman Rushdie would count.
And bviously a lot of of acts by other religious groups would count too.
IMO, the Islamist terror attacks have been very different from the IRA terror attacks on England. The IRA message was "Withdraw your troops from Northern Ireland". There was actually a lot of sympathy for their cause amongst the English, if not for the methods. ( I know. I was there. I had Irish Catholic friends with IRA sympathies. A lot of people did. ) . It put the English on the horns of one hellova dilemma, but it was (arguably) a reasonable demand
I see where you're coming from but would argue that groups like Al Qaeda have similar messages (i.e. GTFO of the Middle East), and actually, so do ISIS, even though their idea seems to be to expand to a worldwide caliphate. The differences between them and IRA are in how they define and allow the use of political violence.
Indeed there is ABSOLUTELY an element of this and I know people like Benji and myself have absolutely been critical of the West and more specifically the US and its allies in starting wars and conflicts and trying to nation build and interfere with World Policing.
They have made a rod for their own backs.
But it is not hypocrisy nor being disingenuous that I can be critical of the interfering and world policing (and can even see how people from such regions may hate us collectively for said interfering) and yet condemn what they believe is adequate response when it comes to the treatment of radicalised Muslim extremists and their attacks at Westerners.
One does not make the other right.
ISIS is absolutely about setting up a new caliphate. They Absolutely want to spread Islamic rule. They are absolutely opposed to Western values and Western people. They are absolutely a danger and talk of their justifications or differences in culture or alluding to any efforts to stop them being bigoted as to it possibly impacting on decent Muslims is both stupid and disingenuous.
It;s that demand makes the attacks so deeply threatening , not the number of people killed. We've been reminded ad nauseam that our chance of being killed in a terror attack is minute, compared to our chances of being killed crossing the road. and I alway think, so what? The cars and trucks are not threatening my freedom .
And neither are the Muslims, even though that is the message brought to you by the populist politicians and media.
Not that any of us ARE talking about Muslims and you are not too stupid to not computer this right. "Our" gripe is ONLY (read that) for the radicalised Muslim extremists. So its cute and all that you steer away from these groups to constantly talk about Muslims as a whole and pretend that is what you were responding to. But you are not fooling us and you are not apply that point to what was saying specifically. (I'd give it up were I you because I am not even sure you believe it).
That's why so many people all over the world stood up and declared "I am Charlie" . We were all saying : we will not be intimidated into giving up any of our freedoms. And the freedom to mock a religion is every bit as important as the freedom to practice that religion.
And I fully agree. But where is their support when less visible but far more serious threats against these freedoms pop up in places like Poland, Hungary, France or (obviously) Russia?
In all fairness, when Trump was elected, protests erupted because enough people see through him. In all fairness, it's why some Jews now say they will register as Muslims if Trump goes ahead with the Muslim database.
More serious threats? Fail.
When Trump was elected, people had been whipped up into a frenzy that they believed that he was a threat and so when they had the double whammy of Hillary not winning like they were promised and him being a leader like they had all been taught to fear through the fearmongering media, they protested in fear.
It was NOT that they were basing this on anything more than zealous ideology. "He is Literally Hitler. He is going to go from home to home with immigration deportations squads and set up deportation detention centres and even send Black Africans "back" to Africa." Yes this is not hyperbole. People ACTUALLY believe that and not from what Trump said, but what they were told by the Press, the DNC tasking heads, community leaders and Academic institutions.
Pretending that:
protests erupted because enough people see through him
is just disingenuous, and believing it is idiotic.
As for registers...and? Some Jews believe what exactly about registers or databases recording Muslims from these areas? Do you know why it is that Muslims coming from Iraq are NOW able to be vetted but Muslims from Libya or Syria aren't? What is the one reason? Intel. What kind of intel? Registers of all the Iraqi based Muslims are now thorough enough to account for enough of the threats as to be marginal.
See that is the problem. People see the word "register and suddenly let their imaginations run in conspiratorial directions because they feel a negative undercurrent which makes them fearful that the person using said register will do so to do harm. What if said register is simply not a sword but a shield. It is just recording who is who so that the nastier elements are able to be identified and contained? what if identifying the bad elements means that the decent Muslims who are NOT radical extremists are NOT restricted from access to America and not otherwise inhibited? Wouldn't that be swell?
-
There are quite a few statements on this thread that I would like to take issue with , but right now, in the wake of Al's last post, I think the thing that really needs saying right now, is that identifying the radical extremists and keeping them out of America is not actually a solution.
I don't have an alternative solution to propose. If such a thing as a real solution exists then I don't believe anybody is going to find it without first facing up to a plethora of uncomfortable facts, the chief of which would be: it's not that simple. I'm not claiming to to know all the relevant uncomfortable facts, but I'm pretty damned sure that the dialogue on this issue (world over) is dominated by prejudice, and that prejudice is always apt to find spurious solutions, via facile analysis of problems.
Unfortunately the SJW are as prejudiced as everybody else is . I'm not trying to use the word "prejudice" as a pejorative. Prejudice is a natural human condition, arising from our inabilty to process every little bit of information that comes our way; we just have to live with that somehow, and figure out ways of preventing it from having catastrophic effects . You certainly can't legislate against it. The best that legislation can do is displace one set of social prejudices with another, as the dominant "politically correct" norm. Ofc, education is effective, but I use that term broadly. If "education" is all about absorbing societal norms from any culture whatsoever , then it will serve to deepen prejudice, nort undermine it. Education has to equate to that old-fashioned English notion of "broadening the mind". (I call that old fasdhioned because i really didn't see that happening at my English grammar school, back in the seventies. I saw much lip-service to that idea, and a curriculum that more often worked to the opposite effect. But at least , back then, that defect appeared to be unintentional. Nowadays, the whole concept of broadening the mind appears to have been left behind- at least in the State sector - in favour of making education "relevant") . In practice, then, I guess that has to mean self-education
I do very much like like that the "liberal" bigotry is being effectively challenged. It had become really dangerous, IMO .But it's no use challenging that in isolation, as if some other form of bigotry would make a better job of things. I'm not even convinced that the powers-that-be really care what kind of bigotry we adopt, just so long as it distracts our attention, and keeps the little guy attacking some other little guy.
I do believe Islam is a problem , and needs to be acknowleged as such. But it would need to acknowleged as such, even if it wasn't any part of the problem, because you can't just suppress a commonly-held point-of-view without creating worse problems than the ones you might expect to resolve in that way. (Hey! maybe we should make Psychology a compulsory subject in schools? That might work to curtail the widespread enthusiasm for naive, simplistic solurtions that don't work, mightn't it? )
Arguably, Trump is that "worse problem" , in America. But my point is that the "Islam problem" has been defined in such a way that idfentifying "radical exteremists" and refusing them admittance to Amnerica can be profferred as a credible solution.
It's not hard to find reasons why that couldn't possibly make much of a difference to anything (beyond increasing righteous indignation in various quarters) . Here's the the one that's uppermost in my mind right now (mostly because I think it's inarguable)
The Muslim terrorists and jihadists in Britain have repeatedly turned out to be home-grown. That is native British Citizens, not from "over there" at all. Nor are they the offspring of radical Muslim parents. The parents most often turn out to liberal , and sometimes even non-Muslim. Maybe that pattern has yet to emerge in other countries, where Muslim imnmigration is a relatively novel phenomenon? I don't know. But it's very clear , here.
I hesitated to say that, because, personally, i don't think terrorism and jihadism are the real issues any way, just another ugly symptom of a bunch of deeper , more complex problems, few of which are specifically Islamic. Also, it's probably easy to find a credibible hypothesis as to why that occurs, and run with that hypothesis straight into some other spurious solution. There are loads of theories, and we're always too fast to get behind them, because nobody likes to think that they "just don't know", do they? We all like to think that we know exactly what 's going wrong, and exactly how to fix it.
Anyway, be that as it may, this idea of screening immigrants is surely a spurious solution.
-
I do not think it is either an either/or solution. I think it is entirely reasonable to suggest that trying to keep out a bad minority of radicalised extremists is not requiring that all home grown extremists are taken care of first or visa versa.
I think there is a much bigger reason to shoot holes in that plan. IF "people from that area" are temporarily stopped from coming into America then surely that would move through Europe and say they were from somewhere not from that area. If it was applied to Muslims only, why not say you were Christian or Buddhist or something else? IF they do this then ironically the only people whop would really be affected would be the people that America (presumably) would not mind immigrating.
-
Walkie-
Lots of people declared "I am Charlie" because they are brainwashed by the media. Charlie Hebdo doesn't represent freedom of speech. They fired one of their staff for "anti-semitism" and tried to get the Front Nationale banned because of their "hate speech". Charlie Hebdo saying "the Koran is shit, it doesn't stop bullets" after a number of Muslims were massacered sounds pretty hateful.
There were mass killings in other countries around the same time as the Charlie Hebdo attacks, and no one showed solidarity with them.
Well actually, after 9/11 there were journalists who asked bankers and business in the Middle East why America were attacked, and they were told that it was down to the US blocking democracy and supporting and installing dictators for decades and the US's support for Israel's occupation etc. Israel blow up Palestinians and Lebanese in terrorist attacks every few years.
Obama's drone campaign is the definition of terrorism. They pick out someone who is suspected of one day thinking about considering possibly doing something against America/Americans and then bomb the barbecue or funeral the "suspect" is at.
-
Walkie- Yes, we let the wars in the Middle East happen, only the people can stop this all. And the establishment have played tricks on the people. It is true though that people ought to wise up and see through the propaganda.
Muslims have it the worst at the moment. Millions of people across the Middle East and Africa have been killed because of our war on Islam. Disabled people have been the most persecuted people throughout history, they were being persecuted long before Judaism was established. Jews are generally disliked because of their actions, well as a whole because of the actions of some or many of them. Disabled people were put in death camps by the Nazis and there's evidence that there was an extermination policy against the disabled under Nazi rule.
Proof?
Not really something that can be proved off hand. But you know it's going to be true. Unless people were more tolerant and accepting of disabled people 3000 years ago, and if so it means we have dramatically regressed.
-
Has anyone uttered a word why Muslims might be 'prejudiced' against non-Muslims? Does anyone actually think they hate us 'becozzz werrr freeee'? We've been destroying the Middle East for decades, blocking democracy and supporting brutal regimes as well as stealing their resources and blowing them up. But when we do it, we don't call it terrorism. Does anyone actually believe the narrative that we went into Afghanistan to 'liberate women', to find Bin Laden and knock out Al Qaeda and the Taliban? When the US supported Jihadists in the 80's that threw acid into women's faces, they never charged Bin Laden with 9/11 and the US supports Al Qaeda. Or went into Iraq because Saddam had connections with Al Qaeda, and because he was a horrible person and because we love democracy so much? When this was all a lie spewed out from Israeli intelligence, and we supported Saddam through his worst crimes.
Did anyone think it would be a good idea to flood the West with people from the Middle East while we destroyed the Middle East?
The establishment have done this intentionally, they're not that stupid. They want people to support their wars against the Muslim world and support Israel.
What a shame. I found myself agreeing with some of your post until you sawed off the branch you were sitting on.
I don't care whether you agree with me or not. Obviously it's going to be difficult for you to agree with stuff that goes over your head.
Personally found it to be one of your best posts.
He had the makings of a good post but the tinfoil hat is hard to ignore.
My tinfoil hat has fashion and flair. :M
Just agree with Odeon. If you start disagreeing with her and start praising people she's arguing with, she'll only end up getting her knickers in a twist and turn on you.
-
The words "radical" and "extremist" don't mean a thing, it's just propaganda. Someone could look at the posts here and call them "radical" and "extreme".
-
Has anyone uttered a word why Muslims might be 'prejudiced' against non-Muslims? Does anyone actually think they hate us 'becozzz werrr freeee'? We've been destroying the Middle East for decades, blocking democracy and supporting brutal regimes as well as stealing their resources and blowing them up. But when we do it, we don't call it terrorism. Does anyone actually believe the narrative that we went into Afghanistan to 'liberate women', to find Bin Laden and knock out Al Qaeda and the Taliban? When the US supported Jihadists in the 80's that threw acid into women's faces, they never charged Bin Laden with 9/11 and the US supports Al Qaeda. Or went into Iraq because Saddam had connections with Al Qaeda, and because he was a horrible person and because we love democracy so much? When this was all a lie spewed out from Israeli intelligence, and we supported Saddam through his worst crimes.
Did anyone think it would be a good idea to flood the West with people from the Middle East while we destroyed the Middle East?
The establishment have done this intentionally, they're not that stupid. They want people to support their wars against the Muslim world and support Israel.
What a shame. I found myself agreeing with some of your post until you sawed off the branch you were sitting on.
I don't care whether you agree with me or not. Obviously it's going to be difficult for you to agree with stuff that goes over your head.
Personally found it to be one of your best posts.
He had the makings of a good post but the tinfoil hat is hard to ignore.
My tinfoil hat has fashion and flair. :M
Just agree with Odeon. If you start disagreeing with her and start praising people she's arguing with, she'll only end up getting her knickers in a twist and turn on you.
That was more me making fun of myself. Do openly identify as tinfoil hat wearer, and have been working on my own UN global conspiracy theory for years. Sometimes post bits of that theory here and haven't received much push back on those statements, because it's all very sensible and does indeed have fashion and flair. :M
-
I didn't talk about "theories" though. Odeon is just an ignorant cunt and refuses to look into evidence that proves him wrong or what the mainstream/corporate media hasn't spoon fed him. He's too old to change now.
-
I didn't talk about "theories" though.
In a manner, yes. You said the establishment have created the current situation intentionally, and that's difficult to prove. You also asked, Did anyone think it would be a good idea to flood the West with people from the Middle East while we destroyed the Middle East? My answer would be yes, the majority of UN representatives and the leadership they represent thought it was a good idea, not only to enable the west to gain control over world resources, but also directly related to known UN long-term initiatives related to population control, economic sustainability of the western working class, as well as empowering oppressed women.
-
Walkie-
Lots of people declared "I am Charlie" because they are brainwashed by the media. Charlie Hebdo doesn't represent freedom of speech. They fired one of their staff for "anti-semitism" and tried to get the Front Nationale banned because of their "hate speech". Charlie Hebdo saying "the Koran is shit, it doesn't stop bullets" after a number of Muslims were massacered sounds pretty hateful.
There were mass killings in other countries around the same time as the Charlie Hebdo attacks, and no one showed solidarity with them.
Well actually, after 9/11 there were journalists who asked bankers and business in the Middle East why America were attacked, and they were told that it was down to the US blocking democracy and supporting and installing dictators for decades and the US's support for Israel's occupation etc. Israel blow up Palestinians and Lebanese in terrorist attacks every few years.
Obama's drone campaign is the definition of terrorism. They pick out someone who is suspected of one day thinking about considering possibly doing something against America/Americans and then bomb the barbecue or funeral the "suspect" is at.
Never mind how you chose to anayse it, never mind how many holes you pick in Charlie Hebdo, I would still say "Je suis Charlie" . It was a gut-response from people all everywhere, and it was very much about the defending freedom of speech in the minds of the people who said it. It had nothing whatsoever to do with your intellectual nitpicking.
Sure it's worth analysing those things. Sure, it woukld be just as bad if Charliec Hebdo were immune from criticism (which they are very clearly not) as it would be if Islam were immune from criticism. It was what Charlie Hebdo represented at that moment in time, that really mattered, and that was perfectly clear and obvious.
Brainwashed by the media? Heck, you really are superior aren't you? I wouldn't trust you to lead me, with that attitude, Benji, any more than i would trust some ranting Imam to lead me.
-
I didn't talk about "theories" though.
In a manner, yes. You said the establishment have created the current situation intentionally, and that's difficult to prove. You also asked, Did anyone think it would be a good idea to flood the West with people from the Middle East while we destroyed the Middle East? My answer would be yes, the majority of UN representatives and the leadership they represent thought it was a good idea, not only to enable the west to gain control over world resources, but also directly related to known UN long-term initiatives related to population control, economic sustainability of the western working class, as well as empowering oppressed women.
OK true, that's one theory. We can believe it's an accident, but then if you read through "The Greater Israel Project" you at least see it's true and if you study the Israel/Palestine conflict, you see the lengths Israel will go to, to get support and the conspiracies they take part in. You think the UN has much power?
-
Walkie-
Lots of people declared "I am Charlie" because they are brainwashed by the media. Charlie Hebdo doesn't represent freedom of speech. They fired one of their staff for "anti-semitism" and tried to get the Front Nationale banned because of their "hate speech". Charlie Hebdo saying "the Koran is shit, it doesn't stop bullets" after a number of Muslims were massacered sounds pretty hateful.
There were mass killings in other countries around the same time as the Charlie Hebdo attacks, and no one showed solidarity with them.
Well actually, after 9/11 there were journalists who asked bankers and business in the Middle East why America were attacked, and they were told that it was down to the US blocking democracy and supporting and installing dictators for decades and the US's support for Israel's occupation etc. Israel blow up Palestinians and Lebanese in terrorist attacks every few years.
Obama's drone campaign is the definition of terrorism. They pick out someone who is suspected of one day thinking about considering possibly doing something against America/Americans and then bomb the barbecue or funeral the "suspect" is at.
Never mind how you chose to anayse it, never mind how many holes you pick in Charlie Hebdo, I would still say "Je suis Charlie" . It was a gut-response from people all everywhere, and it was very much about the defending freedom of speech in the minds of the people who said it. It had nothing whatsoever to do with your intellectual nitpicking.
Sure it's worth analysing those things. Sure, it woukld be just as bad if Charliec Hebdo were immune from criticism (which they are very clearly not) as it would be if Islam were immune from criticism. It was what Charlie Hebdo represented at that moment in time, that really mattered, and that was perfectly clear and obvious.
Brainwashed by the media? Heck, you really are superior aren't you? I wouldn't trust you to lead me, with that attitude, Benji, any more than i would trust some ranting Imam to lead me.
It wasn't a gut response remotely, it was just promoted by the mainstream media and politicians. It's just a propaganda slogan. Sure, if the same people didn't ignore and support similar crimes in other countries, I could be led to buy it. Charlie Hebdo doesn't stand for freedom of speech, and any impartial media would have been able to point this out.
It was "clear and obvious" in the mainstream media because they chose to put insane amounts of focus on it. When Israel blows up 4 kids playing football on a beach with US or UK weapons and with the US and Israel's support, the same media seems to forget about it for the most part.
It's not even controversial that the media brainwashes people. It has been used throughout history to alter people's opinion on war very quickly.
-
You think the UN has much power?
Indeed, they're controlling, shaping, and unifying society and government on a global scale.
-
You think the UN has much power?
Indeed, they're completely shaping and unifying society and government on a global scale.
Yet they cannot stop the US and Israel from destroying the Middle East or stealing Palestine.
-
You think the UN has much power?
Indeed, they're completely shaping and unifying society and government on a global scale.
Yet they cannot stop the US and Israel from destroying the Middle East or stealing Palestine.
UN membership countries simply don't engage in war without UN approval. Granted, members of the security council have a higher level of control in decision making with veto power and supporting votes of allies, but the notion of not stopping one or two countries from doing something to me is a narrow view of how it works, who else is of benefit, and who is in support. If any other single superpower really wanted to stop what the US is doing, yes, they could in fact do it.
-
You think the UN has much power?
Indeed, they're completely shaping and unifying society and government on a global scale.
Yet they cannot stop the US and Israel from destroying the Middle East or stealing Palestine.
UN membership countries simply don't engage in war without UN approval. Granted, members of the security council have a higher level of control in decision making with veto power and supporting votes of allies, but the notion of not stopping one or two countries from doing something to me is a narrow view of how it works, who else is of benefit, and who is in support. If any other single superpower really wanted to stop what the US is doing, yes, they could in fact do it.
So when the US attacked Nicaragua in the 80's without the UN's backing and then Nicaragua went to the UN and the World Court and won and then the US just continued with even worse attacks, that's because of the UN?
-
You think the UN has much power?
Indeed, they're completely shaping and unifying society and government on a global scale.
Yet they cannot stop the US and Israel from destroying the Middle East or stealing Palestine.
UN membership countries simply don't engage in war without UN approval. Granted, members of the security council have a higher level of control in decision making with veto power and supporting votes of allies, but the notion of not stopping one or two countries from doing something to me is a narrow view of how it works, who else is of benefit, and who is in support. If any other single superpower really wanted to stop what the US is doing, yes, they could in fact do it.
So when the US attacked Nicaragua in the 80's without the UN's backing and then Nicaragua went to the UN and the World Court and won and then the US just continued with even worse attacks, that's because of the UN?
Am talking about the big picture here. Global affairs have changed since the 80s, but that doesn't mean the US doesn't still step on the UN's toes, and has in fact done that in more recent years. However will still gladly argue that gaining control of the middle east is of long term benefit and fully supported by the majority of the world's government. Every superpower has their role in getting a piece of the pie; the US has to be the bad guy, the EU has to assimilate them, and China has to pay the bill. The only stand alone thus far has been Russia, and am thinking that's soon going to change.
-
I do not think it is either an either/or solution. I think it is entirely reasonable to suggest that trying to keep out a bad minority of radicalised extremists is not requiring that all home grown extremists are taken care of first or visa versa.
I think there is a much bigger reason to shoot holes in that plan. IF "people from that area" are temporarily stopped from coming into America then surely that would move through Europe and say they were from somewhere not from that area. If it was applied to Muslims only, why not say you were Christian or Buddhist or something else? IF they do this then ironically the only people whop would really be affected would be the people that America (presumably) would not mind immigrating.
I was saying why it wouldn;t work, not why it isn't reasonable (if that isn't quibbling too much?)
Unfirtunately, the plan looks unreasonable from a number reasonable perspectives. Not from all perspectives, but we surely need to careful to look at something like that from all sides (as we actually are, more -or-less) before ploughing ahead. No use trying to drag the Elephant out of the room, trunk first, through that little window up there, is there?
Quibbling aside. Yeah you've just offered another good reason why some people would protest that it's an horribly unreasonable thing to do. And why it wouldn't work, anyway.
-
Walkie-
Lots of people declared "I am Charlie" because they are brainwashed by the media. Charlie Hebdo doesn't represent freedom of speech. They fired one of their staff for "anti-semitism" and tried to get the Front Nationale banned because of their "hate speech". Charlie Hebdo saying "the Koran is shit, it doesn't stop bullets" after a number of Muslims were massacered sounds pretty hateful.
There were mass killings in other countries around the same time as the Charlie Hebdo attacks, and no one showed solidarity with them.
Well actually, after 9/11 there were journalists who asked bankers and business in the Middle East why America were attacked, and they were told that it was down to the US blocking democracy and supporting and installing dictators for decades and the US's support for Israel's occupation etc. Israel blow up Palestinians and Lebanese in terrorist attacks every few years.
Obama's drone campaign is the definition of terrorism. They pick out someone who is suspected of one day thinking about considering possibly doing something against America/Americans and then bomb the barbecue or funeral the "suspect" is at.
Never mind how you chose to anayse it, never mind how many holes you pick in Charlie Hebdo, I would still say "Je suis Charlie" . It was a gut-response from people all everywhere, and it was very much about the defending freedom of speech in the minds of the people who said it. It had nothing whatsoever to do with your intellectual nitpicking.
Sure it's worth analysing those things. Sure, it woukld be just as bad if Charliec Hebdo were immune from criticism (which they are very clearly not) as it would be if Islam were immune from criticism. It was what Charlie Hebdo represented at that moment in time, that really mattered, and that was perfectly clear and obvious.
Brainwashed by the media? Heck, you really are superior aren't you? I wouldn't trust you to lead me, with that attitude, Benji, any more than i would trust some ranting Imam to lead me.
It wasn't a gut response remotely, it was just promoted by the mainstream media and politicians. It's just a propaganda slogan. Sure, if the same people didn't ignore and support similar crimes in other countries, I could be led to buy it. Charlie Hebdo doesn't stand for freedom of speech, and any impartial media would have been able to point this out.
It was "clear and obvious" in the mainstream media because they chose to put insane amounts of focus on it. When Israel blows up 4 kids playing football on a beach with US or UK weapons and with the US and Israel's support, the same media seems to forget about it for the most part.
It's not even controversial that the media brainwashes people. It has been used throughout history to alter people's opinion on war very quickly.
Oh, rot! What an instution stands for, in the mind of an individual, and what it is in reality are generally two different things, and it's rarely based on a comprehensive socio-political analysis, and a broad knowlege of current affairs. Their iconic value can override all such considerations
Thus institutions such as Christianity, or Islam can be totally valid symbols of peace, and brotherly love, in the minds of pure-hearted believers, irrespective of their blood-drenched history, irrespective of corruption within those instutions. And you're intersted in defending those peoples rights , aren't you? You're not simply dismissing them as "brainwashed" or disingenous.
Similarly, Charlie Hebdo can be a perfectly valid symbol of free speech, especially under the given circumstances. Nothing wrong with accepting it as such.
-
In real life, the truth matters whole lot more than who exactly says it, and the truth has a thousand different facets. So, if Al or anyone responds to a snark on my behalf, i think "Good, that's the really pointless bit out of the way" (if only it were quite that easy). But credit where credit's due , he did it well and scored more points than you, if I'm any judge. If you can't be arsed with reading Al's posts, that's really not my problem.
It can be, if you don't reply to my posts, thinking that Al already did address something or the other. Right now, I respect your opinion and your right to it, and will consider it before answering. Al's I am most likely going to ignore or use as target practice.
-
Has anyone uttered a word why Muslims might be 'prejudiced' against non-Muslims? Does anyone actually think they hate us 'becozzz werrr freeee'? We've been destroying the Middle East for decades, blocking democracy and supporting brutal regimes as well as stealing their resources and blowing them up. But when we do it, we don't call it terrorism. Does anyone actually believe the narrative that we went into Afghanistan to 'liberate women', to find Bin Laden and knock out Al Qaeda and the Taliban? When the US supported Jihadists in the 80's that threw acid into women's faces, they never charged Bin Laden with 9/11 and the US supports Al Qaeda. Or went into Iraq because Saddam had connections with Al Qaeda, and because he was a horrible person and because we love democracy so much? When this was all a lie spewed out from Israeli intelligence, and we supported Saddam through his worst crimes.
Did anyone think it would be a good idea to flood the West with people from the Middle East while we destroyed the Middle East?
The establishment have done this intentionally, they're not that stupid. They want people to support their wars against the Muslim world and support Israel.
What a shame. I found myself agreeing with some of your post until you sawed off the branch you were sitting on.
I don't care whether you agree with me or not. Obviously it's going to be difficult for you to agree with stuff that goes over your head.
Personally found it to be one of your best posts.
He had the makings of a good post but the tinfoil hat is hard to ignore.
My tinfoil hat has fashion and flair. :M
I noticed. :zoinks:
-
In a bigot's world, it's never about attacking, is it? So yeah, it's obvious that you don't see it.
It could well be being that I am not a bigot and presumably neither are any of the people here talking about radical Muslim extremism or Muslims in general, you have really failed to make a point. Who amoung us have been critical of Islam? Who has said that Muslims are all rasdicalised and dangerous? For God's sake, what position do you think you are actually defending and from whom?
See, this is why I don't respect your opinion. This is why you are a bigot, and you don't even see it.
-
Walkie-
Lots of people declared "I am Charlie" because they are brainwashed by the media. Charlie Hebdo doesn't represent freedom of speech. They fired one of their staff for "anti-semitism" and tried to get the Front Nationale banned because of their "hate speech". Charlie Hebdo saying "the Koran is shit, it doesn't stop bullets" after a number of Muslims were massacered sounds pretty hateful.
There were mass killings in other countries around the same time as the Charlie Hebdo attacks, and no one showed solidarity with them.
Well actually, after 9/11 there were journalists who asked bankers and business in the Middle East why America were attacked, and they were told that it was down to the US blocking democracy and supporting and installing dictators for decades and the US's support for Israel's occupation etc. Israel blow up Palestinians and Lebanese in terrorist attacks every few years.
Obama's drone campaign is the definition of terrorism. They pick out someone who is suspected of one day thinking about considering possibly doing something against America/Americans and then bomb the barbecue or funeral the "suspect" is at.
Never mind how you chose to anayse it, never mind how many holes you pick in Charlie Hebdo, I would still say "Je suis Charlie" . It was a gut-response from people all everywhere, and it was very much about the defending freedom of speech in the minds of the people who said it. It had nothing whatsoever to do with your intellectual nitpicking.
Sure it's worth analysing those things. Sure, it woukld be just as bad if Charliec Hebdo were immune from criticism (which they are very clearly not) as it would be if Islam were immune from criticism. It was what Charlie Hebdo represented at that moment in time, that really mattered, and that was perfectly clear and obvious.
Brainwashed by the media? Heck, you really are superior aren't you? I wouldn't trust you to lead me, with that attitude, Benji, any more than i would trust some ranting Imam to lead me.
It wasn't a gut response remotely, it was just promoted by the mainstream media and politicians. It's just a propaganda slogan. Sure, if the same people didn't ignore and support similar crimes in other countries, I could be led to buy it. Charlie Hebdo doesn't stand for freedom of speech, and any impartial media would have been able to point this out.
It was "clear and obvious" in the mainstream media because they chose to put insane amounts of focus on it. When Israel blows up 4 kids playing football on a beach with US or UK weapons and with the US and Israel's support, the same media seems to forget about it for the most part.
It's not even controversial that the media brainwashes people. It has been used throughout history to alter people's opinion on war very quickly.
Oh, rot! What an instution stands for, in the mind of an individual, and what it is in reality are generally two different things, and it's rarely based on a comprehensive socio-political analysis, and a broad knowlege of current affairs. Their iconic value can override all such considerations
Thus institutions such as Christianity, or Islam can be totally valid symbols of peace, and brotherly love, in the minds of pure-hearted believers, irrespective of their blood-drenched history, irrespective of corruption within those instutions. And you're intersted in defending those peoples rights , aren't you? You're not simply dismissing them as "brainwashed" or disingenous.
Similarly, Charlie Hebdo can be a perfectly valid symbol of free speech, especially under the given circumstances. Nothing wrong with accepting it as such.
That actually would be a very good point, if Charlie Hebdo actually stood for freedom of speech and expression. If the media highlighted the 3 points I made about them, things would have been very different.
-
In a bigot's world, it's never about attacking, is it? So yeah, it's obvious that you don't see it.
It could well be being that I am not a bigot and presumably neither are any of the people here talking about radical Muslim extremism or Muslims in general, you have really failed to make a point. Who amoung us have been critical of Islam? Who has said that Muslims are all rasdicalised and dangerous? For God's sake, what position do you think you are actually defending and from whom?
See, this is why I don't respect your opinion. This is why you are a bigot, and you don't even see it.
At least Al is taking on views he disagrees with and will argue till the cows come home with people he disagrees with, that's not bigotry. Your complete dismissal of views you disagree with makes you a complete bigot in the true sense of the word.
-
In a bigot's world, it's never about attacking, is it? So yeah, it's obvious that you don't see it.
It could well be being that I am not a bigot and presumably neither are any of the people here talking about radical Muslim extremism or Muslims in general, you have really failed to make a point. Who amoung us have been critical of Islam? Who has said that Muslims are all rasdicalised and dangerous? For God's sake, what position do you think you are actually defending and from whom?
See, this is why I don't respect your opinion. This is why you are a bigot, and you don't even see it.
At least Al is taking on views he disagrees with and will argue till the cows come home with people he disagrees with, that's not bigotry. Your complete dismissal of views you disagree with makes you a complete bigot in the true sense of the word.
i think you just fingered the real problem there :LOL: . And Our Glorious Leader will snark til the cows come home. And we are all idioits and bigots. ofc. And Even Walkie is tiring of this same old. Can't we talk about Islam, instead , FFS?
-
I don't know if direct stats are available on this, but the kind of stats that would really interst me, are not "terrorism" stats as such but something more along the lines of "Acts of aggression against feedom of speech, freedom of religion etc"
http://economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Global-Terrorism-Index-2015.pdf
Some of the things you are looking for are there, but as you point out yourself, most wouldn't be classified as terrorism. Charlie Hebdo, Salman Rushdie and the like are a mere footnote when compared to the systematic repression of free speech in many parts of the world.
The problem in what you are saying (which superficially looks fine btw) is your use of "many parts of the world". In Thailand, try saying anything aloud disrespectful of the King. You will have your right to free speech respected. That is THEIR custom.
So how is that different to Radical Muslim extremists? They also would not respect free speech to criticise Muhammad.
So what will the Thai people (or indeed any subset or groups within the Thai people) do to you in YOUR country if you criticise or parody their King? Now make the same argument for what radicalised Muslim extremists will do for criticising or parodying Muhammed. If you are struggling, start with Charlie Hebdo and go from there.
:facepalm:
Suppression of free speech is far more widespread than that, and it goes far beyond the Charlie Hebdo attackers. A recent example is the spat between Germany and Turkey about what a German comedian can and cannot say. Another, also about Turkey, is the aftermath of the failed coup in July.
The Charlie Hebdo attack was far more visible, though, far more dramatic. It makes for better headlines and it's just so much easier to pimp your Facebook avatar to show your support. It's more tangible and more direct, but I would argue less harmful to free speech.
You're simply trying to score simple, and simplistic, points. No surprises there.
When Walkie talks about the threat of free speech and you seem to agree in principle and then talk about other places in the world, it waters down entirely what she is talking about and I think you do this deliberately. There is no direct equivalence in threat to free speech from the Thais nor the Russians nor any group within such countries that absolutely have recognisable inhibitions on free speech. Let's stick to where the problems ACTUALLY lay.
Where YOU think they are, right?
Obviously, some Islamist terrorist attacks would equally come under that heading eg the attack on Charlie Hebdo
Blowing up that statue of Buddha would count
The fatwa against Salman Rushdie would count.
And bviously a lot of of acts by other religious groups would count too.
IMO, the Islamist terror attacks have been very different from the IRA terror attacks on England. The IRA message was "Withdraw your troops from Northern Ireland". There was actually a lot of sympathy for their cause amongst the English, if not for the methods. ( I know. I was there. I had Irish Catholic friends with IRA sympathies. A lot of people did. ) . It put the English on the horns of one hellova dilemma, but it was (arguably) a reasonable demand
I see where you're coming from but would argue that groups like Al Qaeda have similar messages (i.e. GTFO of the Middle East), and actually, so do ISIS, even though their idea seems to be to expand to a worldwide caliphate. The differences between them and IRA are in how they define and allow the use of political violence.
Indeed there is ABSOLUTELY an element of this and I know people like Benji and myself have absolutely been critical of the West and more specifically the US and its allies in starting wars and conflicts and trying to nation build and interfere with World Policing.
They have made a rod for their own backs.
But it is not hypocrisy nor being disingenuous that I can be critical of the interfering and world policing (and can even see how people from such regions may hate us collectively for said interfering) and yet condemn what they believe is adequate response when it comes to the treatment of radicalised Muslim extremists and their attacks at Westerners.
Huh? You lost yourself there, didn't you? Try again.
One does not make the other right.
This we agree on.
ISIS is absolutely about setting up a new caliphate. They Absolutely want to spread Islamic rule. They are absolutely opposed to Western values and Western people. They are absolutely a danger and talk of their justifications or differences in culture or alluding to any efforts to stop them being bigoted as to it possibly impacting on decent Muslims is both stupid and disingenuous.
I agree regarding them being a danger, obviously, but if you fail to understand their reasoning, however wrong you think it is, you will fail to take appropriate action, not only against ISIS but when (or, in your case, IF) you attempt to help the millions of people who are running for their lives. You will fail to help and only replace the present disaster with something else.
It;s that demand makes the attacks so deeply threatening , not the number of people killed. We've been reminded ad nauseam that our chance of being killed in a terror attack is minute, compared to our chances of being killed crossing the road. and I alway think, so what? The cars and trucks are not threatening my freedom .
And neither are the Muslims, even though that is the message brought to you by the populist politicians and media.
Not that any of us ARE talking about Muslims and you are not too stupid to not computer this right.
You obviously have reading comprehension issues, but don't insult the others by using the collective "we" when you are the dimwit.
"Our" gripe is ONLY (read that) for the radicalised Muslim extremists. So its cute and all that you steer away from these groups to constantly talk about Muslims as a whole and pretend that is what you were responding to. But you are not fooling us and you are not apply that point to what was saying specifically. (I'd give it up were I you because I am not even sure you believe it).
Bloody hell, are you really this stupid?
That's why so many people all over the world stood up and declared "I am Charlie" . We were all saying : we will not be intimidated into giving up any of our freedoms. And the freedom to mock a religion is every bit as important as the freedom to practice that religion.
And I fully agree. But where is their support when less visible but far more serious threats against these freedoms pop up in places like Poland, Hungary, France or (obviously) Russia?
In all fairness, when Trump was elected, protests erupted because enough people see through him. In all fairness, it's why some Jews now say they will register as Muslims if Trump goes ahead with the Muslim database.
More serious threats? Fail.
When Trump was elected, people had been whipped up into a frenzy that they believed that he was a threat and so when they had the double whammy of Hillary not winning like they were promised and him being a leader like they had all been taught to fear through the fearmongering media, they protested in fear.
It was NOT that they were basing this on anything more than zealous ideology. "He is Literally Hitler. He is going to go from home to home with immigration deportations squads and set up deportation detention centres and even send Black Africans "back" to Africa." Yes this is not hyperbole. People ACTUALLY believe that and not from what Trump said, but what they were told by the Press, the DNC tasking heads, community leaders and Academic institutions.
Let's have a look at what he actually said:
Latinos (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/9-outrageous-things-donald-trump-has-said-about-latinos_us_55e483a1e4b0c818f618904b):
Thank you. It's true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
And
It's coming from more than Mexico. It's coming from all over South and Latin America, and it's coming probably -- probably -- from the Middle East.
The ban on *all* Muslims entering the US (the first 20 seconds will do):
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2015/dec/08/donald-trump-calls-for-complete-ban-on-muslims-entering-the-us-video
The list goes on. Do a Google search on "what did Trump actually say on ..." and see for yourself. Then try to explain it away. This is not Hillary making up anything, this is Trump stating his opinions. I don't blame people for being scared of what this lunatic will do.
Pretending that:
protests erupted because enough people see through him
is just disingenuous, and believing it is idiotic.
As for registers...and? Some Jews believe what exactly about registers or databases recording Muslims from these areas? Do you know why it is that Muslims coming from Iraq are NOW able to be vetted but Muslims from Libya or Syria aren't? What is the one reason? Intel. What kind of intel? Registers of all the Iraqi based Muslims are now thorough enough to account for enough of the threats as to be marginal.
See that is the problem. People see the word "register and suddenly let their imaginations run in conspiratorial directions because they feel a negative undercurrent which makes them fearful that the person using said register will do so to do harm.
The negative undercurrent being that some citizens would have to register while others wouldn't. I'm pretty sure that wasn't what the founding fathers had in mind, but I'm not an American, so...
What if said register is simply not a sword but a shield. It is just recording who is who so that the nastier elements are able to be identified and contained? what if identifying the bad elements means that the decent Muslims who are NOT radical extremists are NOT restricted from access to America and not otherwise inhibited? Wouldn't that be swell?
Ah. The "if you have nothing to hide..." defence. This is the kind of argument brought forward by DDR officials, actually, and I have to say, you'd make a fine STASI officer. A shame it's too late for that particular career option.
-
There are quite a few statements on this thread that I would like to take issue with , but right now, in the wake of Al's last post, I think the thing that really needs saying right now, is that identifying the radical extremists and keeping them out of America is not actually a solution.
I don't have an alternative solution to propose. If such a thing as a real solution exists then I don't believe anybody is going to find it without first facing up to a plethora of uncomfortable facts, the chief of which would be: it's not that simple. I'm not claiming to to know all the relevant uncomfortable facts, but I'm pretty damned sure that the dialogue on this issue (world over) is dominated by prejudice, and that prejudice is always apt to find spurious solutions, via facile analysis of problems.
Remember the bold part, above, please.
Unfortunately the SJW are as prejudiced as everybody else is .
And who, exactly, are the SJWs?
I'm not trying to use the word "prejudice" as a pejorative. Prejudice is a natural human condition, arising from our inabilty to process every little bit of information that comes our way; we just have to live with that somehow, and figure out ways of preventing it from having catastrophic effects . You certainly can't legislate against it. The best that legislation can do is displace one set of social prejudices with another, as the dominant "politically correct" norm. Ofc, education is effective, but I use that term broadly. If "education" is all about absorbing societal norms from any culture whatsoever , then it will serve to deepen prejudice, nort undermine it. Education has to equate to that old-fashioned English notion of "broadening the mind". (I call that old fasdhioned because i really didn't see that happening at my English grammar school, back in the seventies. I saw much lip-service to that idea, and a curriculum that more often worked to the opposite effect. But at least , back then, that defect appeared to be unintentional. Nowadays, the whole concept of broadening the mind appears to have been left behind- at least in the State sector - in favour of making education "relevant") . In practice, then, I guess that has to mean self-education
I do very much like like that the "liberal" bigotry is being effectively challenged. It had become really dangerous, IMO .But it's no use challenging that in isolation, as if some other form of bigotry would make a better job of things. I'm not even convinced that the powers-that-be really care what kind of bigotry we adopt, just so long as it distracts our attention, and keeps the little guy attacking some other little guy.
What's the "liberal" bigotry? I'm not sure I'm following here.
I do believe Islam is a problem , and needs to be acknowleged as such.
This, IMHO, is prejudice and, as you've stated above (remember that bold bit?), what the discussion is dominate by. I don't think Islam is the problem any more than Catholicism is, or anything else. When IRA was busy bombing people to deliver a message, the idea many wanted to highlight is that it's a political statement, not a religious one, yet IIRC it was very hard for many to see the difference.
And that's the kind of insight that is needed now. There is no way you will ever stop the war(s) in the Middle East, or their consequences elsewhere, by assigning blame on Islam. People, yes. Radical nutjobs, yes. Warmongering politicians, yes. Religion, no.
Trump and his likes think that's precisely what they can do, and it will fail and create new problems, just like the Iraq war caused a lot more problems than it ever solved.
But it would need to acknowleged as such, even if it wasn't any part of the problem, because you can't just suppress a commonly-held point-of-view without creating worse problems than the ones you might expect to resolve in that way. (Hey! maybe we should make Psychology a compulsory subject in schools? That might work to curtail the widespread enthusiasm for naive, simplistic solurtions that don't work, mightn't it? )
Arguably, Trump is that "worse problem" , in America.
Not just in America--like it or not, the US is the world's dominant nation today and what happens there will affect us all. I suspect the world wouldn't be half as worried right now if this was about Le Pen in France.
But my point is that the "Islam problem" has been defined in such a way that idfentifying "radical exteremists" and refusing them admittance to Amnerica can be profferred as a credible solution.
It's not hard to find reasons why that couldn't possibly make much of a difference to anything (beyond increasing righteous indignation in various quarters) . Here's the the one that's uppermost in my mind right now (mostly because I think it's inarguable)
The Muslim terrorists and jihadists in Britain have repeatedly turned out to be home-grown. That is native British Citizens, not from "over there" at all. Nor are they the offspring of radical Muslim parents. The parents most often turn out to liberal , and sometimes even non-Muslim. Maybe that pattern has yet to emerge in other countries, where Muslim imnmigration is a relatively novel phenomenon? I don't know. But it's very clear , here.
If the inflow of Muslims had been that kind of problem here--and we receive more refugees yearly than any other European nation except Germany--we would have had an unprecedented wave of terrorism. What we have is the extreme right supporters burning down refugee camps.
I hesitated to say that, because, personally, i don't think terrorism and jihadism are the real issues any way, just another ugly symptom of a bunch of deeper , more complex problems, few of which are specifically Islamic. Also, it's probably easy to find a credibible hypothesis as to why that occurs, and run with that hypothesis straight into some other spurious solution. There are loads of theories, and we're always too fast to get behind them, because nobody likes to think that they "just don't know", do they? We all like to think that we know exactly what 's going wrong, and exactly how to fix it.
Anyway, be that as it may, this idea of screening immigrants is surely a spurious solution.
It is, but it is the kind of populist quick fix I mentioned in another thread. It assigns blame, it outlines a comprehensible action the angry white male (the Trump voter; please don't go all literal on me here) can understand and relate to, and it suggests that the powers that be are working hard for a solution.
Except that they don't really have a clue, which Trump admits seconds after suggesting a ban on all Muslims entering the US. That part I actually find more scary than the rest.
-
Walkie- Yes, we let the wars in the Middle East happen, only the people can stop this all. And the establishment have played tricks on the people. It is true though that people ought to wise up and see through the propaganda.
Muslims have it the worst at the moment. Millions of people across the Middle East and Africa have been killed because of our war on Islam. Disabled people have been the most persecuted people throughout history, they were being persecuted long before Judaism was established. Jews are generally disliked because of their actions, well as a whole because of the actions of some or many of them. Disabled people were put in death camps by the Nazis and there's evidence that there was an extermination policy against the disabled under Nazi rule.
Proof?
Not really something that can be proved off hand. But you know it's going to be true. Unless people were more tolerant and accepting of disabled people 3000 years ago, and if so it means we have dramatically regressed.
Nope, I disagree. 3,000 years ago, the likelihood of the disabled surviving for long enough to be actively persecuted was a lot lower than today, but people had plenty of competing tribes, foreigners and all kinds of strangers who all fit the bill better. Think about it.
-
The words "radical" and "extremist" don't mean a thing, it's just propaganda. Someone could look at the posts here and call them "radical" and "extreme".
Actually, some do consider you to be extreme, now that you mention it. :zoinks:
-
In a bigot's world, it's never about attacking, is it? So yeah, it's obvious that you don't see it.
It could well be being that I am not a bigot and presumably neither are any of the people here talking about radical Muslim extremism or Muslims in general, you have really failed to make a point. Who amoung us have been critical of Islam? Who has said that Muslims are all rasdicalised and dangerous? For God's sake, what position do you think you are actually defending and from whom?
See, this is why I don't respect your opinion. This is why you are a bigot, and you don't even see it.
At least Al is taking on views he disagrees with and will argue till the cows come home with people he disagrees with, that's not bigotry. Your complete dismissal of views you disagree with makes you a complete bigot in the true sense of the word.
Redefining words now, Benji?
-
In a bigot's world, it's never about attacking, is it? So yeah, it's obvious that you don't see it.
It could well be being that I am not a bigot and presumably neither are any of the people here talking about radical Muslim extremism or Muslims in general, you have really failed to make a point. Who amoung us have been critical of Islam? Who has said that Muslims are all rasdicalised and dangerous? For God's sake, what position do you think you are actually defending and from whom?
See, this is why I don't respect your opinion. This is why you are a bigot, and you don't even see it.
At least Al is taking on views he disagrees with and will argue till the cows come home with people he disagrees with, that's not bigotry. Your complete dismissal of views you disagree with makes you a complete bigot in the true sense of the word.
i think you just fingered the real problem there :LOL: . And Our Glorious Leader will snark til the cows come home. And we are all idioits and bigots. ofc. And Even Walkie is tiring of this same old. Can't we talk about Islam, instead , FFS?
I assume that when Al or Benji call me names, that's different?
As for talking about Islam, go right ahead. We already have an ongoing discussion, so feel free to address any of the points made. Or, if you'd rather have a discussion on, say, the Quran or the Hadith, or why we use Arabic numerals, that's fine, too.
-
You think the UN has much power?
Indeed, they're completely shaping and unifying society and government on a global scale.
Yet they cannot stop the US and Israel from destroying the Middle East or stealing Palestine.
UN membership countries simply don't engage in war without UN approval. Granted, members of the security council have a higher level of control in decision making with veto power and supporting votes of allies, but the notion of not stopping one or two countries from doing something to me is a narrow view of how it works, who else is of benefit, and who is in support. If any other single superpower really wanted to stop what the US is doing, yes, they could in fact do it.
So when the US attacked Nicaragua in the 80's without the UN's backing and then Nicaragua went to the UN and the World Court and won and then the US just continued with even worse attacks, that's because of the UN?
Am talking about the big picture here. Global affairs have changed since the 80s, but that doesn't mean the US doesn't still step on the UN's toes, and has in fact done that in more recent years. However will still gladly argue that gaining control of the middle east is of long term benefit and fully supported by the majority of the world's government. Every superpower has their role in getting a piece of the pie; the US has to be the bad guy, the EU has to assimilate them, and China has to pay the bill. The only stand alone thus far has been Russia, and am thinking that's soon going to change.
Didn't mean to kill the conversation, if that's what I did. Did I get too tinfoiley? Don't you want to know what role Russia is going to play to get their piece of the middle eastern control pie? Russia couldn't stand back and maintain an impartial stance forever without it being viewed as passive complicity, especially not recently when faced with the direct needs of an ally. Russia's tokens of support for Syria has strengthened Russia's relationships with other countries in the middle east, and that includes countries which in the past have been US partners who more recently are inclined to gain favor with Russsia than with the US. Trump's election also signals improved future relations on the horizon for Russia and the US. Russia has to play the role of the good guy, the diplomatic negotiator working for both sides. Russia will walk away from this as the hero; Russia is going to save the world. :laugh:
-
Walkie- Yes, we let the wars in the Middle East happen, only the people can stop this all. And the establishment have played tricks on the people. It is true though that people ought to wise up and see through the propaganda.
Muslims have it the worst at the moment. Millions of people across the Middle East and Africa have been killed because of our war on Islam. Disabled people have been the most persecuted people throughout history, they were being persecuted long before Judaism was established. Jews are generally disliked because of their actions, well as a whole because of the actions of some or many of them. Disabled people were put in death camps by the Nazis and there's evidence that there was an extermination policy against the disabled under Nazi rule.
Proof?
Not really something that can be proved off hand. But you know it's going to be true. Unless people were more tolerant and accepting of disabled people 3000 years ago, and if so it means we have dramatically regressed.
Nope, I disagree. 3,000 years ago, the likelihood of the disabled surviving for long enough to be actively persecuted was a lot lower than today, but people had plenty of competing tribes, foreigners and all kinds of strangers who all fit the bill better. Think about it.
Sure, the likelihood is that they didn't survive as long, but if they did, it's likely that they encountered persecution, and that would just be for being different. Where as Jews have pretty much always suffered it because of their actions.
-
I assume that when Al or Benji call me names, that's different?
Yeah, I think that's right. :zoinks:
-
In a bigot's world, it's never about attacking, is it? So yeah, it's obvious that you don't see it.
It could well be being that I am not a bigot and presumably neither are any of the people here talking about radical Muslim extremism or Muslims in general, you have really failed to make a point. Who amoung us have been critical of Islam? Who has said that Muslims are all rasdicalised and dangerous? For God's sake, what position do you think you are actually defending and from whom?
See, this is why I don't respect your opinion. This is why you are a bigot, and you don't even see it.
At least Al is taking on views he disagrees with and will argue till the cows come home with people he disagrees with, that's not bigotry. Your complete dismissal of views you disagree with makes you a complete bigot in the true sense of the word.
Redefining words now, Benji?
1.
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
That's you. The word has been redefined to mean someone who dares to complain about immigration or the effects of it.
-
In a bigot's world, it's never about attacking, is it? So yeah, it's obvious that you don't see it.
It could well be being that I am not a bigot and presumably neither are any of the people here talking about radical Muslim extremism or Muslims in general, you have really failed to make a point. Who amoung us have been critical of Islam? Who has said that Muslims are all rasdicalised and dangerous? For God's sake, what position do you think you are actually defending and from whom?
See, this is why I don't respect your opinion. This is why you are a bigot, and you don't even see it.
At least Al is taking on views he disagrees with and will argue till the cows come home with people he disagrees with, that's not bigotry. Your complete dismissal of views you disagree with makes you a complete bigot in the true sense of the word.
i think you just fingered the real problem there :LOL: . And Our Glorious Leader will snark til the cows come home. And we are all idioits and bigots. ofc. And Even Walkie is tiring of this same old. Can't we talk about Islam, instead , FFS?
I'm happy to talk to you about Islam etc. I can see that you are mislead though. You seem like you are getting your information from people like Sam Harris, who just blames everything on Islam. If there are suicide bombings, it's Islam or religion in general. I guess he must forget that the Japanese and Vietnamese carried out suicide bombings. I like to get to the route causes of the problem instead.
-
Walkie- Yes, we let the wars in the Middle East happen, only the people can stop this all. And the establishment have played tricks on the people. It is true though that people ought to wise up and see through the propaganda.
Muslims have it the worst at the moment. Millions of people across the Middle East and Africa have been killed because of our war on Islam. Disabled people have been the most persecuted people throughout history, they were being persecuted long before Judaism was established. Jews are generally disliked because of their actions, well as a whole because of the actions of some or many of them. Disabled people were put in death camps by the Nazis and there's evidence that there was an extermination policy against the disabled under Nazi rule.
Proof?
Not really something that can be proved off hand. But you know it's going to be true. Unless people were more tolerant and accepting of disabled people 3000 years ago, and if so it means we have dramatically regressed.
Nope, I disagree. 3,000 years ago, the likelihood of the disabled surviving for long enough to be actively persecuted was a lot lower than today, but people had plenty of competing tribes, foreigners and all kinds of strangers who all fit the bill better. Think about it.
Sure, the likelihood is that they didn't survive as long, but if they did, it's likely that they encountered persecution, and that would just be for being different. Where as Jews have pretty much always suffered it because of their actions.
I don't buy it. The numbers don't add up.
-
In a bigot's world, it's never about attacking, is it? So yeah, it's obvious that you don't see it.
It could well be being that I am not a bigot and presumably neither are any of the people here talking about radical Muslim extremism or Muslims in general, you have really failed to make a point. Who amoung us have been critical of Islam? Who has said that Muslims are all rasdicalised and dangerous? For God's sake, what position do you think you are actually defending and from whom?
See, this is why I don't respect your opinion. This is why you are a bigot, and you don't even see it.
At least Al is taking on views he disagrees with and will argue till the cows come home with people he disagrees with, that's not bigotry. Your complete dismissal of views you disagree with makes you a complete bigot in the true sense of the word.
Redefining words now, Benji?
1.
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
That's you. The word has been redefined to mean someone who dares to complain about immigration or the effects of it.
So if I dare to react against bigotry, I'm bigoted?
:rofl:
-
You think the UN has much power?
Indeed, they're completely shaping and unifying society and government on a global scale.
Yet they cannot stop the US and Israel from destroying the Middle East or stealing Palestine.
UN membership countries simply don't engage in war without UN approval. Granted, members of the security council have a higher level of control in decision making with veto power and supporting votes of allies, but the notion of not stopping one or two countries from doing something to me is a narrow view of how it works, who else is of benefit, and who is in support. If any other single superpower really wanted to stop what the US is doing, yes, they could in fact do it.
So when the US attacked Nicaragua in the 80's without the UN's backing and then Nicaragua went to the UN and the World Court and won and then the US just continued with even worse attacks, that's because of the UN?
Am talking about the big picture here. Global affairs have changed since the 80s, but that doesn't mean the US doesn't still step on the UN's toes, and has in fact done that in more recent years. However will still gladly argue that gaining control of the middle east is of long term benefit and fully supported by the majority of the world's government. Every superpower has their role in getting a piece of the pie; the US has to be the bad guy, the EU has to assimilate them, and China has to pay the bill. The only stand alone thus far has been Russia, and am thinking that's soon going to change.
Didn't mean to kill the conversation, if that's what I did. Did I get too tinfoiley? Don't you want to know what role Russia is going to play to get their piece of the middle eastern control pie? Russia couldn't stand back and maintain an impartial stance forever without it being viewed as passive complicity, especially not recently when faced with the direct needs of an ally. Russia's tokens of support for Syria has strengthened Russia's relationships with other countries in the middle east, and that includes countries which in the past have been US partners who more recently are inclined to gain favor with Russsia than with the US. Trump's election also signals improved future relations on the horizon for Russia and the US. Russia has to play the role of the good guy, the diplomatic negotiator working for both sides. Russia will walk away from this as the hero; Russia is going to save the world. :laugh:
The US has always stepped on the UN's toes and always will. Israel bombed 7 UN shelters in Gaza in 2014, and Obomber just came out each day and said "Israel has the right to defend itself". Sure, things are starting to become a little more complex with Russia and China.
Russia haven't really tried much to control the Middle East before, apart from Afghanistan. Sure, this will strengthen Russia's relationship with Iran and Lebanon. Good. Hopefully Trump will stop the US's plan for the Middle East, but that will mean stopping Israel's. So things will get interesting if he lives.
-
In a bigot's world, it's never about attacking, is it? So yeah, it's obvious that you don't see it.
It could well be being that I am not a bigot and presumably neither are any of the people here talking about radical Muslim extremism or Muslims in general, you have really failed to make a point. Who amoung us have been critical of Islam? Who has said that Muslims are all rasdicalised and dangerous? For God's sake, what position do you think you are actually defending and from whom?
See, this is why I don't respect your opinion. This is why you are a bigot, and you don't even see it.
At least Al is taking on views he disagrees with and will argue till the cows come home with people he disagrees with, that's not bigotry. Your complete dismissal of views you disagree with makes you a complete bigot in the true sense of the word.
Redefining words now, Benji?
1.
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
That's you. The word has been redefined to mean someone who dares to complain about immigration or the effects of it.
So if I dare to react against bigotry, I'm bigoted?
:rofl:
OK, you still don't understand. Questioning and arguing against people isn't bigotry. Shutting people down or off and just hoping your name calling makes it go away definitely is bigotry. It's difficult for me to convince a bigot that he is one, so I understand your confusion.
-
You really, really, really need to reread that definition. And then have someone explain it to you.
-
Here's a picture of my butt. :zoinks:
(http://precast.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Untitled-14.jpg)
-
Here's a picture of my butt. :zoinks:
(http://precast.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Untitled-14.jpg)
Look how cleverly he added that into the discussion!
-
In a bigot's world, it's never about attacking, is it? So yeah, it's obvious that you don't see it.
It could well be being that I am not a bigot and presumably neither are any of the people here talking about radical Muslim extremism or Muslims in general, you have really failed to make a point. Who amoung us have been critical of Islam? Who has said that Muslims are all rasdicalised and dangerous? For God's sake, what position do you think you are actually defending and from whom?
See, this is why I don't respect your opinion. This is why you are a bigot, and you don't even see it.
At least Al is taking on views he disagrees with and will argue till the cows come home with people he disagrees with, that's not bigotry. Your complete dismissal of views you disagree with makes you a complete bigot in the true sense of the word.
i think you just fingered the real problem there :LOL: . And Our Glorious Leader will snark til the cows come home. And we are all idioits and bigots. ofc. And Even Walkie is tiring of this same old. Can't we talk about Islam, instead , FFS?
I'm happy to talk to you about Islam etc. I can see that you are mislead though. You seem like you are getting your information from people like Sam Harris, who just blames everything on Islam. If there are suicide bombings, it's Islam or religion in general. I guess he must forget that the Japanese and Vietnamese carried out suicide bombings. I like to get to the route causes of the problem instead.
I don't regard Islam , Christianity, Bufddhism etc as significantly different from other ideologies, such as Capitalism, Communism, Rationalism etc. and further, I do believe that ideologies can be influential. Maybe you , or somebody , could explain what's wrong with that POV?
Incidentally, America doesn't have a good record for tolerating different ideologies, does it? For all that banging on about the "Land of the Free" . i'm not especially inclined to blame the American people for that, I hasten to add, but some of them do become pretty damned radicalised.
I can probably say the above , about America, wthout provoking a shitstorm...I think (but then again, I'm not in America)
Well, i've got various responses queing up in my head, but right now I need to do other things, and also give my brain a rest, cos I'm heartily sick of clicking wrong buttons etc. I hope that won't become an issue in my absence :LOL:. I'm pleased to see that this thread has got to be less about personalities and more about other issues, since I last checked. I don't wanna ruin all that by letting myself get accused of deliberately snubbing people *wince*
-
oops ! I took too long to post again, and made myself look like a prat
:hyke: :hyke: :hyke: :hyke: :hyke: :hyke: :hyke: :hyke: :hyke: :hyke: :hyke: :hyke: :hyke: :hyke: :hyke: :hyke: :hyke: :hyke: :hyke: :hyke: :hyke:
Hey guys! look at the cows, chilling out at home.
-
You really, really, really need to reread that definition. And then have someone explain it to you.
1.
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
Look again. Sure, Al and Walkie are arguing against certain beliefs, but they haven't dismissed those beliefs completely or tried to block them out.
Where as you have shown complete intolerance to opinion's that you disagree with, making you a true bigot. I bet you wish you'd looked up the meaning before you kept throwing the word around. :hahaha:
-
In a bigot's world, it's never about attacking, is it? So yeah, it's obvious that you don't see it.
It could well be being that I am not a bigot and presumably neither are any of the people here talking about radical Muslim extremism or Muslims in general, you have really failed to make a point. Who amoung us have been critical of Islam? Who has said that Muslims are all rasdicalised and dangerous? For God's sake, what position do you think you are actually defending and from whom?
See, this is why I don't respect your opinion. This is why you are a bigot, and you don't even see it.
At least Al is taking on views he disagrees with and will argue till the cows come home with people he disagrees with, that's not bigotry. Your complete dismissal of views you disagree with makes you a complete bigot in the true sense of the word.
i think you just fingered the real problem there :LOL: . And Our Glorious Leader will snark til the cows come home. And we are all idioits and bigots. ofc. And Even Walkie is tiring of this same old. Can't we talk about Islam, instead , FFS?
I'm happy to talk to you about Islam etc. I can see that you are mislead though. You seem like you are getting your information from people like Sam Harris, who just blames everything on Islam. If there are suicide bombings, it's Islam or religion in general. I guess he must forget that the Japanese and Vietnamese carried out suicide bombings. I like to get to the route causes of the problem instead.
I don't regard Islam , Christianity, Bufddhism etc as significantly different from other ideologies, such as Capitalism, Communism, Rationalism etc. and further, I do believe that ideologies can be influential. Maybe you , or somebody , could explain what's wrong with that POV?
Incidentally, America doesn't have a good record for tolerating different ideologies, does it? For all that banging on about the "Land of the Free" . i'm not especially inclined to blame the American people for that, I hasten to add, but some of them do become pretty damned radicalised.
I can probably say the above , about America, wthout provoking a shitstorm...I think (but then again, I'm not in America)
Well, i've got various responses queing up in my head, but right now I need to do other things, and also give my brain a rest, cos I'm heartily sick of clicking wrong buttons etc. I hope that won't become an issue in my absence :LOL:. I'm pleased to see that this thread has got to be less about personalities and more about other issues, since I last checked. I don't wanna ruin all that by letting myself get accused of deliberately snubbing people *wince*
Yeah, people are the problem. Check out a guy called Chris Hedges. Have you heard of him?
Americans are mostly brainwashed by the media, on both sides. It suits the interests of those in power to have 2 different kinds of media, as to divide people.
Just write responses on wordpad if you mean you keep losing your responses?
-
You really, really, really need to reread that definition. And then have someone explain it to you.
No, YOU need to do that. Benji is right. The willingness to throw the word bigotry around whenever someone disagrees with you is ..... intellectually dishonest. Discussing what impact radical Islamic extremism has on the World and whether better border protection measures/national security measures (in light of this possible threat) are of any merit, is NOT bigotry.
This throwing around of bigotry (and whatever other forms of bigotry you wish to use) is illiberal and simply shuts down conversation and discussion. It is beyond weak, Odeon.
I will give you another tip. It is not defending anyone it is simply saying "what I say goes and cannot be questioned". Seen a little bit of that from you lately. Its pretty pathetic and demeans you and any moral pulpit you believe you are preaching from. You are no more moral and no more liberal minded, inclusive or accepting. Petty little Tyrant.
-
Look how cleverly he added that into the discussion!
I know, right? My butt's awesome like that. :zoinks:
-
Incidentally, America doesn't have a good record for tolerating different ideologies, does it? For all that banging on about the "Land of the Free" . i'm not especially inclined to blame the American people for that,
I blame my intolerance on autocorrect. :zoinks:
-
In a bigot's world, it's never about attacking, is it? So yeah, it's obvious that you don't see it.
It could well be being that I am not a bigot and presumably neither are any of the people here talking about radical Muslim extremism or Muslims in general, you have really failed to make a point. Who amoung us have been critical of Islam? Who has said that Muslims are all rasdicalised and dangerous? For God's sake, what position do you think you are actually defending and from whom?
See, this is why I don't respect your opinion. This is why you are a bigot, and you don't even see it.
At least Al is taking on views he disagrees with and will argue till the cows come home with people he disagrees with, that's not bigotry. Your complete dismissal of views you disagree with makes you a complete bigot in the true sense of the word.
i think you just fingered the real problem there :LOL: . And Our Glorious Leader will snark til the cows come home. And we are all idioits and bigots. ofc. And Even Walkie is tiring of this same old. Can't we talk about Islam, instead , FFS?
I'm happy to talk to you about Islam etc. I can see that you are mislead though. You seem like you are getting your information from people like Sam Harris, who just blames everything on Islam. If there are suicide bombings, it's Islam or religion in general. I guess he must forget that the Japanese and Vietnamese carried out suicide bombings. I like to get to the route causes of the problem instead.
I don't regard Islam , Christianity, Bufddhism etc as significantly different from other ideologies, such as Capitalism, Communism, Rationalism etc. and further, I do believe that ideologies can be influential. Maybe you , or somebody , could explain what's wrong with that POV?
Incidentally, America doesn't have a good record for tolerating different ideologies, does it? For all that banging on about the "Land of the Free" . i'm not especially inclined to blame the American people for that, I hasten to add, but some of them do become pretty damned radicalised.
I can probably say the above , about America, wthout provoking a shitstorm...I think (but then again, I'm not in America)
Well, i've got various responses queing up in my head, but right now I need to do other things, and also give my brain a rest, cos I'm heartily sick of clicking wrong buttons etc. I hope that won't become an issue in my absence :LOL:. I'm pleased to see that this thread has got to be less about personalities and more about other issues, since I last checked. I don't wanna ruin all that by letting myself get accused of deliberately snubbing people *wince*
Yeah, people are the problem. Check out a guy called Chris Hedges. Have you heard of him?
Americans are mostly brainwashed by the media, on both sides. It suits the interests of those in power to have 2 different kinds of media, as to divide people.
Just write responses on wordpad if you mean you keep losing your responses?
You didn't answer my question, but nvm, maybe somebody else will.
I wish you wouldn' use that word "brainwashed" . It's condescending,. My Dad applied that exact same word that all the time, of people who disagreed with his POV. Do you think it brought us round to seeing things his way? Nope, It just helped to confirm him, in our view, as an arrogant, inflexible git, who was always bloody well right. :LOL: He's my Dad, and i loved him, but heck, that man really did believe that the rest of the world was mentally weak, as compared with himself.
Ofc you might say i've acquired a prejudice against people who say "brainwashed" , and I couldn't really deny that. But seriously, i think you'll find that's a very common prejudice, rooted in rather too much reality.
Of course the media influence people (including my Dad). Of course media influence is a huge part of the problem (s). It's perfectly possible to discuss that without suggesting that you're some sort of intellectual paragon, immune from the effects of such influence, unlike the rest of us idiots. . You might take a tip or two from Chris Hedges, since you mention him
I must thank you very much for the mention of Chris Hedges. I hadn't heard of him. But I looked him up and found the following article, which is highly relevant to our current discussion, and so immensely quotable I found myself wanting to quote about 90% of it. :LOL:
What can I do but just provide the link:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/we_are_all_deplorables_20161120
The situation of the American "deplorables" he describes isn't significantly different from the situation of the English working class *sigh*
As for my issues with posting: much more complex than that. I do find my own multipliccity of workarounds (including your suggestion); but when my brain gets seriously overtired, there's bugger all i can do, realistically , but give it a rest. My problem yesterday was that I didn't give in soon enough, not near soon enough, and it's almost as if I lost about 6 hours towards the end of the day... as well as at the start of the day, come to that. I'm gonna try to be more sensible today.
-
In a bigot's world, it's never about attacking, is it? So yeah, it's obvious that you don't see it.
It could well be being that I am not a bigot and presumably neither are any of the people here talking about radical Muslim extremism or Muslims in general, you have really failed to make a point. Who amoung us have been critical of Islam? Who has said that Muslims are all rasdicalised and dangerous? For God's sake, what position do you think you are actually defending and from whom?
See, this is why I don't respect your opinion. This is why you are a bigot, and you don't even see it.
What was that, r
Being critical of radical Islamic extremists is NOT being bigoted towards Muslims as a whole and only someone who is really stupid or ideologically blinded would fail to see it. Which are you?
-
In real life, the truth matters whole lot more than who exactly says it, and the truth has a thousand different facets. So, if Al or anyone responds to a snark on my behalf, i think "Good, that's the really pointless bit out of the way" (if only it were quite that easy). But credit where credit's due , he did it well and scored more points than you, if I'm any judge. If you can't be arsed with reading Al's posts, that's really not my problem.
It can be, if you don't reply to my posts, thinking that Al already did address something or the other. Right now, I respect your opinion and your right to it, and will consider it before answering. Al's I am most likely going to ignore or use as target practice.
You definitely need the practice.
-
I don't know if direct stats are available on this, but the kind of stats that would really interst me, are not "terrorism" stats as such but something more along the lines of "Acts of aggression against feedom of speech, freedom of religion etc"
http://economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Global-Terrorism-Index-2015.pdf
Some of the things you are looking for are there, but as you point out yourself, most wouldn't be classified as terrorism. Charlie Hebdo, Salman Rushdie and the like are a mere footnote when compared to the systematic repression of free speech in many parts of the world.
The problem in what you are saying (which superficially looks fine btw) is your use of "many parts of the world". In Thailand, try saying anything aloud disrespectful of the King. You will have your right to free speech respected. That is THEIR custom.
So how is that different to Radical Muslim extremists? They also would not respect free speech to criticise Muhammad.
So what will the Thai people (or indeed any subset or groups within the Thai people) do to you in YOUR country if you criticise or parody their King? Now make the same argument for what radicalised Muslim extremists will do for criticising or parodying Muhammed. If you are struggling, start with Charlie Hebdo and go from there.
:facepalm:
Suppression of free speech is far more widespread than that, and it goes far beyond the Charlie Hebdo attackers. A recent example is the spat between Germany and Turkey about what a German comedian can and cannot say. Another, also about Turkey, is the aftermath of the failed coup in July.
The Charlie Hebdo attack was far more visible, though, far more dramatic. It makes for better headlines and it's just so much easier to pimp your Facebook avatar to show your support. It's more tangible and more direct, but I would argue less harmful to free speech.
You're simply trying to score simple, and simplistic, points. No surprises there.
I do not have Facebook and no such pimping ever took place. So I do not see how that applies to me. Perhaps your point is redundant?
If a German comedian is forbidden from saying something in Turkey (Believe me this is the first I have heard of it and it is such a weak example, I am not going to look it up, I will simply concede that it was a terrible thing - just not newsworthy or noteworthy), then okay...and? Does that mean IF he says something in Turkey that goes against the Turkish government, he could get imprisoned? Same as I mentioned in Thailand, if you are in Thailand and you say something horrible about the royal family, you will be jailed.
Will that get you killed in your own country? Is there an actual threat of that? Is there equivalence in your example?
When Walkie talks about the threat of free speech and you seem to agree in principle and then talk about other places in the world, it waters down entirely what she is talking about and I think you do this deliberately. There is no direct equivalence in threat to free speech from the Thais nor the Russians nor any group within such countries that absolutely have recognisable inhibitions on free speech. Let's stick to where the problems ACTUALLY lay.
Where YOU think they are, right?
Yes. Thais and Russians and Turkish government. All of these places have incursions against free speech in their own country. But these are internal issues. In the Netherlands I could smoke pot in a cafe. In Australia I could get a court appearance and a fine if a carried personal usage amounts on me. In Thailand I would definitely be put in jail and for years. All of these are dependent on customs, laws, rules and regulations of a country. They apply only whilst you are in that country and is part of that country's fabric. What you can or cannot say whilst in that country is also governed by that country's laws and will be specific to that country. THAT is NOT a threat.
However, IF you say 'Our country has X law/custom/practice and it is specific to our country but we like this law so much that we feel we must force it to other places in the world that have not been inclined to introduce it, THAT is a threat.
It is not specific to radicalised Isalmic Extremist beliefs, I think IF America and other nations try forcing their will and ideas about what customs different cultures SHOULD implement and I think that is equally as wrong.
Threat is the moment it crosses borders.
Obviously, some Islamist terrorist attacks would equally come under that heading eg the attack on Charlie Hebdo
Blowing up that statue of Buddha would count
The fatwa against Salman Rushdie would count.
And bviously a lot of of acts by other religious groups would count too.
IMO, the Islamist terror attacks have been very different from the IRA terror attacks on England. The IRA message was "Withdraw your troops from Northern Ireland". There was actually a lot of sympathy for their cause amongst the English, if not for the methods. ( I know. I was there. I had Irish Catholic friends with IRA sympathies. A lot of people did. ) . It put the English on the horns of one hellova dilemma, but it was (arguably) a reasonable demand
I see where you're coming from but would argue that groups like Al Qaeda have similar messages (i.e. GTFO of the Middle East), and actually, so do ISIS, even though their idea seems to be to expand to a worldwide caliphate. The differences between them and IRA are in how they define and allow the use of political violence.
Indeed there is ABSOLUTELY an element of this and I know people like Benji and myself have absolutely been critical of the West and more specifically the US and its allies in starting wars and conflicts and trying to nation build and interfere with World Policing.
They have made a rod for their own backs.
But it is not hypocrisy nor being disingenuous that I can be critical of the interfering and world policing (and can even see how people from such regions may hate us collectively for said interfering) and yet condemn what they believe is adequate response when it comes to the treatment of radicalised Muslim extremists and their attacks at Westerners.
Huh? You lost yourself there, didn't you? Try again.
Certainly didn't. You simply did not keep up.
If for example Hillary without the support of the UN and whilst Qaddafi is brokering a peace deal, goes in and kills Qaddafi and topples the country, then this is wrong. Libyans can hate US and her allies. (please tell me you are with me so far) If Libyans act on that hatred and started blowing up US kindergartens, that would not be right either. Whilst you can understand why that particular person or group of people may be angry, it does not make such reactions morally defensible.
Did you keep up this time?
One does not make the other right.
This we agree on.
Even a broken watch is right twice a day.
ISIS is absolutely about setting up a new caliphate. They Absolutely want to spread Islamic rule. They are absolutely opposed to Western values and Western people. They are absolutely a danger and talk of their justifications or differences in culture or alluding to any efforts to stop them being bigoted as to it possibly impacting on decent Muslims is both stupid and disingenuous.
I agree regarding them being a danger, obviously, but if you fail to understand their reasoning, however wrong you think it is, you will fail to take appropriate action, not only against ISIS but when (or, in your case, IF) you attempt to help the millions of people who are running for their lives. You will fail to help and only replace the present disaster with something else.
But ISIS is infiltrated within those communities. It is not a maybe or up for discussion. If they weren't, it would be so simple wouldn't it. If these groups of fleeing refugees were guaranteed to be free of radicalised Islamic extremists OR if they were easily recognisable OR even if the refugee groups could separate themselves
So the reality of the situation is that there are streams of people pouring in from Africa and the Middle East as a result of conflicts that probably ought never have been started. These hordes of people are often unable to be vetted or identified and we know are infiltrated by people from some horrible groups that are a National security risk to the citizens of any country that may take the refugees on.
Only a moron would turn their eyes from the unidentified, unmeasurable risk and unquestioningly take on all the refugees knowing the danger in lurking within or call bigotry if this "all in" position was questioned. (which kind of brings us to you, I guess?)
It;s that demand makes the attacks so deeply threatening , not the number of people killed. We've been reminded ad nauseam that our chance of being killed in a terror attack is minute, compared to our chances of being killed crossing the road. and I alway think, so what? The cars and trucks are not threatening my freedom .
And neither are the Muslims, even though that is the message brought to you by the populist politicians and media.
Not that any of us ARE talking about Muslims and you are not too stupid to not compute this right.
You obviously have reading comprehension issues, but don't insult the others by using the collective "we" when you are the dimwit.
No, I have decent reading comprehension but you don't/ When Walkie says
The cars and trucks are not threatening my freedom .
Everyone knows she is saying that Radical Islamic extremists ARE threatening her freedoms. Fact. They are. Not up for discussion. Muslims aren't. Certainly not as a whole nor collectively. Radical Muslim extremists (Like ISIS) are.
So you say in reply
And neither are the Muslims, even though that is the message brought to you by the populist politicians and media.
"Our" gripe is ONLY (read that) for the radicalised Muslim extremists. So its cute and all that you steer away from these groups to constantly talk about Muslims as a whole and pretend that is what you were responding to. But you are not fooling us and you are not apply that point to what was saying specifically. (I'd give it up were I you because I am not even sure you believe it).
Bloody hell, are you really this stupid?
I do not think you are in a place to judge.
That's why so many people all over the world stood up and declared "I am Charlie" . We were all saying : we will not be intimidated into giving up any of our freedoms. And the freedom to mock a religion is every bit as important as the freedom to practice that religion.
And I fully agree. But where is their support when less visible but far more serious threats against these freedoms pop up in places like Poland, Hungary, France or (obviously) Russia?
In all fairness, when Trump was elected, protests erupted because enough people see through him. In all fairness, it's why some Jews now say they will register as Muslims if Trump goes ahead with the Muslim database.
More serious threats? Fail.
When Trump was elected, people had been whipped up into a frenzy that they believed that he was a threat and so when they had the double whammy of Hillary not winning like they were promised and him being a leader like they had all been taught to fear through the fearmongering media, they protested in fear.
It was NOT that they were basing this on anything more than zealous ideology. "He is Literally Hitler. He is going to go from home to home with immigration deportations squads and set up deportation detention centres and even send Black Africans "back" to Africa." Yes this is not hyperbole. People ACTUALLY believe that and not from what Trump said, but what they were told by the Press, the DNC tasking heads, community leaders and Academic institutions.
Let's have a look at what he actually said:
Latinos (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/9-outrageous-things-donald-trump-has-said-about-latinos_us_55e483a1e4b0c818f618904b):
Thank you. It's true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
And
It's coming from more than Mexico. It's coming from all over South and Latin America, and it's coming probably -- probably -- from the Middle East.
The ban on *all* Muslims entering the US (the first 20 seconds will do):
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2015/dec/08/donald-trump-calls-for-complete-ban-on-muslims-entering-the-us-video
The list goes on. Do a Google search on "what did Trump actually say on ..." and see for yourself. Then try to explain it away. This is not Hillary making up anything, this is Trump stating his opinions. I don't blame people for being scared of what this lunatic will do.
Pretending that:
protests erupted because enough people see through him
is just disingenuous, and believing it is idiotic.
As for registers...and? Some Jews believe what exactly about registers or databases recording Muslims from these areas? Do you know why it is that Muslims coming from Iraq are NOW able to be vetted but Muslims from Libya or Syria aren't? What is the one reason? Intel. What kind of intel? Registers of all the Iraqi based Muslims are now thorough enough to account for enough of the threats as to be marginal.
See that is the problem. People see the word "register and suddenly let their imaginations run in conspiratorial directions because they feel a negative undercurrent which makes them fearful that the person using said register will do so to do harm.
The negative undercurrent being that some citizens would have to register while others wouldn't. I'm pretty sure that wasn't what the founding fathers had in mind, but I'm not an American, so...
What if said register is simply not a sword but a shield. It is just recording who is who so that the nastier elements are able to be identified and contained? what if identifying the bad elements means that the decent Muslims who are NOT radical extremists are NOT restricted from access to America and not otherwise inhibited? Wouldn't that be swell?
Ah. The "if you have nothing to hide..." defence. This is the kind of argument brought forward by DDR officials, actually, and I have to say, you'd make a fine STASI officer. A shame it's too late for that particular career option.
Great ad hom, Odeon. By great I mean stupid.
I am not saying anything about nothing to hide. I am saying that the reason for him wanting to make a register is because there are no databases because there is no infrastructure.
I am really struggling on how I can break this down for you.
Lots of people wanting to come to a country. Refugees. Some people in that group very bad. Cannot identify who any of those people are.
Solution A: Walk them all in without finding out who they are even though some are bad and will seek to do the country they move to, harm.
Solution B: List them all. Build your own database and find out who they are before letting them in, so none of them do your country harm.
That is your solutions. I say Solution B sounds a little more reasoned.
I have explained his poor speech about Mexicans a number of times but what the heck:
Thank you. It's true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
Who are "they"? How can them not being their best and yet being good people?
It was simply a word salad.
Who were the they? The Cartels. The Cartels operate just south of the border in the no man's land of the non-walled off border running drugs and warring on each others (graves and dismemberment of rival gangs is commonplace. As are rapes
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972
Rape trees festoon the landscapes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_tree
So what he said was accurate but clumsy. What he was pointing to was a really bad problem. No not all illegal immigrants are bad and he did not say that which is why he said and some are good people. Sure, the prey are probably all decent people but those preying on them sure as Hell aren't.
There is nothing wrong with any of that. It was not PC, it was clumsy but so what?
So while everyone is being so offended he did not disclaim x or clarify Y or dot what i, the sum opf what he said was unquestionably true and a real problem. Rapists are raping at the border in horrific numbers because the borders are open. Terrible cartel members kill wantonly and cross on whim. Drugs are trafficked and murders commonplace. Yet you and everyone is offended how he said it?
Get real.
-
Walkie-
They can be influential, but just blaming everything on a religion and ignoring the war against Islam, is just ridiculous. The kind of people that use religion to do evil things are the kind of people that would do them anyway. Also, if a group of people have become so desperate and are fighting a war machine with sticks and stones, they almost need that belief that God is behind them, like an equalizer. Or when they commit sickening acts they need to believe that God is telling them to do it, which makes it OK.
I think it's the appropriate word to use though. Not everyone I debate with is like you, a lot of people I argue with are the condescending ones. From studying WWII, I can see how the German people and soldiers were brainwashed, and what I see in the world today isn't much different. Everyone putting a French flag behind their profile pictures on facebook. Even girls with bikini shots, I just find that disrespectful.
I know what I go through to question everything, so seeing masses of people just swallowing lies and propaganda is hard to take. Yes, I'm learning not to be such a bitch, but I guess this site brings the worst out in people.
No worries. I don't subscribe to terms like "Islamophobia" and "hate crimes".
www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-PP61qTmic
Yes, I understand that completely. I have been relentless for months with political issues. I need a break.
-
Suppression of free speech is far more widespread than that, and it goes far beyond the Charlie Hebdo attackers. A recent example is the spat between Germany and Turkey about what a German comedian can and cannot say. Another, also about Turkey, is the aftermath of the failed coup in July.
The Charlie Hebdo attack was far more visible, though, far more dramatic. It makes for better headlines and it's just so much easier to pimp your Facebook avatar to show your support. It's more tangible and more direct, but I would argue less harmful to free speech.
excuse me for taking the quote out-of-context, but the entire context would cover my screen 10 tinmes over, and easily found if anyone wants it, I must agree that suppression of free speexch is more widespread, but am intrigued by the examples you chose, Odeon, in that both involved the Muslim president (Erdogan) of a Muslim country (Turkey) ,
Ifyou intended to say "It's not just Muslims supressing free speech " , I'm sure you could have found better examples than that .
I might try to guess what you really getting at, but then again, given that you were addressing Al at the time , can't help wondering if it was just an impish exercise in spot-the-deliberate-mistake?
In any case, I personally have no problem at all with the public response to Charle Hebdo . In some peoples minds, at least (i think most, actually, but I'm no mindreader) that was a symbolic response to all assults against freedom of speech, besides standing as a public rejection of violence. And it was heartwarming to see quite a lot Muslims joining in. It's hard to come up with anything more positive than that display of solidarity.. It shouldn't displace our awareness of other acts of aggression against freedom speech, but stand as a monument to them all
-
You really, really, really need to reread that definition. And then have someone explain it to you.
No, YOU need to do that. Benji is right. The willingness to throw the word bigotry around whenever someone disagrees with you is ..... intellectually dishonest. Discussing what impact radical Islamic extremism has on the World and whether better border protection measures/national security measures (in light of this possible threat) are of any merit, is NOT bigotry.
This throwing around of bigotry (and whatever other forms of bigotry you wish to use) is illiberal and simply shuts down conversation and discussion. It is beyond weak, Odeon.
I will give you another tip. It is not defending anyone it is simply saying "what I say goes and cannot be questioned". Seen a little bit of that from you lately. Its pretty pathetic and demeans you and any moral pulpit you believe you are preaching from. You are no more moral and no more liberal minded, inclusive or accepting. Petty little Tyrant.
You're so predictable it hurts. As usual you got it all wrong but I'm done educating you. Dimwit.
-
In a bigot's world, it's never about attacking, is it? So yeah, it's obvious that you don't see it.
It could well be being that I am not a bigot and presumably neither are any of the people here talking about radical Muslim extremism or Muslims in general, you have really failed to make a point. Who amoung us have been critical of Islam? Who has said that Muslims are all rasdicalised and dangerous? For God's sake, what position do you think you are actually defending and from whom?
See, this is why I don't respect your opinion. This is why you are a bigot, and you don't even see it.
What was that, r
Being critical of radical Islamic extremists is NOT being bigoted towards Muslims as a whole and only someone who is really stupid or ideologically blinded would fail to see it. Which are you?
You also have reading comprehension problems. Poor dimwit bigot.
-
Suppression of free speech is far more widespread than that, and it goes far beyond the Charlie Hebdo attackers. A recent example is the spat between Germany and Turkey about what a German comedian can and cannot say. Another, also about Turkey, is the aftermath of the failed coup in July.
The Charlie Hebdo attack was far more visible, though, far more dramatic. It makes for better headlines and it's just so much easier to pimp your Facebook avatar to show your support. It's more tangible and more direct, but I would argue less harmful to free speech.
excuse me for taking the quote out-of-context, but the entire context would cover my screen 10 tinmes over, and easily found if anyone wants it, I must agree that suppression of free speexch is more widespread, but am intrigued by the examples you chose, Odeon, in that both involved the Muslim president (Erdogan) of a Muslim country (Turkey) ,
Ifyou intended to say "It's not just Muslims supressing free speech " , I'm sure you could have found better examples than that .
I might try to guess what you really getting at, but then again, given that you were addressing Al at the time , can't help wondering if it was just an impish exercise in spot-the-deliberate-mistake?
In any case, I personally have no problem at all with the public response to Charle Hebdo . In some peoples minds, at least (i think most, actually, but I'm no mindreader) that was a symbolic response to all assults against freedom of speech, besides standing as a public rejection of violence. And it was heartwarming to see quite a lot Muslims joining in. It's hard to come up with anything more positive than that display of solidarity.. It shouldn't displace our awareness of other acts of aggression against freedom speech, but stand as a monument to them all
Actually Turkey is an excellent example because while a Muslim, Erdogan's activities have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam. If you do want to equal it as a good example of Islam as a threat against free speech, then we should probably stop this discussion right now because the difference should be painfully obvious. Not everything in a Muslim country is about Islam, just as little as not everything in a Christian country is about Christianity.
I'm not sure I agree with you re the public response to the Charlie Hebdo attack--I'm sure many people meant is as such but unfortunately it became very much a response against radical Islam rather than a response to any attack on free speech. At least that is my perception--the many violations against free speech elsewhere were never addressed using Charlie Hebdo as a symbol. Actually, most were never addressed at all.
-
You really, really, really need to reread that definition. And then have someone explain it to you.
No, YOU need to do that. Benji is right. The willingness to throw the word bigotry around whenever someone disagrees with you is ..... intellectually dishonest. Discussing what impact radical Islamic extremism has on the World and whether better border protection measures/national security measures (in light of this possible threat) are of any merit, is NOT bigotry.
This throwing around of bigotry (and whatever other forms of bigotry you wish to use) is illiberal and simply shuts down conversation and discussion. It is beyond weak, Odeon.
I will give you another tip. It is not defending anyone it is simply saying "what I say goes and cannot be questioned". Seen a little bit of that from you lately. Its pretty pathetic and demeans you and any moral pulpit you believe you are preaching from. You are no more moral and no more liberal minded, inclusive or accepting. Petty little Tyrant.
You're so predictable it hurts. As usual you got it all wrong but I'm done educating you. Dimwit.
You do not have the equipment to be able to educate me, you moron. You cannot think beyond your own little self-exiled cognitive bubble.
-
In a bigot's world, it's never about attacking, is it? So yeah, it's obvious that you don't see it.
It could well be being that I am not a bigot and presumably neither are any of the people here talking about radical Muslim extremism or Muslims in general, you have really failed to make a point. Who amoung us have been critical of Islam? Who has said that Muslims are all rasdicalised and dangerous? For God's sake, what position do you think you are actually defending and from whom?
See, this is why I don't respect your opinion. This is why you are a bigot, and you don't even see it.
What was that, r
Being critical of radical Islamic extremists is NOT being bigoted towards Muslims as a whole and only someone who is really stupid or ideologically blinded would fail to see it. Which are you?
You also have reading comprehension problems. Poor dimwit bigot.
Swedish rapist strikes again. You do not have so much a reading comprehension problem, specifically, as you have more of a general problem with the ability to critically think
-
Suppression of free speech is far more widespread than that, and it goes far beyond the Charlie Hebdo attackers. A recent example is the spat between Germany and Turkey about what a German comedian can and cannot say. Another, also about Turkey, is the aftermath of the failed coup in July.
The Charlie Hebdo attack was far more visible, though, far more dramatic. It makes for better headlines and it's just so much easier to pimp your Facebook avatar to show your support. It's more tangible and more direct, but I would argue less harmful to free speech.
excuse me for taking the quote out-of-context, but the entire context would cover my screen 10 tinmes over, and easily found if anyone wants it, I must agree that suppression of free speexch is more widespread, but am intrigued by the examples you chose, Odeon, in that both involved the Muslim president (Erdogan) of a Muslim country (Turkey) ,
Ifyou intended to say "It's not just Muslims supressing free speech " , I'm sure you could have found better examples than that .
I might try to guess what you really getting at, but then again, given that you were addressing Al at the time , can't help wondering if it was just an impish exercise in spot-the-deliberate-mistake?
In any case, I personally have no problem at all with the public response to Charle Hebdo . In some peoples minds, at least (i think most, actually, but I'm no mindreader) that was a symbolic response to all assults against freedom of speech, besides standing as a public rejection of violence. And it was heartwarming to see quite a lot Muslims joining in. It's hard to come up with anything more positive than that display of solidarity.. It shouldn't displace our awareness of other acts of aggression against freedom speech, but stand as a monument to them all
Actually Turkey is an excellent example because while a Muslim, Erdogan's activities have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam. If you do want to equal it as a good example of Islam as a threat against free speech, then we should probably stop this discussion right now because the difference should be painfully obvious. Not everything in a Muslim country is about Islam, just as little as not everything in a Christian country is about Christianity.
I'm not sure I agree with you re the public response to the Charlie Hebdo attack--I'm sure many people meant is as such but unfortunately it became very much a response against radical Islam rather than a response to any attack on free speech. At least that is my perception--the many violations against free speech elsewhere were never addressed using Charlie Hebdo as a symbol. Actually, most were never addressed at all.
No shit, not everything in Islamic countries is about Islam. Whoever said it was? Oh yeah, just you. Why? Because you are trying to insert a suggestion that it was questioned to pad out a very weak position. Makes it look disingenuous when you are caught doing it and the person catching you exposes it, huh?
I DON'T (now let's pay attention here Odeon) equate Islam with attacks on free speech. At all. Never have. So where does that leave you? If you don't believe so, you can look through anything I said.
I DO believe that the radical Islamic Extremists DO, amoung other things, attack free speech abroad. There is a slight difference, see if you can pick it.
What Turkey or Thailand or Russia or Sweden or Australia, do in their own countries is up to them and the will of the people collectively. How they govern at home is their business. I do not give a damn if radical Muslim extremists want to preach whatever radicalised ideology or enforce it amoung their chosen or even if it is adopted whole cloth by a country as a state religion. None of that bothers me......until it becomes a threat to people not within that country or region or religion or sect.
I would also by the same token say, as a tourist, I would be very careful to observe the laws and accept what was in that country was going to be different to mine in terms of customs, laws and sensibilities.
But I will expect in MY country citizens and non-citizens will equally respect our differences.
-
Suppression of free speech is far more widespread than that, and it goes far beyond the Charlie Hebdo attackers. A recent example is the spat between Germany and Turkey about what a German comedian can and cannot say. Another, also about Turkey, is the aftermath of the failed coup in July.
The Charlie Hebdo attack was far more visible, though, far more dramatic. It makes for better headlines and it's just so much easier to pimp your Facebook avatar to show your support. It's more tangible and more direct, but I would argue less harmful to free speech.
excuse me for taking the quote out-of-context, but the entire context would cover my screen 10 tinmes over, and easily found if anyone wants it, I must agree that suppression of free speexch is more widespread, but am intrigued by the examples you chose, Odeon, in that both involved the Muslim president (Erdogan) of a Muslim country (Turkey) ,
Ifyou intended to say "It's not just Muslims supressing free speech " , I'm sure you could have found better examples than that .
I might try to guess what you really getting at, but then again, given that you were addressing Al at the time , can't help wondering if it was just an impish exercise in spot-the-deliberate-mistake?
In any case, I personally have no problem at all with the public response to Charle Hebdo . In some peoples minds, at least (i think most, actually, but I'm no mindreader) that was a symbolic response to all assults against freedom of speech, besides standing as a public rejection of violence. And it was heartwarming to see quite a lot Muslims joining in. It's hard to come up with anything more positive than that display of solidarity.. It shouldn't displace our awareness of other acts of aggression against freedom speech, but stand as a monument to them all
Actually Turkey is an excellent example because while a Muslim, Erdogan's activities have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam. If you do want to equal it as a good example of Islam as a threat against free speech, then we should probably stop this discussion right now because the difference should be painfully obvious. Not everything in a Muslim country is about Islam, just as little as not everything in a Christian country is about Christianity.
I'm not sure I agree with you re the public response to the Charlie Hebdo attack--I'm sure many people meant is as such but unfortunately it became very much a response against radical Islam rather than a response to any attack on free speech. At least that is my perception--the many violations against free speech elsewhere were never addressed using Charlie Hebdo as a symbol. Actually, most were never addressed at all.
Ah, I was wondering if that might be your answer. Ofc I don't want it to a good example of Islam as a threat against free speech. I meant exactly what I said: if you were looking for counter-examples (and I by no means assumed as much) , you could surely have made better selections . In pa rticular, Turkey's internal conflicts seem have rather a lot to do with Islam. Take this litle quote from Wikipedia "Events surrounding the coup attempt and the purges in its aftermath reflect a complex power struggle between Islamist and ultranationalist elites in Turkey." One could debate that statement, perhaps, but you're unlikely to find any analysis of the situation which leaves the word "Islam" out of it. Similarly, if you said it was obvious that American conservatism had "nothing whatsover to do with Christianity", you'd have people jumping on you in droves saying "That's not obvious at all. In fact, I disagree"
Note , i'm not leaping to conclusions above, just pointing out a pretty obvious correlation between political affilliations and religious belief . There are various alternative ways of explaining that; but you seem to be in a pretty tiny minority in attempting to deny that correlation. What's more, you're talking as if you think that any reasonable person would agree with you . And I wonder why? I really do. I'm thinking either you're being disingenuous, or else, for some reason unknown, you have one heckova blind spot here? :dunno:
-
You really, really, really need to reread that definition. And then have someone explain it to you.
No, YOU need to do that. Benji is right. The willingness to throw the word bigotry around whenever someone disagrees with you is ..... intellectually dishonest. Discussing what impact radical Islamic extremism has on the World and whether better border protection measures/national security measures (in light of this possible threat) are of any merit, is NOT bigotry.
This throwing around of bigotry (and whatever other forms of bigotry you wish to use) is illiberal and simply shuts down conversation and discussion. It is beyond weak, Odeon.
I will give you another tip. It is not defending anyone it is simply saying "what I say goes and cannot be questioned". Seen a little bit of that from you lately. Its pretty pathetic and demeans you and any moral pulpit you believe you are preaching from. You are no more moral and no more liberal minded, inclusive or accepting. Petty little Tyrant.
You're so predictable it hurts. As usual you got it all wrong but I'm done educating you. Dimwit.
You do not have the equipment to be able to educate me, you moron. You cannot think beyond your own little self-exiled cognitive bubble.
You can't think, end of. Dimwit. :M
-
In a bigot's world, it's never about attacking, is it? So yeah, it's obvious that you don't see it.
It could well be being that I am not a bigot and presumably neither are any of the people here talking about radical Muslim extremism or Muslims in general, you have really failed to make a point. Who amoung us have been critical of Islam? Who has said that Muslims are all rasdicalised and dangerous? For God's sake, what position do you think you are actually defending and from whom?
See, this is why I don't respect your opinion. This is why you are a bigot, and you don't even see it.
What was that, r
Being critical of radical Islamic extremists is NOT being bigoted towards Muslims as a whole and only someone who is really stupid or ideologically blinded would fail to see it. Which are you?
You also have reading comprehension problems. Poor dimwit bigot.
Swedish rapist strikes again. You do not have so much a reading comprehension problem, specifically, as you have more of a general problem with the ability to critically think
You don't have the ability to think. I win.
-
Suppression of free speech is far more widespread than that, and it goes far beyond the Charlie Hebdo attackers. A recent example is the spat between Germany and Turkey about what a German comedian can and cannot say. Another, also about Turkey, is the aftermath of the failed coup in July.
The Charlie Hebdo attack was far more visible, though, far more dramatic. It makes for better headlines and it's just so much easier to pimp your Facebook avatar to show your support. It's more tangible and more direct, but I would argue less harmful to free speech.
excuse me for taking the quote out-of-context, but the entire context would cover my screen 10 tinmes over, and easily found if anyone wants it, I must agree that suppression of free speexch is more widespread, but am intrigued by the examples you chose, Odeon, in that both involved the Muslim president (Erdogan) of a Muslim country (Turkey) ,
Ifyou intended to say "It's not just Muslims supressing free speech " , I'm sure you could have found better examples than that .
I might try to guess what you really getting at, but then again, given that you were addressing Al at the time , can't help wondering if it was just an impish exercise in spot-the-deliberate-mistake?
In any case, I personally have no problem at all with the public response to Charle Hebdo . In some peoples minds, at least (i think most, actually, but I'm no mindreader) that was a symbolic response to all assults against freedom of speech, besides standing as a public rejection of violence. And it was heartwarming to see quite a lot Muslims joining in. It's hard to come up with anything more positive than that display of solidarity.. It shouldn't displace our awareness of other acts of aggression against freedom speech, but stand as a monument to them all
Actually Turkey is an excellent example because while a Muslim, Erdogan's activities have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam. If you do want to equal it as a good example of Islam as a threat against free speech, then we should probably stop this discussion right now because the difference should be painfully obvious. Not everything in a Muslim country is about Islam, just as little as not everything in a Christian country is about Christianity.
I'm not sure I agree with you re the public response to the Charlie Hebdo attack--I'm sure many people meant is as such but unfortunately it became very much a response against radical Islam rather than a response to any attack on free speech. At least that is my perception--the many violations against free speech elsewhere were never addressed using Charlie Hebdo as a symbol. Actually, most were never addressed at all.
No shit, not everything in Islamic countries is about Islam. Whoever said it was? Oh yeah, just you. Why? Because you are trying to insert a suggestion that it was questioned to pad out a very weak position. Makes it look disingenuous when you are caught doing it and the person catching you exposes it, huh?
I DON'T (now let's pay attention here Odeon) equate Islam with attacks on free speech. At all. Never have. So where does that leave you? If you don't believe so, you can look through anything I said.
I DO believe that the radical Islamic Extremists DO, amoung other things, attack free speech abroad. There is a slight difference, see if you can pick it.
What Turkey or Thailand or Russia or Sweden or Australia, do in their own countries is up to them and the will of the people collectively. How they govern at home is their business. I do not give a damn if radical Muslim extremists want to preach whatever radicalised ideology or enforce it amoung their chosen or even if it is adopted whole cloth by a country as a state religion. None of that bothers me......until it becomes a threat to people not within that country or region or religion or sect.
I would also by the same token say, as a tourist, I would be very careful to observe the laws and accept what was in that country was going to be different to mine in terms of customs, laws and sensibilities.
But I will expect in MY country citizens and non-citizens will equally respect our differences.
:blah:
-
Suppression of free speech is far more widespread than that, and it goes far beyond the Charlie Hebdo attackers. A recent example is the spat between Germany and Turkey about what a German comedian can and cannot say. Another, also about Turkey, is the aftermath of the failed coup in July.
The Charlie Hebdo attack was far more visible, though, far more dramatic. It makes for better headlines and it's just so much easier to pimp your Facebook avatar to show your support. It's more tangible and more direct, but I would argue less harmful to free speech.
excuse me for taking the quote out-of-context, but the entire context would cover my screen 10 tinmes over, and easily found if anyone wants it, I must agree that suppression of free speexch is more widespread, but am intrigued by the examples you chose, Odeon, in that both involved the Muslim president (Erdogan) of a Muslim country (Turkey) ,
Ifyou intended to say "It's not just Muslims supressing free speech " , I'm sure you could have found better examples than that .
I might try to guess what you really getting at, but then again, given that you were addressing Al at the time , can't help wondering if it was just an impish exercise in spot-the-deliberate-mistake?
In any case, I personally have no problem at all with the public response to Charle Hebdo . In some peoples minds, at least (i think most, actually, but I'm no mindreader) that was a symbolic response to all assults against freedom of speech, besides standing as a public rejection of violence. And it was heartwarming to see quite a lot Muslims joining in. It's hard to come up with anything more positive than that display of solidarity.. It shouldn't displace our awareness of other acts of aggression against freedom speech, but stand as a monument to them all
Actually Turkey is an excellent example because while a Muslim, Erdogan's activities have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam. If you do want to equal it as a good example of Islam as a threat against free speech, then we should probably stop this discussion right now because the difference should be painfully obvious. Not everything in a Muslim country is about Islam, just as little as not everything in a Christian country is about Christianity.
I'm not sure I agree with you re the public response to the Charlie Hebdo attack--I'm sure many people meant is as such but unfortunately it became very much a response against radical Islam rather than a response to any attack on free speech. At least that is my perception--the many violations against free speech elsewhere were never addressed using Charlie Hebdo as a symbol. Actually, most were never addressed at all.
Ah, I was wondering if that might be your answer. Ofc I don't want it to a good example of Islam as a threat against free speech. I meant exactly what I said: if you were looking for counter-examples (and I by no means assumed as much) , you could surely have made better selections . In pa rticular, Turkey's internal conflicts seem have rather a lot to do with Islam. Take this litle quote from Wikipedia "Events surrounding the coup attempt and the purges in its aftermath reflect a complex power struggle between Islamist and ultranationalist elites in Turkey." One could debate that statement, perhaps, but you're unlikely to find any analysis of the situation which leaves the word "Islam" out of it. Similarly, if you said it was obvious that American conservatism had "nothing whatsover to do with Christianity", you'd have people jumping on you in droves saying "That's not obvious at all. In fact, I disagree"
Note , i'm not leaping to conclusions above, just pointing out a pretty obvious correlation between political affilliations and religious belief . There are various alternative ways of explaining that; but you seem to be in a pretty tiny minority in attempting to deny that correlation. What's more, you're talking as if you think that any reasonable person would agree with you . And I wonder why? I really do. I'm thinking either you're being disingenuous, or else, for some reason unknown, you have one heckova blind spot here? :dunno:
Actually Erdogan is just another dictator who happens to be Muslim, but if you are going to filter everything from an anti-Islam POV, which I'd say you are, you will find what you are looking for.
As for other examples, I presented several before the Turkey one, I believe. Maybe it's just that the others didn't fit with your anti-Islam perspective?
-
In a bigot's world, it's never about attacking, is it? So yeah, it's obvious that you don't see it.
It could well be being that I am not a bigot and presumably neither are any of the people here talking about radical Muslim extremism or Muslims in general, you have really failed to make a point. Who amoung us have been critical of Islam? Who has said that Muslims are all rasdicalised and dangerous? For God's sake, what position do you think you are actually defending and from whom?
See, this is why I don't respect your opinion. This is why you are a bigot, and you don't even see it.
What was that, r
Being critical of radical Islamic extremists is NOT being bigoted towards Muslims as a whole and only someone who is really stupid or ideologically blinded would fail to see it. Which are you?
You also have reading comprehension problems. Poor dimwit bigot.
Swedish rapist strikes again. You do not have so much a reading comprehension problem, specifically, as you have more of a general problem with the ability to critically think
You don't have the ability to think. I win.
(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/692/020/094.jpg)
-
Suppression of free speech is far more widespread than that, and it goes far beyond the Charlie Hebdo attackers. A recent example is the spat between Germany and Turkey about what a German comedian can and cannot say. Another, also about Turkey, is the aftermath of the failed coup in July.
The Charlie Hebdo attack was far more visible, though, far more dramatic. It makes for better headlines and it's just so much easier to pimp your Facebook avatar to show your support. It's more tangible and more direct, but I would argue less harmful to free speech.
excuse me for taking the quote out-of-context, but the entire context would cover my screen 10 tinmes over, and easily found if anyone wants it, I must agree that suppression of free speexch is more widespread, but am intrigued by the examples you chose, Odeon, in that both involved the Muslim president (Erdogan) of a Muslim country (Turkey) ,
Ifyou intended to say "It's not just Muslims supressing free speech " , I'm sure you could have found better examples than that .
I might try to guess what you really getting at, but then again, given that you were addressing Al at the time , can't help wondering if it was just an impish exercise in spot-the-deliberate-mistake?
In any case, I personally have no problem at all with the public response to Charle Hebdo . In some peoples minds, at least (i think most, actually, but I'm no mindreader) that was a symbolic response to all assults against freedom of speech, besides standing as a public rejection of violence. And it was heartwarming to see quite a lot Muslims joining in. It's hard to come up with anything more positive than that display of solidarity.. It shouldn't displace our awareness of other acts of aggression against freedom speech, but stand as a monument to them all
Actually Turkey is an excellent example because while a Muslim, Erdogan's activities have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam. If you do want to equal it as a good example of Islam as a threat against free speech, then we should probably stop this discussion right now because the difference should be painfully obvious. Not everything in a Muslim country is about Islam, just as little as not everything in a Christian country is about Christianity.
I'm not sure I agree with you re the public response to the Charlie Hebdo attack--I'm sure many people meant is as such but unfortunately it became very much a response against radical Islam rather than a response to any attack on free speech. At least that is my perception--the many violations against free speech elsewhere were never addressed using Charlie Hebdo as a symbol. Actually, most were never addressed at all.
Ah, I was wondering if that might be your answer. Ofc I don't want it to a good example of Islam as a threat against free speech. I meant exactly what I said: if you were looking for counter-examples (and I by no means assumed as much) , you could surely have made better selections . In pa rticular, Turkey's internal conflicts seem have rather a lot to do with Islam. Take this litle quote from Wikipedia "Events surrounding the coup attempt and the purges in its aftermath reflect a complex power struggle between Islamist and ultranationalist elites in Turkey." One could debate that statement, perhaps, but you're unlikely to find any analysis of the situation which leaves the word "Islam" out of it. Similarly, if you said it was obvious that American conservatism had "nothing whatsover to do with Christianity", you'd have people jumping on you in droves saying "That's not obvious at all. In fact, I disagree"
Note , i'm not leaping to conclusions above, just pointing out a pretty obvious correlation between political affilliations and religious belief . There are various alternative ways of explaining that; but you seem to be in a pretty tiny minority in attempting to deny that correlation. What's more, you're talking as if you think that any reasonable person would agree with you . And I wonder why? I really do. I'm thinking either you're being disingenuous, or else, for some reason unknown, you have one heckova blind spot here? :dunno:
Actually Erdogan is just another dictator who happens to be Muslim, but if you are going to filter everything from an anti-Islam POV, which I'd say you are, you will find what you are looking for.
As for other examples, I presented several before the Turkey one, I believe. Maybe it's just that the others didn't fit with your anti-Islam perspective?
Maybe there was no anti-Islam POV to begin with.
That can't be it. Let's hunt more Woozels....
(http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Zucker/Winnie_The_Pooh.JPG)
-
Thinking about this, I'm fairly sure this won't develop into an actual discussion. I thought it might but I was wrong. There's Al who is a dimwit and opposed on principle to everything I post after getting butthurt in a callout, there's Walkie who's already made up her mind, and there's Benji who does have the makings of an interesting perspective but who has trouble with his tinfoil hat getting in the way.
Al remains target practice, Walkie is being highly selective in her responses, Benji is being Benji, and me, I'm thinking there's got to be some paint I can watch dry. In other words, enjoy.
P.S. And Al just proved my point. Twice.
-
Thinking about this, I'm fairly sure this won't develop into an actual discussion. I thought it might but I was wrong. There's Al who is a dimwit and opposed on principle to everything I post after getting butthurt in a callout, there's Walkie who's already made up her mind, and there's Benji who does have the makings of an interesting perspective but who has trouble with his tinfoil hat getting in the way.
Al remains target practice, Walkie is being highly selective in her responses, Benji is being Benji, and me, I'm thinking there's got to be some paint I can watch dry. In other words, enjoy.
P.S. And Al just proved my point. Twice.
I am not butthurt about a callout. Which callout and how and why?
The truth is that you have always taken the position that the Muslims have to be defended. That in itself is fine BUT the lengths you go to, to dismiss, disregard and shutdown any conversation around any talk that may in any way shine any Muslims in a poor light is ridiculous.
You are happy to be disingenuous and misrepresent and insult and be a condescending moral soapboxing prat BUT that gains your position NO credibility. None. At all.
Furthermore there ARE actual threats in the world (regardless of whether you wish to acknowledge them or not) which come from the greater Muslim community. That does NOT mean that all Muslims are bad or that everyone preaching Islam or practicing that religion are bad. That out of the way, these radical extremists all are Muslims and use the Islamic beliefs in respect to the harm they do.
In short the radical Muslim Extremists (such as ISIS) are Muslims not all radical Muslim extremists.
No one here really gives a damn about Moderate Muslims in our countries or throughout the world. We have friends who are Muslim. We know them as decent people and we presume the same within the hearts of other Moderate Muslims. So we are NOT anti-Muslim nor bigoted. We simply acknowledge a threat which you refuse to acknowledge. That threat is not Muslims but the radical Muslim Extremists in their midst.
You are unable to discuss that without trying your hardest to denounce these concerns and equate any discussion on this to the person you are talking to being anti-Muslim and bigoted and this fuels your moral high horsing as Muslim defender.
It is ONLY you Odeon. Of all of us, it is only you that is unable to see outside your bubble. You are fucking stupid and the fault does not lie with me, Benji or Walkie and nor the next person you spew your ideologically skewed narrative at.
-
Benji is being Benji
I think I enjoy Benji's take on it the best. He's got this interesting approach that comes across like, Great Defender of Muslims!! Just Not in My Country!! It's like reading a conundrum personified, and I like that. :lol1:
-
Thinking about this, I'm fairly sure this won't develop into an actual discussion. I thought it might but I was wrong. There's Al who is a dimwit and opposed on principle to everything I post after getting butthurt in a callout, there's Walkie who's already made up her mind, and there's Benji who does have the makings of an interesting perspective but who has trouble with his tinfoil hat getting in the way.
Al remains target practice, Walkie is being highly selective in her responses, Benji is being Benji, and me, I'm thinking there's got to be some paint I can watch dry. In other words, enjoy.
P.S. And Al just proved my point. Twice.
I think the main problem here (besides butthurt, ofc) is people reducing other people's perspectives to some ultra-simplistic statement that's easily dismissed, or countered. That said, I know some peopkle here are short on time , probably don't have time to carefully read other peoples' contributions. I have a similar problem, myself, in a way, but I do try to take things in properly, and if that means that I don;'t read all the threads I'd like to read, and don't make near so many replies as I'd like to, well so be it. The replies that I do make on issues like this one are normally carefully considered, if relatively sparse.
I've mentioned twice, in this very thread , that I'm not finding it easy to keep up, largely on account of neurological issues, though the aforementioned attempt to do justice to other people's posts would also be a factor, wouldn't it? I mentioned that for a reason, which I also made explicit: that is, I didn't want people to feel that i was ignoring some of their posts, nor mentally dismnissing them . I don't. Rather, I try to get an holistic view of other people's outlook., because one single statement, in isolation is relatively meaningless , isn't it?
As I 've gone along, I've mentally shelved quite a few things for "must respond to that point, later"; and I've also been thinking about a few things, on an ongoing basis. Sometimes, I come back to the thread , found d a rash of new posts, and then responded to one or two of those instead, on the principle of "strike while the iron is hot" .
You might say I take these forum discussions way to seriously, and I'd probably blusgh and agree. Not saying everybody should. But to come back and find dismissive statements like "walkie's already made up her mind" and "Walkie being highly selective in her responses" (that's inevitable), well, that's going too far the other way, IMO. That shows that even my apologies were being completely overlooked.
Well, it's taken me maybe 90 mins hour to write this, and now 've missed the 6 O'clock news, because I didn't realise it was taking me this long. But that's about average for me. So it goes. Waste of time? I wouldn't assume as much, because I do value communication very highly . But yeah, right now I think is a waste of time , because certain people (notably Odeon) are just gonna skim read it , then instantly revert to whatever notion they had before I posted. That's not communication is it?
As for my attitude to Islam, if you really want a one-word summation (for what that's worth) I'd have to choose "ambivalent" from the range of one-word options available. I see reasons for concern , such as the widespread practice female genital mutilation, in modern Britain ;and the high incidence of homophobia in our Muslim communities; and -whilst entirely accepting that it's not that simple- I think it's just plain silly to just dismiss "Islam" as a causative factor, that just cripples discussion. Something like that should emerge as a concusion, not an initial premise; and you cannot and should not force that conclusion, not if you really want people to change their minds.
Dismissing such concerns as "Islamophia" isn't helping the moderate Muslims in the least; because usually , they are the victims. You might say, then, that it's none of my concern, but when these things happen in Britain (as they do) and run totally counter to British values , then they are rightly very much out concern. The moderate Muslims, the apostates, the homosexuals, the women, the children have the same right to protection that everybody else here does, and we are failing them.
I've tried to lead the discussion away from terrorism, and pretty much failed. Oh well, can blame myself there for not contributing as much as I'd like; or maybe for having an unusual view, in a world that appears to be obsesssed with terrorism. I dunno. But there it is.
-
From the Muslims I've talked to in this country, they seem to busy with hating "white people" and arelated too focused on attacking those who question immigration etc.
Female mutilation actually seems to be an African problem. Plenty of non Muslim countries in Africa where they have high rates of it. No one ever seems to moan about circumcision much, wonder why...
-
Thinking about this, I'm fairly sure this won't develop into an actual discussion. I thought it might but I was wrong. There's Al who is a dimwit and opposed on principle to everything I post after getting butthurt in a callout, there's Walkie who's already made up her mind, and there's Benji who does have the makings of an interesting perspective but who has trouble with his tinfoil hat getting in the way.
Al remains target practice, Walkie is being highly selective in her responses, Benji is being Benji, and me, I'm thinking there's got to be some paint I can watch dry. In other words, enjoy.
P.S. And Al just proved my point. Twice.
I think the main problem here (besides butthurt, ofc) is people reducing other people's perspectives to some ultra-simplistic statement that's easily dismissed, or countered. That said, I know some peopkle here are short on time , probably don't have time to carefully read other peoples' contributions. I have a similar problem, myself, in a way, but I do try to take things in properly, and if that means that I don;'t read all the threads I'd like to read, and don't make near so many replies as I'd like to, well so be it. The replies that I do make on issues like this one are normally carefully considered, if relatively sparse.
I've mentioned twice, in this very thread , that I'm not finding it easy to keep up, largely on account of neurological issues, though the aforementioned attempt to do justice to other people's posts would also be a factor, wouldn't it? I mentioned that for a reason, which I also made explicit: that is, I didn't want people to feel that i was ignoring some of their posts, nor mentally dismnissing them . I don't. Rather, I try to get an holistic view of other people's outlook., because one single statement, in isolation is relatively meaningless , isn't it?
As I 've gone along, I've mentally shelved quite a few things for "must respond to that point, later"; and I've also been thinking about a few things, on an ongoing basis. Sometimes, I come back to the thread , found d a rash of new posts, and then responded to one or two of those instead, on the principle of "strike while the iron is hot" .
You might say I take these forum discussions way to seriously, and I'd probably blusgh and agree. Not saying everybody should. But to come back and find dismissive statements like "walkie's already made up her mind" and "Walkie being highly selective in her responses" (that's inevitable), well, that's going too far the other way, IMO. That shows that even my apologies were being completely overlooked.
Well, it's taken me maybe 90 mins hour to write this, and now 've missed the 6 O'clock news, because I didn't realise it was taking me this long. But that's about average for me. So it goes. Waste of time? I wouldn't assume as much, because I do value communication very highly . But yeah, right now I think is a waste of time , because certain people (notably Odeon) are just gonna skim read it , then instantly revert to whatever notion they had before I posted. That's not communication is it?
As for my attitude to Islam, if you really want a one-word summation (for what that's worth) I'd have to choose "ambivalent" from the range of one-word options available. I see reasons for concern , such as the widespread practice female genital mutilation, in modern Britain ;and the high incidence of homophobia in our Muslim communities; and -whilst entirely accepting that it's not that simple- I think it's just plain silly to just dismiss "Islam" as a causative factor, that just cripples discussion. Something like that should emerge as a concusion, not an initial premise; and you cannot and should not force that conclusion, not if you really want people to change their minds.
Dismissing such concerns as "Islamophia" isn't helping the moderate Muslims in the least; because usually , they are the victims. You might say, then, that it's none of my concern, but when these things happen in Britain (as they do) and run totally counter to British values , then they are rightly very much out concern. The moderate Muslims, the apostates, the homosexuals, the women, the children have the same right to protection that everybody else here does, and we are failing them.
I've tried to lead the discussion away from terrorism, and pretty much failed. Oh well, can blame myself there for not contributing as much as I'd like; or maybe for having an unusual view, in a world that appears to be obsesssed with terrorism. I dunno. But there it is.
I always took the time to read you Walkie. Yes you are right. When in another country, either as a visitor (tourist), a refugee, an immigrant or a citizen you must obey that country's laws. It does not matter if my daughter goes to Qatar or Saudi Arabia and decides that she would prefer not to wear a headdress and cover up. Doesn't matter a damn. She better bloody well do it. It is their customs, their culture, their rules. But it goes the other way too. No one is required to be in any country. If one dislikes the societal norms, they have only to leave and try their luck somewhere else.
I do not see you obsessed with Terrorism , nor against Muslims, nor bigoted. I see you as thoughtful, pragmatic and insightful.
Odeon simply cannot see past his ideological filter. Use the word Muslim or Islam in ANY other way but a fawning praise and his blinders are on and he cannot see what you are saying no matter how neutral. He is looking to interpret it into the worst connotation he can so he can feel morally superior in confirming his own biases and shouting you down.
Sure its dishonest and and ironically immoral and it lends nothing to the conversation, but that is not his goal. His goal is purely the warm feeling up his leg when he believes he defends Muslims and to that end truth is irrelevant. He will convince himself that everyone but him is wrong. So, he is a base liar, intellectually dishonest and morally flawed.
You are okay by me though Walkie and your ideas seem perfectly reasonable
-
The US has always stepped on the UN's toes and always will. Israel bombed 7 UN shelters in Gaza in 2014, and Obomber just came out each day and said "Israel has the right to defend itself". Sure, things are starting to become a little more complex with Russia and China.
Russia haven't really tried much to control the Middle East before, apart from Afghanistan. Sure, this will strengthen Russia's relationship with Iran and Lebanon. Good. Hopefully Trump will stop the US's plan for the Middle East, but that will mean stopping Israel's. So things will get interesting if he lives.
China has been getting cozy with Russia for a while, and recently publicly offering allegiance against NATO and suggesting military alliances; Russia's friendly relationships with traditionally US middle eastern allies can't be discounted as a reason why. Representatives of China and Russia have also been recently elected to the top seats of Interpol. The UN has the US and EU putting on a big show so everyone looks at them, while ignoring the quiet ones.
"In ten years, the key to the new world order will be the tandem of Russia and China" -- Chairman Xi Jinping
-
Thinking about this, I'm fairly sure this won't develop into an actual discussion. I thought it might but I was wrong. There's Al who is a dimwit and opposed on principle to everything I post after getting butthurt in a callout, there's Walkie who's already made up her mind, and there's Benji who does have the makings of an interesting perspective but who has trouble with his tinfoil hat getting in the way.
Al remains target practice, Walkie is being highly selective in her responses, Benji is being Benji, and me, I'm thinking there's got to be some paint I can watch dry. In other words, enjoy.
P.S. And Al just proved my point. Twice.
I am not butthurt about a callout. Which callout and how and why?
The truth is that you have always taken the position that the Muslims have to be defended. That in itself is fine BUT the lengths you go to, to dismiss, disregard and shutdown any conversation around any talk that may in any way shine any Muslims in a poor light is ridiculous.
You are happy to be disingenuous and misrepresent and insult and be a condescending moral soapboxing prat BUT that gains your position NO credibility. None. At all.
Furthermore there ARE actual threats in the world (regardless of whether you wish to acknowledge them or not) which come from the greater Muslim community. That does NOT mean that all Muslims are bad or that everyone preaching Islam or practicing that religion are bad. That out of the way, these radical extremists all are Muslims and use the Islamic beliefs in respect to the harm they do.
In short the radical Muslim Extremists (such as ISIS) are Muslims not all radical Muslim extremists.
No one here really gives a damn about Moderate Muslims in our countries or throughout the world. We have friends who are Muslim. We know them as decent people and we presume the same within the hearts of other Moderate Muslims. So we are NOT anti-Muslim nor bigoted. We simply acknowledge a threat which you refuse to acknowledge. That threat is not Muslims but the radical Muslim Extremists in their midst.
You are unable to discuss that without trying your hardest to denounce these concerns and equate any discussion on this to the person you are talking to being anti-Muslim and bigoted and this fuels your moral high horsing as Muslim defender.
It is ONLY you Odeon. Of all of us, it is only you that is unable to see outside your bubble. You are fucking stupid and the fault does not lie with me, Benji or Walkie and nor the next person you spew your ideologically skewed narrative at.
Dimwit. Stop wasting bandwidth.
-
Benji is being Benji
I think I enjoy Benji's take on it the best. He's got this interesting approach that comes across like, Great Defender of Muslims!! Just Not in My Country!! It's like reading a conundrum personified, and I like that. :lol1:
He'd be an awesome schizophrenic.
-
But yeah, right now I think is a waste of time , because certain people (notably Odeon) are just gonna skim read it , then instantly revert to whatever notion they had before I posted. That's not communication is it?
And this you know, how? Because I disagree with you or because I think Al is a dimwit?
I know a fair bit about Islam. Call it an obsession of sorts, call it whatever you want, but the fact is that I've read up on it over time, not because I'm about to convert (I'd probably pick Catholicism for reasons outlined elsewhere if I'd have any reason to seriously consider the existence of a higher being) but because various facets of it have interested me at one time or another. Did you ever read the Quran or the Hadith (or rather, their translations)? I did. Did you ever look into why some Muslims might object when somebody images the Prophet, or who's actually done it in the past? I did. Or did you ever study maths or astronomy from an historical point of view and discover exactly how much we owe to them? I did.
Nowhere in this thread have I felt the need to use any of it. This one is not so much a discussion about Islam as it is an exercise in legitimising Islamophobia. It's not an exercise in understanding, it's an exercise in condemning.
-
Odeon simply cannot see past his ideological filter. Use the word Muslim or Islam in ANY other way but a fawning praise and his blinders are on and he cannot see what you are saying no matter how neutral. He is looking to interpret it into the worst connotation he can so he can feel morally superior in confirming his own biases and shouting you down.
Sure its dishonest and and ironically immoral and it lends nothing to the conversation, but that is not his goal. His goal is purely the warm feeling up his leg when he believes he defends Muslims and to that end truth is irrelevant. He will convince himself that everyone but him is wrong. So, he is a base liar, intellectually dishonest and morally flawed.
I think you use a filter whenever you read my posts, these days. Everything I say you interpret in whatever way you can think of that you think will insult me the most. Interestingly, many descriptions you got from me describing some of your replies to Zegh.
I think that speaks volumes of your butthurt, your inability to accept criticism.
...and this is where you will once again deny and deflect:
-
But yeah, right now I think is a waste of time , because certain people (notably Odeon) are just gonna skim read it , then instantly revert to whatever notion they had before I posted. That's not communication is it?
And this you know, how? Because I disagree with you or because I think Al is a dimwit?
No, i surely wouldn't expect anybody to agree with me all the time. It's because you project opinions onto me, based purely on the point-of-the-moment, disregarding any context i've already supplied elsewhere. And...but this isn't an exercise in Odeon -bashing, it really isn't'
I know a fair bit about Islam. Call it an obsession of sorts, call it whatever you want, but the fact is that I've read up on it over time, not because I'm about to convert (I'd probably pick Catholicism for reasons outlined elsewhere if I'd have any reason to seriously consider the existence of a higher being) but because various facets of it have interested me at one time or another. Did you ever read the Quran or the Hadith (or rather, their translations)? I did.
I know, because we discussed it before, and I clearly recall what you said, Not that I recall every discussion on this board in every detail (I don't have that sort of memory )but because I found that one particularly interesting. You've evidently forgotten my response, which was yes I've read the Quran, but not the Hadith (though have taken an interest in various discussions about them) . I didn't mention it, but I've also read quite a lot of Sufi literature (as that interests me rather more. if I converted to any branch Islam , i'd surely convert to Sufism; though really, the chances I'll convert to any religion are pretty slim). I've also looked into Muslim traditions such as fatwa (which seems pretty civilised , actually) in an effort to understand what's going wrong. I'd rather hoped to pick your brains a bit there, since you do have extensive knowledge of Islam; but if you won't wear the notion that things are going pear-shaped, then I can't find a way to phrase the kind of questions I wanted to ask.
Did you ever look into why some Muslims might object when somebody images the Prophet, or who's actually done it in the past? I did. Or did you ever study maths or astronomy from an historical point of view and discover exactly how much we owe to them? I did.
Yes, yes, yes and yes. I'm pretty sure i even said that Christians were the ignorant, marauding savages (or words to that effect) at one time. But Christianity is not above reproach is it? In most parts of the world, we are free to say what the helck we we like against Christianity, Jesus, and his various earthly representatives. Conversely, rather too many Muslims feel free to say that Christians (as well as moderate Muslims who wish Christians a happy Christmas. Especially those ) deserve to die, whilst bitterly complaining if other folk go so far as harmlessly mocking Islam. I see no point in discussing that turnaround if we're ruling out the hypothesis that doctrine plays some part in justifying the excesses of both populations; especially not on the simplistic grounds that one is as bad as the other, given the right circumstance. We'd have to (at very least) compare a number radically different religions such as Hinduism and Buddism, and see if their superficial appearance of being more easy-going and peaceful than the "People of the Book" holds water?
That's something I don't know, so I'm very much open to being educated there.
At present, it's my opinion that some religions are more dangerous than others, largely due to their authoritarian nature, .i.e, insistence on absolute faith, and obedience. I'd say that most Christian sects are more dangerous than most Muslim sects from that P.O.V., so that clearly isn't the whole story. That opinion isn;'t inflexible. I've been considering these issues, and refining my ideas, for 40 years; that's just a statement of my curent perspective; and derives as much from my study of Psychology as it does from my study of religion; plus personal experience of actual people , ofc (It's pretty silly to study people in the abstact, without checking your theories against the real thing)
I wouldn't acuse anyone else of being "prejudiced" or "stupid" however if their view was rather more simplistic than mine. we all have our "thing", after all. And there is too much information in the world for us to process it all. What people think is largely conditioned by where their attention is directed , isn't it? We all live in very different worlds from each other, because we all absorb different information sets, according to circumstance and personal interest. In particular, i don't find Al stupid, just because he disagrees with me about a lot of things (more often than you do, in fact ) And I don't find you stupid either, just too quick to dismiss other people's POV , or maybe simply too quick, period?
Nowhere in this thread have I felt the need to use any of it. This one is not so much a discussion about Islam as it is an exercise in legitimising Islamophobia. It's not an exercise in understanding, it's an exercise in condemning.
...in your opinion. I would suggest that you have a rather narrow definition of " Islamophobia" . i.e. , anything that's critical of Islam; and I'm sure you'd dismiss the thoughts of some of the Muslims of my aquaintaince on those exact same grounds...unless you knew they were Muslims? Though maybe you would say that they are not "true Muslims" if they are critical of Islam? And you might, indeed be right. But those people are nonetheless part of the Muslim community, and pay lip service to Islam, (maybe mostly because they'd rather not be disowned by their families)
Fear of Islam surely exists. But if people had some other phobia , say arachnophobia , would you call them rude names them for that, and tell them to shut up about it, for fear of "legitimisng" their fear? well, maybe you would, but that wouldn't work as therapy.
At present, In Britain, it's not so very long since you couldn't mock Christianity without Christians getting offended all over the place and saying that it shouldn't be allowed (that's well within living memory) We have same thing with Islam now, don't we? So we can't pretend to be superior , but still, we're just as determined to cling to our rights as before. I note that you agreed that the freedom to mock is important , Odeon. But the freedom to ask if this religion might be dangerous (or some Muslim sects might be dangerous. And oppressive) is taking that freedom too far? And why? Because you already reached a conclusion? And you believe that every other notion is stupid. People will only feel oppressed, or marginalised if you tell them what to think, won't they ?
-
But yeah, right now I think is a waste of time , because certain people (notably Odeon) are just gonna skim read it , then instantly revert to whatever notion they had before I posted. That's not communication is it?
And this you know, how? Because I disagree with you or because I think Al is a dimwit?
I know a fair bit about Islam. Call it an obsession of sorts, call it whatever you want, but the fact is that I've read up on it over time, not because I'm about to convert (I'd probably pick Catholicism for reasons outlined elsewhere if I'd have any reason to seriously consider the existence of a higher being) but because various facets of it have interested me at one time or another. Did you ever read the Quran or the Hadith (or rather, their translations)? I did. Did you ever look into why some Muslims might object when somebody images the Prophet, or who's actually done it in the past? I did. Or did you ever study maths or astronomy from an historical point of view and discover exactly how much we owe to them? I did.
Nowhere in this thread have I felt the need to use any of it. This one is not so much a discussion about Islam as it is an exercise in legitimising Islamophobia. It's not an exercise in understanding, it's an exercise in condemning.
No it isn't. We do not fear Islam. Nor do we fear Muslims. You still do not get that, after it has been repeated over and over.
We do NOT like radical Muslim extremists and not liking them is NOT Islamophobia. Its not. Only someone who is really, really stupid, would not get that point by now.
Why don't you?
-
Odeon simply cannot see past his ideological filter. Use the word Muslim or Islam in ANY other way but a fawning praise and his blinders are on and he cannot see what you are saying no matter how neutral. He is looking to interpret it into the worst connotation he can so he can feel morally superior in confirming his own biases and shouting you down.
Sure its dishonest and and ironically immoral and it lends nothing to the conversation, but that is not his goal. His goal is purely the warm feeling up his leg when he believes he defends Muslims and to that end truth is irrelevant. He will convince himself that everyone but him is wrong. So, he is a base liar, intellectually dishonest and morally flawed.
I think you use a filter whenever you read my posts, these days. Everything I say you interpret in whatever way you can think of that you think will insult me the most. Interestingly, many descriptions you got from me describing some of your replies to Zegh.
I think that speaks volumes of your butthurt, your inability to accept criticism.
...and this is where you will once again deny and deflect:
You have been told over and over NOT JUST by myself, but by others that you are not correct. So it is hardly my filter. The subject matter seems to be the same. You go into defence mode whenever anyone discusses Islam or Muslims either individually or specific groups of Muslims or generally. It does not matter. If it is not in glowing terms you climb up your moral soapbox.
As for me being butthurt? By what now? It is a charge you have made consistently over the last 6 months at least. It seems a little disingenuous. Someone being butthurt generally is used to describe someone "triggered" and very upset over something. It tends to be an event or a situational type thing. Making that claim a minute after an event, a day, a week is all perfectly fine. More than six months in you have worn out the strands of credulity. Maybe try a different tact.
I am not deflecting and I generally don't I tend to answer whatever charges made and in a blunt and longwinded fashion, as is my want. So its again very disingenuous of you to cite that I would deflect and as for me denying....You are not stupid enough to believe I would agree to lies about me? I do not intend to start even to placate your fragile ego. Jackass.
-
There's been an obsession with Islam since 2001. Even EDL types seem to have read parts of the Quran. All stemed by the bullshit that we were attacked by just radical Islam because they hated our freedom.
-
Oh! Al, you really don't make a lot of sense, on occasion. But, then I've noticed that those times when you're not making sense are the same times when your struggle with dyslexia is most evident (And not only in the finished product. I've noticed you tidy up your posts after posting, sometimes. I do the same! ) So you get extra Brownie points from me for fighting against some kind of handicap (presumably) even when you're coming through crystal clear. I should think it costs you extra effort (as compared with some other members) to completely overcome it, as you often do. And I just shrug off the senseless bits.
I hope you're not offended by my saying so? I'm dyslexic as well, after all. And I know I sometimes say senseless things, too , when my brain starts misfiring (I do hope that's mostly confined to whilst I'm talking myself :LOL: Yeah, i do a lot of that, cos I need to rehearse things in my head before I commit them to the page or soundwaves. I'd talk a load of half-baked gibberish, or just deliver a big perplexed silence , otherwise)
-
There's been an obsession with Islam since 2001. Even EDL types seem to have read parts of the Quran. All stemed by the bullshit that we were attacked by just radical Islam because they hated our freedom.
I sould think that EDL types who've read parts of the Quran were probably looking for ammunition. I should think that people who've read the whole thing (as I did, and long before 2001) were genuinely trying to get an Islamic persective . My own main motivation was a general interest in comparative religion. I've read the Bible too (including the really tedious bits) numerous Buddhist texts, expositions on Christan Gnoticism , Jehova's Witness tracts , etc.
In any case, i wouldn't knock people for trying to educate themselves rather than base their opinion on assumptions.
-
My thoughts on Islam
One problem with Islam , I feel, is that this pefect man, beloved of God, Mohammed was also a jihadist who converted people at the point of a sword, and who married a 7-year-old girl . That must make an argument to the effect that a "true Muslim" is a Jihadist paedophile pretty persuasive , IMO. *wince *
Of course thise things were entirely normal in Mohammed's time, and not only in the Middle East. Indeed , He was enlightened in many respects, and exerted a civilising influence on his followers. If we lived back in Mohamnmed's time, the chances are we would have done worse things than he did.
Luckily for we Westerners, Jesus of Nazereth , the "only begotten son of God" (as most Christan sects have it) did nothing that offends our modern sensibilities (or at least, it wasn't recorded if he did) . I shudder to think what kind of atrocities Christians would commit, in his name , if Jesus had done anything outrageous. There have been enough Christian atrocities already, without that kind of encouragement.
At least Mohammed was not begotten by God. Muslims find that very idea sacrilegious.
(The following based on my understanding of fatwa , which is admittedly thin, so correct me if wrong ) Fortunately for Islam, any individual Imam is fee to interpret the Moslem scriptures according to his own judgement, within certain , fairly harmless strictures , And his fatwa (his judgement on a given question ) isn't binding. If you don't like what he says, you are free to go find another Imam , and get as many second opinions as you like. Sounds good to me...but then again that would also mean that some nutter who felt that God was telling him to kill the infidel, could find a cleric who supported that view , if he only looked around for long enough . In the age of the Internet, that would likely be easy. I do wonder if that might be factor in increased Muslim aggression in recent years ? Access to the internet . (That's not to deny other factors)
One thing I really like abput Islam is lack of hierarchical structure, and that it's relatively short on creed. That should make it relatively easy for Islam to evolve into more "modern" forms, shouldn't it? But I can't help wondering if this thing that i admire might be part of the problem, in effect? I surely don't want to think that, but Idon't expect the truth to always be comfortable
I'm not putting the above forward as an opinion, just an hypothesis. But I wouldn't rule it out, lightly. (because I don't lightly rule out any hypothesis, on any subject whatsoever, that's just how I am. And the more important the suject, the more I try to remain open-minded.)
Anyway, the above is what I mean (or part of what I mean) when i say that Islamic ideology might be part of the problem, rather than purely incidental , as some assert.
I'm not sure I would ever be willing to make any definite assertion either way. But I would be willing to act on my best educated guess, if some kind of action (or inaction) were called for. Wouldn't we all? I don't believe in Absolute Truth , as such. I believe that the best the human mind can manage is a series of ever-closer approximations to reality. And given the limitations of our god-given (or nature-given) hardware , I don't imagine that woulld ever amount to a very near approximation. We don't get to be absolutely right about anything at all , but we do get to make decisions , so we'd better give everything our best, our most sincere shot, and be willing to find out that we were wrong. Being wrong is just a natural, human state of affairs , nothing to be ashamed of, nor to fear.
I'm sure my analysis above misses loads of relevant observations. I know what some of them are (but I don't want to write an encyclop[edia) , and there are surely loads of things I don't know too, maybe things that will totally sway my opinion when somebody points them out.
In any case, there's much more than just ideology going on in anybody's mind, I know i know, and maybe ideology is the least compelling factor? If I put the spotlight on Islamic Ideology, and ignore the rest, for the moment, that's not to deny the rest, just that I wouldn't try to say everything at once, cos that's impossible. (I don't believe I felt the need to explain that. It's stating the obvious , isn't it? )
Of course various military operations, by Western powers, in the Middle East might be sufficient to explain present-day Muslim aggression against the West. Maybe it might even explain Muslim aggression against other Muslim factions. But it doesn't follow that it has to be that simple and straightforward, does it? More to the point, I don't see how that explains the really backward practices of some Muslim people such as forced marriage and female genital mutilation. You have to turn to Sociology and/or religious ideology to try to explain that sort of thing; and I don't really think you can seperate those two . Organised religion, in general, looks to me rather more like a social force than a spiritual force (whatever that means) ; you can't blame social forces, yet absolve religion , not in that light; And you can't rationally blame individual people, either way. Why do people keep accusing other people of that? What percentage of us are really that stupid?
I don't even see the point in assigning blame, as such. That's a meaningless comncept, IMO. when i look at problemn like that , I'm always wondering: what needs to be changed to make things come out better? Not that I have the chance to change things ion any significant scale, if at all, but I do fel it;'s best to develop a habit of thinking constructively, nonetheless, and my experience is that solutions emerge (if they emerge at all) from accurate definitions of problems, so that's what I attempt to do, first and foremost. Again , i'm stating the obvious, aren't I? Sorry. But sometimes it somehow seems like the obvious needs stating, after all.
-
In most parts of the world, we are free to say what the helck we we like against Christianity, Jesus, and his various earthly representatives. Conversely, rather too many Muslims feel free to say that Christians (as well as moderate Muslims who wish Christians a happy Christmas. Especially those ) deserve to die, whilst bitterly complaining if other folk go so far as harmlessly mocking Islam.
It sort of makes sense to me. I don't think saying that Christians deserve to die, and also saying that Islam shouldn't be mocked, is hypocritical behavior. Laughter takes the piss out of anger. It looks the same on a simple level between two arguing humans, and as a theme of a philosophical conflict.
I think you're onto something about how it used to be that way with Christianity and taking its symbols in vain (Marilyn Manson comes to mind, as one of many). Now Christianity is less of an integral part of Western mainstream culture than it was a couple decades ago, or even a century. Interestingly, the more devout Christians have become more segregated, both in social circles and geographically. Look at the geographical distributions of red (Republican) vs blue (Democratic) states in 1900, vs 1988, vs this past election. It's dramatically different, and not just urban vs rural.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/1900nationwidecountymapshadedbyvoteshare.svg/500px-1900nationwidecountymapshadedbyvoteshare.svg.png)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/1988nationwidecountymapshadedbyvoteshare.svg/500px-1988nationwidecountymapshadedbyvoteshare.svg.png)
(https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/2016/11/01/election-map-forms/738e8fe0f4e6d89ec6cb63555d3deb92e772f916/counties.png)
It would be interesting to see a map of Islamic areas on a scale of moderate to extreme. Would it be a question of large areas, even whole countries, showing as extreme as the north/south political divide in the USA in 1900, or would there be scattered dense pockets of extremism, or would it be the moderate communities that were scattered into dense pockets?
-
Am not sure what's supposed to be conveyed about Christians by those maps. The 1900 map makes sense because the whole north/south political divide of the times. Below are maps of the three elections following the 1988 one posted above.
Here's a map of the 1992 democrat winning election.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/1992nationwidecountymapshadedbyvoteshare.svg/500px-1992nationwidecountymapshadedbyvoteshare.svg.png)
This is a map of the 1996 democrat winning election.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/1996nationwidecountymapshadedbyvoteshare.svg/500px-1996nationwidecountymapshadedbyvoteshare.svg.png)
This is a map of the 2000 republican winning election.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/2000nationwidecountymapshadedbyvoteshare.svg/500px-2000nationwidecountymapshadedbyvoteshare.svg.png)
-
But yeah, right now I think is a waste of time , because certain people (notably Odeon) are just gonna skim read it , then instantly revert to whatever notion they had before I posted. That's not communication is it?
And this you know, how? Because I disagree with you or because I think Al is a dimwit?
No, i surely wouldn't expect anybody to agree with me all the time. It's because you project opinions onto me, based purely on the point-of-the-moment, disregarding any context i've already supplied elsewhere. And...but this isn't an exercise in Odeon -bashing, it really isn't'
If I missed a context I should have been aware of, I apologise--I don't read everything here, and I don't always read them in a suitable order.
I could say that for Al, it's exactly what it is. Pick just about any thread, including this one.
I know a fair bit about Islam. Call it an obsession of sorts, call it whatever you want, but the fact is that I've read up on it over time, not because I'm about to convert (I'd probably pick Catholicism for reasons outlined elsewhere if I'd have any reason to seriously consider the existence of a higher being) but because various facets of it have interested me at one time or another. Did you ever read the Quran or the Hadith (or rather, their translations)? I did.
I know, because we discussed it before, and I clearly recall what you said,
Honestly, while I remember the discussions, I don't always remember who participated. Sorry about that, too. :-[
Not that I recall every discussion on this board in every detail (I don't have that sort of memory )but because I found that one particularly interesting. You've evidently forgotten my response, which was yes I've read the Quran, but not the Hadith (though have taken an interest in various discussions about them) .
I have a vague recollection of it. You should read it. The two are rather different from one another.
I didn't mention it, but I've also read quite a lot of Sufi literature (as that interests me rather more. if I converted to any branch Islam , i'd surely convert to Sufism; though really, the chances I'll convert to any religion are pretty slim).
Why, if I may ask?
I've also looked into Muslim traditions such as fatwa (which seems pretty civilised , actually) in an effort to understand what's going wrong.
So is Jihad, but it depends so much on the Imam, and if I were to point at a problem, that's where I would start.
I'd rather hoped to pick your brains a bit there, since you do have extensive knowledge of Islam; but if you won't wear the notion that things are going pear-shaped, then I can't find a way to phrase the kind of questions I wanted to ask.
I don't think it's the religion itself but rather some of its branches. Look at the contexts in which groups like ISIS/Daesh or Boko Haram can thrive. They depend on an authoritarian model, one where an Imam will have influence far beyond prayer. Pretty sure I posted about this sort of thing some time ago.
The religion as such is no worse or better than Christianity. They have a lot in common but Christianity *as a religion* is far less dominant among its followers today, likely because of our relative advances in science, technology, and so on. The opposite could easily have been true if some things had ended differently.
Did you ever look into why some Muslims might object when somebody images the Prophet, or who's actually done it in the past? I did. Or did you ever study maths or astronomy from an historical point of view and discover exactly how much we owe to them? I did.
Yes, yes, yes and yes. I'm pretty sure i even said that Christians were the ignorant, marauding savages (or words to that effect) at one time. But Christianity is not above reproach is it?
Of course not, but when comparing the two religions, some take the rather simplistic view that since we (meaning Christians in name if not in actual beliefs) accept Jesus being caricaturised, they should accept the same happening to the Prophet.
And while I'd defend Charlie Hebdo's right to do it, I don't think the comparison is fair at all. It's about if you always should just because you can; while it may be your right to step up to Mike Tyson and tell him, to his face, that he is ugly, it is probably not the wisest move you can make. Freedom of speech won't help you much when they patch your face together again.
In most parts of the world, we are free to say what the helck we we like against Christianity, Jesus, and his various earthly representatives.
Yes, but to no small part because most of us aren't very religious OR have that kind of tradition. And still, do you remember the debates caused by Life of Brian some 35 years ago? Norway, of all countries, banned it. It's not that long ago. Go back a few more decades and things were very different.
Conversely, rather too many Muslims feel free to say that Christians (as well as moderate Muslims who wish Christians a happy Christmas. Especially those ) deserve to die, whilst bitterly complaining if other folk go so far as harmlessly mocking Islam. I see no point in discussing that turnaround if we're ruling out the hypothesis that doctrine plays some part in justifying the excesses of both populations; especially not on the simplistic grounds that one is as bad as the other, given the right circumstance. We'd have to (at very least) compare a number radically different religions such as Hinduism and Buddism, and see if their superficial appearance of being more easy-going and peaceful than the "People of the Book" holds water?
That's something I don't know, so I'm very much open to being educated there.
I've been thinking about learning Sanskrit, actually, because of that whole literary tradition associated with Hinduism, but I never seem to have the time.
Many people claim Buddhism to be the only world religion to never start a war but that's probably not entirely true--Sri Lanka comes to mind--but I don't know enough about it.
At present, it's my opinion that some religions are more dangerous than others, largely due to their authoritarian nature, .i.e, insistence on absolute faith, and obedience. I'd say that most Christian sects are more dangerous than most Muslim sects from that P.O.V., so that clearly isn't the whole story.
But is it the religion or the leaders? The same religion that urges us to turn the other cheek proposes some pretty horrific things elsewhere in the same book. It's the religion that brought us the Inquisition and only recently, close to 400 years after the fact, admitted that this Galileo fellow may have been somewhat unjustly treated. I'm betting that most people didn't as much as notice and wouldn't have cared if they had.
And only last week did the Pope authorise his priests to forgive an abortion--conditionally, of course--after a trial run of a year.
Islam is no different but I would say that their context and timing both are.
That opinion isn;'t inflexible. I've been considering these issues, and refining my ideas, for 40 years; that's just a statement of my curent perspective; and derives as much from my study of Psychology as it does from my study of religion; plus personal experience of actual people , ofc (It's pretty silly to study people in the abstact, without checking your theories against the real thing)
I wouldn't acuse anyone else of being "prejudiced" or "stupid" however if their view was rather more simplistic than mine. we all have our "thing", after all. And there is too much information in the world for us to process it all. What people think is largely conditioned by where their attention is directed , isn't it? We all live in very different worlds from each other, because we all absorb different information sets, according to circumstance and personal interest. In particular, i don't find Al stupid, just because he disagrees with me about a lot of things (more often than you do, in fact ) And I don't find you stupid either, just too quick to dismiss other people's POV , or maybe simply too quick, period?
Maybe. ;)
But you do know that whatever it's between me and Al (or Benji) has little to do with this, right? I don't call them stupid because they disagree with me.
Nowhere in this thread have I felt the need to use any of it. This one is not so much a discussion about Islam as it is an exercise in legitimising Islamophobia. It's not an exercise in understanding, it's an exercise in condemning.
...in your opinion. I would suggest that you have a rather narrow definition of " Islamophobia" . i.e. , anything that's critical of Islam; and I'm sure you'd dismiss the thoughts of some of the Muslims of my aquaintaince on those exact same grounds...unless you knew they were Muslims?
Maybe, maybe not, but we probably won't ever find out how I'd react. You're free to have your theories, of course, but the likelihood is that I'd be silent.
I don't define Islamophobia as "anything critical of Islam", no. I do define it as extremely bigoted and Islamophobic to support Trump's Muslim ban at the US borders or his Muslim register, however. In my book, if you support a bigot's bigoted views you are a bigot. End of.
That's the kind of thing I am talking about. The kind about assigning blame.
Though maybe you would say that they are not "true Muslims" if they are critical of Islam? And you might, indeed be right. But those people are nonetheless part of the Muslim community, and pay lip service to Islam, (maybe mostly because they'd rather not be disowned by their families)
Why are you speculating about what I might say?
Fear of Islam surely exists. But if people had some other phobia , say arachnophobia , would you call them rude names them for that, and tell them to shut up about it, for fear of "legitimisng" their fear? well, maybe you would, but that wouldn't work as therapy.
At present, In Britain, it's not so very long since you couldn't mock Christianity without Christians getting offended all over the place and saying that it shouldn't be allowed (that's well within living memory) We have same thing with Islam now, don't we? So we can't pretend to be superior , but still, we're just as determined to cling to our rights as before. I note that you agreed that the freedom to mock is important , Odeon. But the freedom to ask if this religion might be dangerous (or some Muslim sects might be dangerous. And oppressive) is taking that freedom too far?
No, it's not. You have every right to think so, just as I have every right to disagree. I think, and I tend to state this rather strongly, that it's not the religion, it's the people. Yes, sects. That's where things can get authoritarian, when only a few have the power to interpret the writings.
(The classic example here is that like most people, I haven't actually read the Quran, I have read a translation of it. If you want to read the real thing, you need to not only learn a language and a writing system, but also make sure you have the cultural and historical context. That's where things tend to get dangerous.)
And why? Because you already reached a conclusion? And you believe that every other notion is stupid. People will only feel oppressed, or marginalised if you tell them what to think, won't they ?
It is their right to disagree with anything and everything I say, and call me whatever they want, just as it is mine. But I don't think I've been calling everyone stupid, have I? Al, yes. Benji, yes. Others?
-
Walkie and Al. You should watch this
https://youtu.be/LOTiuszCl0c
-
You absolutely call me stupid for not having the same view as you. In your mind you have the "right views". That impenetrable viewpoint is not something that ought to be encouraged.
As for whether a freeze on Muslim immigration is bigoted, it depends entirely on the reasoning and not just the effects. I have made the case for this not being a xenophobic desire (ie IF very real and practical vetting procedures are fixed and people can get identified, then this would not hold up immigration on these grounds) and that the danger expressed is an ACTUAL danger, HAS been qualified and quantified, NEEDS upgrading, that there is NO OTHER way of EFFECTIVELY dealing with the issue, and that this says nothing terrible of Muslims as a whole but rather it is a national Security and Border Protection problem in their midst.
Proof of what I say actually comes from YOU funny enough. When it is put to you that there IS an actual problem and that the vetting problems are proved not to be able to be able to identify the people that they are letting in AND that the intelligence services of the country KNOW for a fact that the refugees coming in will be infused with ISIS and other radicalised Muslim Extremists..... (and all of this is known) what do YOU say with the question "If the refugee Muslims cannot be identified and the Muslim radical Extremists cannot be identified and vetted in that group coming in AND we do not know the numbers or intent of those radical Muslim Extremists, apart from "Just let them in" What ELSE do you propose?"
If you are stupid and ideologically blinded enough to say both Nothing OR degrees of there is no real danger OR But you cannot, not let them in because their welfare is more important that the well-being of the citizens who will be potentially taking on whatever threat is slipped in, with that intake, then you lose.
Your position in any one of the above cases is immoral and impractical and illogical.
The counter to your position is practical, logical and NOT bigoted.
A bigoted position would be "We do not like this brown skinned people. They can't make America Great Again. All Muslims are bad. Let's ban them on a whim." That is not what is happening and only an idiot would fine difficulties distinguishing an ACTUAL bigoted position from a position that is not. THAT is precisely where you are failing.
Its because you are stupid.
As I keep mentioning. We get boatpeople coming to Australia all the time and we ban them from the mainland and put them in detention centres until we work out who they are, where they are from and what threat they represent. Now our Prime Minister has said IF you sneak in without coming through the normal channels you have no pathway to citizenship. You will be deported.
National Security and Border Protection. Has not stopped us allowing immigrants to make Australia their home but they cannot sneak in without us knowing who they are or where they are coming from.
It is not black and white.
-
Am not sure what's supposed to be conveyed about Christians by those maps.
Looking for patterns and interesting contradictions.
-
Am not sure what's supposed to be conveyed about Christians by those maps.
Looking for patterns and interesting contradictions.
Those Wikipedia county maps are actually pretty awesome. Got a bit obsessed looking at them, especially opening each one in separate tabs and then clicking the succession to watch them change. Even made an animated composite image of maps for the last 100 years of elections. It's impressive, like watching a pulse, the historical political pulse of a nation. If anything the maps speak more what DirtDawg was saying about the pendulum effect of the two party system. The image is too big to attach here, so can't share it.
-
Am not sure what's supposed to be conveyed about Christians by those maps.
Looking for patterns and interesting contradictions.
Those Wikipedia county maps are actually pretty awesome. Got a bit obsessed looking at them, especially opening each one in separate tabs and then clicking the succession to watch them change. Even made an animated composite image of maps for the last 100 years of elections. It's impressive, like watching a pulse, the historical political pulse of a nation. If anything the maps speak more what DirtDawg was saying about the pendulum effect of the two party system. The image is too big to attach here, so can't share it.
Can I see it? E-mail it to me?
-
Am not sure what's supposed to be conveyed about Christians by those maps.
Looking for patterns and interesting contradictions.
Ask not what the point of an Aspie looking at maps is, Jack . Any old excuse will do. Even I, with my visual-spatial processing issues , have a fatal attraction for maps and have a stack of Ordnance Survey maps on my bookshelves, despite that my excuse that they are useful for navigation when rambling completely ceased to hold water a decade ago (and that most of them cover parts of Britain that I've only ever rambled through once, if that). If my brain can't retain that sort of information very well, and I instantly forget what I was looking at, well, hey! that just makes the map more fresh and interesting next time I look, doesn't it? :LOL:
Hmm , my erstwhile habit of rambling was mostly about getting more close-up and intimate with those intriguing lines on the maps, if I'm honest.
Oh! I also hacve one or twwo serious replies to this thread in the pipeline, btw. ( Just in case anybody cares )
-
Ask not what the point of an Aspie looking at maps is, Jack . Any old excuse will do.
Wasn't really asking why she was looking at the maps, but rather trying to understand what she was saying about them.
-
E-mail it to me?
This isn't the droid you're looking for.
-
E-mail it to me?
This isn't the droid you're looking for.
:bacon:
-
I didn't mention it, but I've also read quite a lot of Sufi literature (as that interests me rather more. if I converted to any branch Islam , i'd surely convert to Sufism; though really, the chances I'll convert to any religion are pretty slim).
Why, if I may ask?
Hey Odeon! Well, I picked out this easy-but-interesting (as I perceived it ) question to answer first….and wound up writing a freaking essay. My excuse is umm, umm…complete-and-utter-lack -of-self-discipline.
If I don’t get round to responding to the other bits it’s her fault *finger pointing squarely at self, though the speaker is psychologically complex enough to self-righteously dissociate self from culprit. Aren’t we all? But *phew* that’s lucky, isn’t it? (If only I didn’t ruin the act with a tad too much self-honesty)
So anyway, Ask an Aspie a question and you will sometimes get a painfully detailed Aspie answer, won;’t you? Ooh that’s better. That makes it your fault, now :green:. Here goes:
Re. Sufism:
I’ve found a lot of consonance between Sufism , and various other spitritual disciplines I’ve looked into closely ( notably Buddhism and Radhaswami, an offshoot of Sikhism) the emphasis being on the quest for individual enlightenment; which I feel to be the true heart of religion. I’ve tended to get the impression that “Mohammed” in Sufism serves as a symbol for human perfection (in much the same way as “Buddha” does for Buddhists ) , and that the historical personage Mohammed, author of the Quran, is largely incidental (I'm sure some indeterminate number of Sufis would quarrel about that though)
On the other hand, I have reservations about all religion, in that it respresents a formalisation of a belief system, which tends to displace and efface it’s own spiritual core. That’s more appealing to most people, because it’s simpler to grasp, and less challenging. But it can wind up incorporating, and justifying our regular human weaknesses, IMO, rather than improving us. I think that genuine spirituality tends to focus on undermining the ego, wheras Religion, conversely, becomes an integral part of the ego., such that defending those beliefs becomes synonymous with ego-defence.
That might actually amount to a positive approach for some people, notably children (given that their egos are still developing,. And the ego is not a bad thing in itself, but an integral, essential, part of the psyche) . I wouldn’t altogether knock it, But still…
I’ve tended to focus on disciplines that fit into the former category rather better than than the big organised religions, not that there’s any clear boundary, e,g, Radhaswami’s claim to be a “faith, not a religion” had now eroded to the point that it’s laughable t those who’ve left the faith or (as in my case) never wholly got into it. The spiritual master is all-too-clearly worshipped by the majority of his followers , rsther than actually followed. That would seem to be the inevitable price of making too many converts . Plus the usual thing of corruption , of course.
It seemes to me that the concepts represented by the various religious symbolism are universal in nature, Those concepts very much interest me, but my attitude to the symbolism is ambivalent and somewhat iconoclasitic. (by which I mean that destroying a statue of Buddha might actually be be appropriate, IMO, if that brings about a realisation, along the lines, that the icon is nothing but a pretty chunk of stone; but in most instances, like the one DD cited, it’s just pure vandalism, of course, committed in the name of some rival iconography.
Islamic iconography? I note that Islam is explicitly aniconic -one up for Islam- but in this sense, the Quran is an icon, the Mosque is an icon , Mecca is an icon. People will raise up icons, no stopping them. Buddha Shakyamuni also spoke against graven images, and what do his followers do about that? They make millions of Buddha statues, and proceed to worship them. It’s really funny, and human, and surely completely forgivable, But it can calcify your mind , if you invest too much in it,
I’ll probably go on calling myself a Buddhist (though I broke with the Buddist tradition I once followed, and never got around to replacing it)because Buddhism seems to come closest to directly expressing my POV that that the symbols, the doctrines, the gods etc that we revere are simply aspects of wn minds, and not always constructive aspects, unfortunately. That is, it doesn’t take it’s own iconography too seriously, usuall,. Buddhists , just like I2 denizens, have something of a penchant for taking the piss out of themselves.
By contrast, someone who makes himself subservient to some negative aspect of his own ego, and calls that aspect “God” (or some atheist equivalent ) becomes a holy terror, a jihadist, a mindless vandal, a raving bigot. I think Buddhism is relatively safe from all that. Buddhists don’t even mention “God” do they?
Obviously, there’s an aspect of “horses for courses” to all that. I was intrigued by the POV of some Mahayanist Buddist monks I spoke with . They justified spouting a load of mumbo jumbo that they obviously didn’t really believe , by pointing ourt that the symbolism and the rhetoric are self-deconstrcting as you progrees along the path; and they wwre teaching a beginners class , after all. Hmm, I;’m srtill thinking about that. I can halfway buy that logic, but I eventually broke with that Tradition, nonetheless…because I caught a strong whiff of curruption in the leadership, along with an inappropriate materialism. Those monks with whom I spoke were entirely sincere, though, and it had clearly been an entirely positive influence on them …thus far ( I have reason think they also quit eventually )
What;’s more, as it later transpired, that sect appear to have been invloved in a plot to assassinate the Dalai Llama, But nevermind who exactly was behind it that plot (they were defunitely Buddhists of some sort)that kibnd of thing goes to show that Buddhism is not altogether pacifistic in practice ; too much depends on it’s all-too-human representatives, just as you’d expect. Don’t expect to find actual perfection, in this neck of the Universe, not if human minds have anything to do with it :D
“The heart of Mahayanism is Zen” those monks told me; and some would say “the heart of Islam is Sufism” . Those two statements sound pretty much equivalent to me. But what if Zen is suffused with self-defeating intellectual vanity , and Mahayanism isn’t? (just some other forms of corruption). What’s the “right path” then? Sufism? Hmm, I doubt it. I doubt there’s any such thing as “right path” as such.
Well hey ! I guess one might as well identify as simply one’s own, evidently fallible little self; and clearly not much of a follower at all, personally speaking. Being a humble little follower is just one more of those things that I've tried and tried and tried, and repeatedly failed at :LOL:
I don’t “convert” to anything at all , not really, just sincerely query, then quietly back off. Way back in my teens , I really wanted to subsume my own Ego in Religion (being somewhat afflicted with self-loathing) but my efforts to do so repeatedly failed ; and now I’m coming to see that as more of a symptom of sincerity than a fault, as such.
If the goal really is enlightment, whether spiritual, intellectual or otherwise, then you can’t usefully abandon your intitial perspective, but rather repeatedly expand it; you can’t leap wholesale into somebody else’s perspective, but rather combine it with your own to create some kind of synergy. The blinkers need to be slowly eroded, not expanded in new directions.
-
Walkie and Al. You should watch this
https://youtu.be/LOTiuszCl0c
Interesting vid. The content does not surprise me very much , I'm afraid. I think it's all too obvious that American foreign policy (and not only in America, nor only foreign policy, come to that) is actually driven by the interests of Big Industry, never mind what kind of ideology is spouted. Money talks , just like they say.
The Qutari Muslims are also over-influential , for much the same reason, I assume.
Obviously the vid is a follow up to your earlier post.
Has anyone uttered a word why Muslims might be 'prejudiced' against non-Muslims? Does anyone actually think they hate us 'becozzz werrr freeee'? We've been destroying the Middle East for decades, blocking democracy and supporting brutal regimes as well as stealing their resources and blowing them up. But when we do it, we don't call it terrorism. Does anyone actually believe the narrative that we went into Afghanistan to 'liberate women', to find Bin Laden and knock out Al Qaeda and the Taliban? When the US supported Jihadists in the 80's that threw acid into women's faces, they never charged Bin Laden with 9/11 and the US supports Al Qaeda. Or went into Iraq because Saddam had connections with Al Qaeda, and because he was a horrible person and because we love democracy so much? When this was all a lie spewed out from Israeli intelligence, and we supported Saddam through his worst crimes.
Did anyone think it would be a good idea to flood the West with people from the Middle East while we destroyed the Middle East?
The establishment have done this intentionally, they're not that stupid. They want people to support their wars against the Muslim world and support Israel.
I don't think I got back to you on that? but I do pretty much agree with you here.
I also can't help agreeing with the common Muslim perspective that the West (loosely speaking) is morally bankrupt. The trouble is ( from my POV) that what they're trying to replace it with something just as morally bankrupt in it's own way. And in our own country, Jihadism isn't really the big issue, IMO The backward practices like FGM that some Muslims bring with them are the really big issue; along with our inability to get a grip on all that, and exert a "civilising" influence. (I very much hesitate to use that word. It's condescending, but nonetheless appropriate in this context, I'm afraid )
Oh! why did you adress yourself to Al and myself , specifically? No biggie, just wondering.
-
Walkie-
That's good that the video doesn't surprise you then. Was just posting it also because all the talk about "radical" Muslims, we see that they get support from the US. ISIS and other groups are driving around in Toyota trucks and using weapons supplied by the US too, or from Turkey.
As I also said though, FGM isn't a Muslim problem or just a Muslim problem. It mainly is an African problem, but we aren't allowed to protest against Africans coming here.
Because I thought you and him would watch the video and find it interesting. People like Odeon have made it clear on numerous occasions they aren't a fan of evidence that proves them wrong.
-
As I also said though, FGM isn't a Muslim problem or just a Muslim problem. It mainly is an African problem, but we aren't allowed to protest against Africans coming here.
.
I know that. I just gave it as an example. There are issues like forced marriage that go way beyond Africa, though also way beyond Muslim communities. We've been looking at that one for decades, haven't we? It was brought here by people from the Indian sub-continent. My impression is that the Muslim communities have stubbornly clung to such practices , wheras the Sikhs and Hindus have...integrated more , shall we say?
One thing people outside Britain don't ever seem to realise is that our Sikhs , Hindus and other minorities are as worried by Islam as the white people are. Especially the Sikhs and Hindus indeed (just look at India's history!)
-
You absolutely call me stupid for not having the same view as you. In your mind you have the "right views". That impenetrable viewpoint is not something that ought to be encouraged.
As for whether a freeze on Muslim immigration is bigoted, it depends entirely on the reasoning and not just the effects. I have made the case for this not being a xenophobic desire (ie IF very real and practical vetting procedures are fixed and people can get identified, then this would not hold up immigration on these grounds) and that the danger expressed is an ACTUAL danger, HAS been qualified and quantified, NEEDS upgrading, that there is NO OTHER way of EFFECTIVELY dealing with the issue, and that this says nothing terrible of Muslims as a whole but rather it is a national Security and Border Protection problem in their midst.
Proof of what I say actually comes from YOU funny enough. When it is put to you that there IS an actual problem and that the vetting problems are proved not to be able to be able to identify the people that they are letting in AND that the intelligence services of the country KNOW for a fact that the refugees coming in will be infused with ISIS and other radicalised Muslim Extremists..... (and all of this is known) what do YOU say with the question "If the refugee Muslims cannot be identified and the Muslim radical Extremists cannot be identified and vetted in that group coming in AND we do not know the numbers or intent of those radical Muslim Extremists, apart from "Just let them in" What ELSE do you propose?"
If you are stupid and ideologically blinded enough to say both Nothing OR degrees of there is no real danger OR But you cannot, not let them in because their welfare is more important that the well-being of the citizens who will be potentially taking on whatever threat is slipped in, with that intake, then you lose.
Your position in any one of the above cases is immoral and impractical and illogical.
The counter to your position is practical, logical and NOT bigoted.
A bigoted position would be "We do not like this brown skinned people. They can't make America Great Again. All Muslims are bad. Let's ban them on a whim." That is not what is happening and only an idiot would fine difficulties distinguishing an ACTUAL bigoted position from a position that is not. THAT is precisely where you are failing.
Its because you are stupid.
As I keep mentioning. We get boatpeople coming to Australia all the time and we ban them from the mainland and put them in detention centres until we work out who they are, where they are from and what threat they represent. Now our Prime Minister has said IF you sneak in without coming through the normal channels you have no pathway to citizenship. You will be deported.
National Security and Border Protection. Has not stopped us allowing immigrants to make Australia their home but they cannot sneak in without us knowing who they are or where they are coming from.
It is not black and white.
We've been through this before but I'll say it again: Supporting a bigot's bigoted ideas makes you a bigot, too. Banning Muslims at the border is bigoted because it assigns blame to a group without any proof whatsoever.
Me, I find your government's immigrant policy to be deplorable, but that's neither here nor there. This thread is about Islam.
-
It seemes to me that the concepts represented by the various religious symbolism are universal in nature, Those concepts very much interest me, but my attitude to the symbolism is ambivalent and somewhat iconoclasitic. (by which I mean that destroying a statue of Buddha might actually be be appropriate, IMO, if that brings about a realisation, along the lines, that the icon is nothing but a pretty chunk of stone; but in most instances, like the one DD cited, it’s just pure vandalism, of course, committed in the name of some rival iconography.
Islamic iconography? I note that Islam is explicitly aniconic -one up for Islam- but in this sense, the Quran is an icon, the Mosque is an icon , Mecca is an icon. People will raise up icons, no stopping them. Buddha Shakyamuni also spoke against graven images, and what do his followers do about that? They make millions of Buddha statues, and proceed to worship them. It’s really funny, and human, and surely completely forgivable, But it can calcify your mind , if you invest too much in it,
I wanted to address this bit.
Iconography, in my mind, is very a human condition and if you overdo it, you get hoarders, spazzes with maps, and whatnot. I bet psychologists could make a decent case for distrusting any religion with a rich iconography. :P
IIRC, there's no mention of icons in a "do it sense" in the Bible (but quite the opposite in the Old Testament) but most Christian branches are full of them.
Considering Islam, then, and I'm sure you know this, the whole don't depict the Prophet thing is a knee-jerk reaction to what probably started as a rather sensible attempt at avoiding attention where none was needed. The need for heroes is also part of the human condition, though, and again, a matter for psychologists to explain. I'm betting it's part of the same basic need.
-
People like Odeon have made it clear on numerous occasions they aren't a fan of evidence that proves them wrong.
One of the problems I have with you is that your world really does come in black and white. Thus, to you, a single video is proof that I'm wrong.
It's never that easy, though. I tend to find your posts to go a couple of steps too far, meaning that you frequently start with a comment or a view that is entirely sensible to me--several of your posts take a reasoned approach to Muslims and Islam--only to then grab your tinfoils and take your argument far beyond any reason.
-
You absolutely call me stupid for not having the same view as you. In your mind you have the "right views". That impenetrable viewpoint is not something that ought to be encouraged.
As for whether a freeze on Muslim immigration is bigoted, it depends entirely on the reasoning and not just the effects. I have made the case for this not being a xenophobic desire (ie IF very real and practical vetting procedures are fixed and people can get identified, then this would not hold up immigration on these grounds) and that the danger expressed is an ACTUAL danger, HAS been qualified and quantified, NEEDS upgrading, that there is NO OTHER way of EFFECTIVELY dealing with the issue, and that this says nothing terrible of Muslims as a whole but rather it is a national Security and Border Protection problem in their midst.
Proof of what I say actually comes from YOU funny enough. When it is put to you that there IS an actual problem and that the vetting problems are proved not to be able to be able to identify the people that they are letting in AND that the intelligence services of the country KNOW for a fact that the refugees coming in will be infused with ISIS and other radicalised Muslim Extremists..... (and all of this is known) what do YOU say with the question "If the refugee Muslims cannot be identified and the Muslim radical Extremists cannot be identified and vetted in that group coming in AND we do not know the numbers or intent of those radical Muslim Extremists, apart from "Just let them in" What ELSE do you propose?"
If you are stupid and ideologically blinded enough to say both Nothing OR degrees of there is no real danger OR But you cannot, not let them in because their welfare is more important that the well-being of the citizens who will be potentially taking on whatever threat is slipped in, with that intake, then you lose.
Your position in any one of the above cases is immoral and impractical and illogical.
The counter to your position is practical, logical and NOT bigoted.
A bigoted position would be "We do not like this brown skinned people. They can't make America Great Again. All Muslims are bad. Let's ban them on a whim." That is not what is happening and only an idiot would fine difficulties distinguishing an ACTUAL bigoted position from a position that is not. THAT is precisely where you are failing.
Its because you are stupid.
As I keep mentioning. We get boatpeople coming to Australia all the time and we ban them from the mainland and put them in detention centres until we work out who they are, where they are from and what threat they represent. Now our Prime Minister has said IF you sneak in without coming through the normal channels you have no pathway to citizenship. You will be deported.
National Security and Border Protection. Has not stopped us allowing immigrants to make Australia their home but they cannot sneak in without us knowing who they are or where they are coming from.
It is not black and white.
We've been through this before but I'll say it again: Supporting a bigot's bigoted ideas makes you a bigot, too. Banning Muslims at the border is bigoted because it assigns blame to a group without any proof whatsoever.
Me, I find your government's immigrant policy to be deplorable, but that's neither here nor there. This thread is about Islam.
See that is where you are wrong. So wrong.
Firstly: Banning Muslims at the border (or was it only from that part of the world or only immigrants? I sometimes lose track of what you think I am or am not defending) does not assign blame to a group without any proof whatsoever. That is dishonest and you know it to be so. You are repeating a lie and for who's purpose i have no idea.
The group being targeted is the Radical Muslim Extremists. They are the targets in this and as they are unable to be extricated or identified from the larger Muslim refugee community the whole community is similarly barred as a containment process. THAT is national Security and Border Protection in play. But further is we DO have proof and only an idiot would say we don't. I have show said proof from both CIA and FBI sources that the refugee community is infiltrated with ISIS and other radicalised groups attempting a jihadist hijrah. That is proven by these sources. You simply keep repeating failed talking points
Secondly: Because an end process disfavours someone in a way, is NOT evidence of bigotry. Nor is arriving at the same conclusion as a bigot may arrive at for entirely different reasons.
An example. Building the great Trump wall. He may want to do so simply to have the biggest construct in America. The fact that it happens to disadvantage people wanting to sneak into the country illegally is not necessarily him being bigoted. In this instance it would be him simply pandering to his ego.
Another example: This is found in and around the border areas
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CJF1Vj9VEAALn59.jpg)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/s5-q3vQZ38o/hqdefault.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_tree
Do you want me to show the corpses of the people who were deserted because they were slowing them down or the beheading and massacres of cartel gang members around the border areas? No? We good?
So looks like there are different reasons to build a wall and these reasons are NOT bigoted. I could say that people who do not wish to prevent this are immoral. In this sense it could be viewed that the build of the wall without even taking into account anyone else's reasons for wanting it, has virtue.
You are trapped into black and white. A dearth of intellectual investigation. You lack the ability to see beyond you preconceived ideological narrative. Ironically, you are the first to imply others are seeing things only in black and white and are unable to see things from other angles or are unable to admit when they are wrong.
-
It seemes to me that the concepts represented by the various religious symbolism are universal in nature, Those concepts very much interest me, but my attitude to the symbolism is ambivalent and somewhat iconoclasitic. (by which I mean that destroying a statue of Buddha might actually be be appropriate, IMO, if that brings about a realisation, along the lines, that the icon is nothing but a pretty chunk of stone; but in most instances, like the one DD cited, it’s just pure vandalism, of course, committed in the name of some rival iconography.
Islamic iconography? I note that Islam is explicitly aniconic -one up for Islam- but in this sense, the Quran is an icon, the Mosque is an icon , Mecca is an icon. People will raise up icons, no stopping them. Buddha Shakyamuni also spoke against graven images, and what do his followers do about that? They make millions of Buddha statues, and proceed to worship them. It’s really funny, and human, and surely completely forgivable, But it can calcify your mind , if you invest too much in it,
I wanted to address this bit.
Iconography, in my mind, is very a human condition and if you overdo it, you get hoarders, spazzes with maps, and whatnot. I bet psychologists could make a decent case for distrusting any religion with a rich iconography. :P
IIRC, there's no mention of icons in a "do it sense" in the Bible (but quite the opposite in the Old Testament) but most Christian branches are full of them.
Considering Islam, then, and I'm sure you know this, the whole don't depict the Prophet thing is a knee-jerk reaction to what probably started as a rather sensible attempt at avoiding attention where none was needed. The need for heroes is also part of the human condition, though, and again, a matter for psychologists to explain. I'm betting it's part of the same basic need.
Oh yes. Looks like we're on the same wavelength here :)
-
You absolutely call me stupid for not having the same view as you. In your mind you have the "right views". That impenetrable viewpoint is not something that ought to be encouraged.
As for whether a freeze on Muslim immigration is bigoted, it depends entirely on the reasoning and not just the effects. I have made the case for this not being a xenophobic desire (ie IF very real and practical vetting procedures are fixed and people can get identified, then this would not hold up immigration on these grounds) and that the danger expressed is an ACTUAL danger, HAS been qualified and quantified, NEEDS upgrading, that there is NO OTHER way of EFFECTIVELY dealing with the issue, and that this says nothing terrible of Muslims as a whole but rather it is a national Security and Border Protection problem in their midst.
Proof of what I say actually comes from YOU funny enough. When it is put to you that there IS an actual problem and that the vetting problems are proved not to be able to be able to identify the people that they are letting in AND that the intelligence services of the country KNOW for a fact that the refugees coming in will be infused with ISIS and other radicalised Muslim Extremists..... (and all of this is known) what do YOU say with the question "If the refugee Muslims cannot be identified and the Muslim radical Extremists cannot be identified and vetted in that group coming in AND we do not know the numbers or intent of those radical Muslim Extremists, apart from "Just let them in" What ELSE do you propose?"
If you are stupid and ideologically blinded enough to say both Nothing OR degrees of there is no real danger OR But you cannot, not let them in because their welfare is more important that the well-being of the citizens who will be potentially taking on whatever threat is slipped in, with that intake, then you lose.
Your position in any one of the above cases is immoral and impractical and illogical.
The counter to your position is practical, logical and NOT bigoted.
A bigoted position would be "We do not like this brown skinned people. They can't make America Great Again. All Muslims are bad. Let's ban them on a whim." That is not what is happening and only an idiot would fine difficulties distinguishing an ACTUAL bigoted position from a position that is not. THAT is precisely where you are failing.
Its because you are stupid.
As I keep mentioning. We get boatpeople coming to Australia all the time and we ban them from the mainland and put them in detention centres until we work out who they are, where they are from and what threat they represent. Now our Prime Minister has said IF you sneak in without coming through the normal channels you have no pathway to citizenship. You will be deported.
National Security and Border Protection. Has not stopped us allowing immigrants to make Australia their home but they cannot sneak in without us knowing who they are or where they are coming from.
It is not black and white.
We've been through this before but I'll say it again: Supporting a bigot's bigoted ideas makes you a bigot, too. Banning Muslims at the border is bigoted because it assigns blame to a group without any proof whatsoever.
Me, I find your government's immigrant policy to be deplorable, but that's neither here nor there. This thread is about Islam.
See that is where you are wrong. So wrong.
It isn't about Islam? I could have sworn it says so in the topic heading.
Firstly: Banning Muslims at the border (or was it only from that part of the world or only immigrants?
Trump started with everyone, then limited himself somewhat, and now tries to bury the evidence
I sometimes lose track of what you think I am or am not defending) does not assign blame to a group without any proof whatsoever. That is dishonest and you know it to be so.
So defend it. Explain it to the class. I've asked you to do so before but hope springs eternal.
You are repeating a lie and for who's purpose i have no idea.
Where is the lie?
The group being targeted is the Radical Muslim Extremists.
The group being targeted by Trump started as every single Muslim entering the US. This is what you supported then. Have you changed your mind?
They are the targets in this and as they are unable to be extricated or identified from the larger Muslim refugee community the whole community is similarly barred as a containment process. THAT is national Security and Border Protection in play. But further is we DO have proof and only an idiot would say we don't. I have show said proof from both CIA and FBI sources that the refugee community is infiltrated with ISIS and other radicalised groups attempting a jihadist hijrah. That is proven by these sources. You simply keep repeating failed talking points
No, you haven't, and neither has Trump. I assume it's why he no longer mentions it. I don't know why you want to embarrass yourself, though.
Secondly: Because an end process disfavours someone in a way, is NOT evidence of bigotry. Nor is arriving at the same conclusion as a bigot may arrive at for entirely different reasons.
An example. Building the great Trump wall. He may want to do so simply to have the biggest construct in America. The fact that it happens to disadvantage people wanting to sneak into the country illegally is not necessarily him being bigoted. In this instance it would be him simply pandering to his ego.
I'm sure that's why he said this:
When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
Yes, I'm sure he proposed the wall for some other reason.
Another example: This is found in and around the border areas
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CJF1Vj9VEAALn59.jpg)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/s5-q3vQZ38o/hqdefault.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_tree
Do you want me to show the corpses of the people who were deserted because they were slowing them down or the beheading and massacres of cartel gang members around the border areas? No? We good?
We're not, no. We haven't been for months. Do pay attention.
Please continue, though. Embarrass yourself.
So looks like there are different reasons to build a wall and these reasons are NOT bigoted. I could say that people who do not wish to prevent this through are immoral. In this sense it could be viewed that the build of the wall without even taking into account anyone else's reasons for wanting it, has virtue.
Looks like the reasons are bigoted, actually. How would you explain away what he says about Mexicans?
You are trapped into black and white. A dearth of intellectual investigation. You lack the inability to see beyond you preconceived ideological narrative. Ironically, you are the first to imply others are seeing things only in black and white and are unable to see things from other angles or are unable to admit when they are wrong.
I think you mean "ability". Not that you'd know.
-
You absolutely call me stupid for not having the same view as you. In your mind you have the "right views". That impenetrable viewpoint is not something that ought to be encouraged.
As for whether a freeze on Muslim immigration is bigoted, it depends entirely on the reasoning and not just the effects. I have made the case for this not being a xenophobic desire (ie IF very real and practical vetting procedures are fixed and people can get identified, then this would not hold up immigration on these grounds) and that the danger expressed is an ACTUAL danger, HAS been qualified and quantified, NEEDS upgrading, that there is NO OTHER way of EFFECTIVELY dealing with the issue, and that this says nothing terrible of Muslims as a whole but rather it is a national Security and Border Protection problem in their midst.
Proof of what I say actually comes from YOU funny enough. When it is put to you that there IS an actual problem and that the vetting problems are proved not to be able to be able to identify the people that they are letting in AND that the intelligence services of the country KNOW for a fact that the refugees coming in will be infused with ISIS and other radicalised Muslim Extremists..... (and all of this is known) what do YOU say with the question "If the refugee Muslims cannot be identified and the Muslim radical Extremists cannot be identified and vetted in that group coming in AND we do not know the numbers or intent of those radical Muslim Extremists, apart from "Just let them in" What ELSE do you propose?"
If you are stupid and ideologically blinded enough to say both Nothing OR degrees of there is no real danger OR But you cannot, not let them in because their welfare is more important that the well-being of the citizens who will be potentially taking on whatever threat is slipped in, with that intake, then you lose.
Your position in any one of the above cases is immoral and impractical and illogical.
The counter to your position is practical, logical and NOT bigoted.
A bigoted position would be "We do not like this brown skinned people. They can't make America Great Again. All Muslims are bad. Let's ban them on a whim." That is not what is happening and only an idiot would fine difficulties distinguishing an ACTUAL bigoted position from a position that is not. THAT is precisely where you are failing.
Its because you are stupid.
As I keep mentioning. We get boatpeople coming to Australia all the time and we ban them from the mainland and put them in detention centres until we work out who they are, where they are from and what threat they represent. Now our Prime Minister has said IF you sneak in without coming through the normal channels you have no pathway to citizenship. You will be deported.
National Security and Border Protection. Has not stopped us allowing immigrants to make Australia their home but they cannot sneak in without us knowing who they are or where they are coming from.
It is not black and white.
We've been through this before but I'll say it again: Supporting a bigot's bigoted ideas makes you a bigot, too. Banning Muslims at the border is bigoted because it assigns blame to a group without any proof whatsoever.
Me, I find your government's immigrant policy to be deplorable, but that's neither here nor there. This thread is about Islam.
See that is where you are wrong. So wrong.
It isn't about Islam? I could have sworn it says so in the topic heading.
Don't even try to pretend to be confused.
Firstly: Banning Muslims at the border (or was it only from that part of the world or only immigrants?
Trump started with everyone, then limited himself somewhat, and now tries to bury the evidence
Not true. He speaks elliptically and in hyperbole and so it is often hard to pin him down. He ACTUALLY started with Muslim immigrants, Then it was Muslims at the borders and then people from that area of the world. Now you KNOW this. Because you constantly tried to reframe a position I agreed in principle with, with one I had not vouched an opinion of. So you actually know categorically he DID NOT start with everyone and pretending this is bullshit and you know it to be bullshit but you say it anyhow. Which leads us to the question, "Why?"
I sometimes lose track of what you think I am or am not defending) does not assign blame to a group without any proof whatsoever. That is dishonest and you know it to be so.
So defend it. Explain it to the class. I've asked you to do so before but hope springs eternal.
You are a loser and a liar. I will prove that I have already shown this over and over and you have ignored it over and over and now pretend that you didn't see it in the first place and were waiting for it? You are such a loser, Odeon.
You are repeating a lie and for who's purpose i have no idea.
Where is the lie?
THIS is your lie and I will show it to be so by the end of this reply
Banning Muslims at the border is bigoted because it assigns blame to a group without any proof whatsoever.
The group being targeted is the Radical Muslim Extremists.
The group being targeted by Trump started as every single Muslim entering the US. This is what you supported then. Have you changed your mind?
Did I change my mind from a position that I never took and that I had corrected you from the outset that I never have? [Check the date]
A couple of things you have still to understand (hence "misguided"):
Trump wants to stop ALL Muslims from entering, not just immigrants. Not sure how you got this so wrong but you did. Trump knows this is not a practical suggestion but it was never his point. He knows that tapping into the current Islamophobia will keep him in the news. And, just as importantly, there's always going to be people who don't know better and will believe him.
Me disagreeing with you and Trump on your bigotry does not equal an open borders policy. But you know this, don't you? You simply decided a little lie would be good for your argument.
I suspect stopping Muslims at the borders is against a number of treaties signed by the US. It could well be unconstitutional, too, and I've seen arguments to this effect by lawyers.
....and you went with lie.
I am going to ask you a serious question. "Are you an idiot?" Don't be too quick in answering. let me make a quick case
Trump wants to stop ALL Muslims from entering, not just immigrants. Not sure how you got this so wrong but you did.
As I have mentioned this in several posts that this IS a position of his "to ban all Muslims" and is on his website as you pointed out HOWEVER (pay attention this time) his initial position before the reclarification (that he gave in speeches) was that he wished to place a freeze on Muslim Immigrants. I agreed in principle with the initial position. I have not vouched an opinion for this new position (as a result of him reclarifying an older position) but you seem to want me to agree or disavow it.
This is NOT "getting it wrong" is it? Only an idiot would suggest that, right?
As mentioned If person X makes position A and person Y agrees with person X on position A, that in itself is COMPLETELY separate to if Person X then reclarifies or alters position A to come up to a new position B.
Given this, does person Y need to agree with position B? Can they if they wish?
Too hard?
You seem incapable of seeing that agreeing with one position that a person takes is NOT IN ANY WAY rubberstamping everything they say forever and ever, based in the fact they agree with them on a or even several positions.
Some may say that is lazy thinking or even intellectual dishonesty. I call that being an idiot? What would you call that?
Trump knows this is not a practical suggestion but it was never his point. He knows that tapping into the current Islamophobia will keep him in the news. And, just as importantly, there's always going to be people who don't know better and will believe him.
Suggesting motive is one thing. We all do it and we can second guess people. Depending on our intellectual rigour and instinct we may have a good strike rate of getting it right.
You are not suggesting, you are trying to make a fact based assertion. When exactly did you last chat with Donald Trump? You have made a few assertions here. Can you please tell me if not having a conversion with Donald, did you speak to his aides? Did you perhaps have mindreading equipment?
No? Just throwing out big assertions as fact based claims based on bullshit and expecting me to just nod my head? Do you think THAT is idiotic?
Me disagreeing with you and Trump on your bigotry does not equal an open borders policy.
I am not bigoted and you have not made a case for that. Best you can say at present without trying to lie or pad your assertions with bullshit is to say that I agreed with what Donald trump said about Muslim immigration. I think that in cases where a threat does seem to be present in ANY group, nation, religion or whatever then there HAS to be an upgrade to the security to check this.
Now we can disagree as to the degree of threat or how good the current security is all day. but I have good reason to think that the last few years has given rise to a lot more attacks on European soil by Muslim radical extremists and this has aligned with the relaxed border policies. I also know that 900 active cases with the FBI of US based Islamic extremist issues, and apparent difficulties cross-referencing incoming migrants due to them fleeing a nation under conflict and with poor infrastructure and records access. I also know that the Orlando shooter was checked out twice with the FBI and no apparent action taken against him. They dropped the ball in my belief.
So I have my reasoning for suspecting that there is a heightened risk and poor methods of vetting potential risks. Therefore I believe this cannot be addressed by carrying on business as normal. IF there is a way to hold this process and tightened up and better rework the vetting methods (and Hell maybe directing some resources to clearing up the 900 cases before another Orlando gunman gets away from them), then it makes sense this ought to be pursued.
That is not bigoted. Only an idiot would think so.
As to whether this idea could work out in a practical way rather than being a good theory, I don't know and would be interested how this could be done. I see a lot of problems in the practicalities and possible implementation, including belief of Islam being exactly that. Denouncing you are a Muslim to come in for example would seem to sidestep this freeze.
I agree in principle with the idea and happy to look at other ideas as to solving the problem, but not at all interested in saying it is not a problem. For all your talk of falling furniture death, I think that would be little concern to Parisians after the Paris attacks for example. IF some radical Islamic extremist attack happens in Sweden do I have your permission to make some off-hand remark about at least they weren't squashed by a bookcase? No?
So being that I am not bigoted the statement ....
Me disagreeing with you and Trump on your bigotry does not equal an open borders policy.
.... makes no sense. I do not agree with what you effectively have said you are disagreeing with and so how could I agree to something I inherently disagree with being equivalent or comparable to something else? No, it would be idiotic to expect I would give such an assertion any credibility. You may wish to take a run up and try again.
But you know this, don't you? You simply decided a little lie would be good for your argument.
Speaking about what one does not know, you make the accusation of me lying.
The fact that my suggestion that America can minimise attacks on its citizens by tightening its borders and freezing Muslim immigration until such time that it can improve its vetting systems and clear up its 900 active US based cases of Islamic extremism, you call bigoted.
You suggested rather than further addressing the threat that the threat was less great than falling furniture and that there was no issue in Sweden despite your open border policies and despite the fact that I mentioned the heightened female rape (and yes your rebuke still showed at more than double that of US and UK - which again is higher than Australian rates) and the pool crisis both of which made international news (in fact now your music festivals the last few years running have been targeted [30 this last one just gone] by groups of foreign men in groups of 10 isolating and sexually assaulting teenage girls - sound familiar - Cologne) you waved it off as of no real concern.
So at this stage, we can agree or disagree but you are demonstrating by your response an acceptance of the status quo in Sweden in respect to immigration and the movement of people and you back this by pounding on about treaties. So you honestly think that it somehow seems like me lying about you agreeing with the open border policies of Sweden (especially as I contrasted them against the border policies of Australia). No you only would think this if you were an idiot. I don't know that you honestly do, maybe you are just lying again.
I suspect stopping Muslims at the borders is against a number of treaties signed by the US. It could well be unconstitutional, too, and I've seen arguments to this effect by lawyers.
Title 8 US codes 1182
Its constitutional.
They have made various arguments against our detention Centres. Not buying it.
So now far from ME being misguided or "needing to understand".... "are you an idiot?"
If not that is fine, how did you get EVERYTHING so very wrong.
Odeon could you be more dishonest? No that is not a rhetorical question.
They are the targets in this and as they are unable to be extricated or identified from the larger Muslim refugee community the whole community is similarly barred as a containment process. THAT is national Security and Border Protection in play. But further is we DO have proof and only an idiot would say we don't. I have show said proof from both CIA and FBI sources that the refugee community is infiltrated with ISIS and other radicalised groups attempting a jihadist hijrah. That is proven by these sources. You simply keep repeating failed talking points
No, you haven't, and neither has Trump. I assume it's why he no longer mentions it. I don't know why you want to embarrass yourself, though.
Haven't i? Again CHECK THE DATE
That's the thing, though. If there is a case to be made for the vetting system being subpar, that case has not been made. Not by Trump, not by the FBI, and certainly not by you. Banning Muslims is a populistic gut reaction without any kind of backing up, and that is because there is no case.
I repeat: there is no case.
Or perhaps the vetting is considered by some to be subpar because they failed to realise that the unborn son of a Muslim immigrant would grow up to become a terrorist?
Considering a ban is bigoted as fuck. It's an incredibly stupid and bigoted idea, designed to win votes rather than fight terrorism.
You repeat there is no case as much as you like but there is and I have already told you why there IS a case for ALL I have said.
Here is it broken down for you.
- The vetting system is shit. It is sub par. It has a hard time in vetting illegal immigrants. Many do not have the databases to check or the identification to present.
- ISIS are absolutely infiltrating refugee communities.
- The vetting system is even dropping the ball and letting in refugees with deadly and dangerous transmissible diseases
- So how many cases of Islamic Extremism cases does the FBI have in America? 900 active cases and climbing
- When they HAVE identified the threat how do they do?
Okay so these were my claims and the ones that you say there is no case for right? It really does not take much looking around to back each of those things and I only picked these articles because they were the ones that came to me the quickest. There are many others and of course many links and and sources quoted in them that I could have looked at.
The vetting system is shit. It is sub par. It has a hard time in vetting illegal immigrants. Many do not have the databases to check or the identification to present.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/11/19/the-limitations-of-refugee-screening/?utm_term=.e6027eca711b
“Senior Obama officials have warned of challenges in screening refugees from Syria,” reports The Post (Jerry Markon). An excerpt:
Several high-level administration officials have warned in recent months just how challenging [screening Syrian refugees] can be. While they say U.S. security measures are much better than in the past, vetting Syrian refugees poses a quandary: How do you screen people from a war-torn country that has few criminal and terrorist databases to check? …
FBI Director James Comey added in congressional testimony last month that “a number of people who were of serious concern” slipped through the screening of Iraq War refugees, including two arrested on terrorism-related charges. “There’s no doubt that was the product of a less than excellent vetting,” he said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/17/senior-obama-officials-have-warned-of-challenges-in-screening-refugees-from-syria/
FBI Director James Comey added in congressional testimony last month that “a number of people who were of serious concern” slipped through the screening of Iraq War refugees, including two arrested on terrorism-related charges. “There’s no doubt that was the product of a less than excellent vetting,” he said.
Although Comey said the process has since “improved dramatically,” Syrian refugees will be even harder to check because, unlike in Iraq, U.S. soldiers have not been on the ground collecting information on the local population. “If we don’t know much about somebody, there won’t be anything in our data,” he said. “I can’t sit here and offer anybody an absolute assurance that there’s no risk associated with this.”
http://immigrationreform.com/2015/10/14/fbi-director-admits-there-are-certain-gaps-in-screening-process-for-syrian-refugees/
The Obama administration has announced its intent to admit at least 10,000 Syrians as refugees in the coming year. It is likely that the number could be much higher. Leaving aside the growing evidence that many of those fleeing Syria are economic migrants, not legitimate refugees, the plan to resettle Syrians in the U.S. poses significant security risks.
Testifying before the Senate Homeland Security Committee last week, FBI Director James Comey conceded identifying and screening out potential terrorists is problematic. “My concern there is that there are certain gaps I don’t want to talk about publicly in the data available to us,” he said. Comey’s concerns were echoed by Nicholas Rasmussen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center. “The intelligence picture we’ve had of this conflict zone isn’t what we’d like it to be… you can only review against what you have,” Rasmussen told the committee.
‘What we have’ and what we are likely to find out isn’t much, considering the complete collapse of civil society in Syria. Similar security concerns are being raised by German intelligence officials, where Syrians are being admitted in much larger numbers.
And even when we’ve had more to go on, our record of screening out security threats from that part of the world has been less than stellar. Comey admitted that we admitted Iraqis who had known ties to terrorist organizations, despite the fact that we had a strong military presence in Iraq at the time. He also conceded that “dozens” of refugees already in the U.S. are targets for ISIS recruitment.
“Certain gaps” might be more accurately characterized as ‘gaping holes’ that will pose dangerous security risks if the administration’s plans are carried out.
ISIS are absolutely infiltrating refugee communities.
http://www.independentsentinel.com/isis-threatens-to-flood-europe-and-elsewhere-as-libyan-refugees/
Quilliam Foundation reports that ISIS/ISIL/IS plans to use Libya as a gateway to Europe, sending fighters masked as refugees.
They are urging fighters to flood into Libya from Syria and Iraq to then head for Italy and elsewhere.
Quilliam, the British anti-extremist think tank translated and analyzed a document written by an Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) propagandist who uses the alias Abu Arhim al-Libim.
http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/publications/free/libya-the-strategic-gateway-for-the-is.pdf
The vetting system is even dropping the ball and letting in refugees with deadly and dangerous transmissible diseases
https://www.google.com.au/?ion=1&espv=2#q=breitbart+tuberculosis+refugee
Aticle after article of the screening process even failing here. Refugees with transmissible disease are being let in to the country. Tuberculosis is globally one of the most infectious and deadly diseases surpassing HIV.
Then there is Measles...
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/05/31/az-health-officials-confirm-11-cases-of-measles-stemming-from-immigrant-detention-facility/
So how many cases of Islamic Extremism cases does the FBI have in America? 900 active cases and climbing
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/10/23/fbi-comey-isil-domestic-probes/74455460/
WASHINGTON — FBI Director James Comey said Friday that federal authorities have an estimated 900 active investigations pending against suspected Islamic State-inspired operatives and other home-grown violent extremists across the country.
When they HAVE identified the threat how do they do?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/wall-street-journal/fbi-twice-cleared-omar-mateen-of-radical-leanings/news-story/ee3e3dbd998013ce2e7e88c2d3676e9e
Once they have the threat identified how effective are they at containing, monitoring and dealing with the threat even when it is on home soil? No? How good are they then do you think of identification and dealing with the threats when they are coming in from overseas.
So Odeon, being as only a lying, head-in-the-sand fool would say something as dishonest as:
That's the thing, though. If there is a case to be made for the vetting system being subpar, that case has not been made. Not by Trump, not by the FBI, and certainly not by you. Banning Muslims is a populistic gut reaction without any kind of backing up, and that is because there is no case.
I repeat: there is no case.
Why did you just say it?
Yes that is right, because there IS a case.
Now with that out the way let's look at precisely what acknowledging this will need to look at:
1) ALL Muslims are NOT bad radicalised Islamic Extremists. In fact any of the decent Muslims wishing to flee the violence and extremism of said Muslim countrymen and find that those same countrymen's actions are temporarily closing the door to THEIR immigration, have my sympathies. Hopefully these people will appreciate one the freeze was over that they will be coming through without those same ratbags and there efforts to flee them and the extremism and violence associated with them will be successful, as it may not have been had the freeze and vetting improvements had not been made.
2) The concept of placing a freeze on Muslim immigration whilst reasonable in principle can be effectively implemented in practice (I have certainly reservations as to how one even confirms a persons religious beliefs - if someone said to me I could not immigrate to somewhere I wanted to desperately because they only let in people who believed in a religion, I would suddenly become very pious and Christian, until I had got through the process.)
3) It does prevent immigration elsewhere in the meantime.
4) It also does not say anything about the specifics. What steps would be implemented to improve the vetting system. If we agree they must be improved, what signifies the improvements, to what amount and in which ways will you be able to address the obvious problems that exist now? If there are gaps as admitted to, how are they going to be filled? It doesn't say the idea of fixing the problem is bad but you need something better to be able to put it in place. I would like those specifics.
These practicalities and considerations are all worth considering.
Now what you will see in that first point is that Muslim immigrants would suffer because of the actions of a few (if we are saying that not immigrating to US SPECIFICALLY and in exclusion to any other country is suffering) but that this is accepting the position that they are not all bad and that the efforts would be made to improve things so they CAN be immigrated and without their extremist countrymen following them over.
On a slight tangent. It reminds me of the early 1900's in America with Italian and Sicilian immigrants and refugees immigrating. Their poverty and shared customs meant they generally moved into poor communities next to one another. Unfortunately many of the worst Mafiosi and Black Hand elements moved in with them and started to exploit them in those communities and then gain strength to branch out from there.
I think IF bad elements can be kept out then it gives Muslim immigrants a better chance to embrace their host country and not be preyed upon by the worst elements of that which they fled.
So yes Odeon. I certainly HAVE backed myself and NO it is not, nor was it EVER bigoted. That was just a petty unwarranted insult you cast my way. Therefore calling you a r
You may as well put me back on the mod as my position has NOT changed on iota. You keep calling me a bigot I WILL keep calling you a r
Secondly: Because an end process disfavours someone in a way, is NOT evidence of bigotry. Nor is arriving at the same conclusion as a bigot may arrive at for entirely different reasons.
An example. Building the great Trump wall. He may want to do so simply to have the biggest construct in America. The fact that it happens to disadvantage people wanting to sneak into the country illegally is not necessarily him being bigoted. In this instance it would be him simply pandering to his ego.
I'm sure that's why he said this:
There is reason for it and I have explained that later in the reply
When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
Yes, I'm sure he proposed the wall for some other reason.
Absolutely there were many reasons cited. He was during the campaign cycle trying to feel out the base a little to see where the support was. He cited that walling off the the Southern border area was:
* Symbolic (a country without borders is not a country and establishing a border wall is symbolic of securing the country's sovereignty )
* Illegally immigrants were taking away jobs from possible underclass in America who could otherwise work in those jobs
* Billion of dollars were being sent home by illegal immigrants to Mexico.
* Rapists, murders and drug dealers were coming across into America illegally.
So yes there were many positions and only an idiot would imply there wasn't. Why did you?
Another example: This is found in and around the border areas
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CJF1Vj9VEAALn59.jpg)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/s5-q3vQZ38o/hqdefault.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_tree
Do you want me to show the corpses of the people who were deserted because they were slowing them down or the beheading and massacres of cartel gang members around the border areas? No? We good?
We're not, no. We haven't been for months. Do pay attention.
Please continue, though. Embarrass yourself.
You seem to revel in your inability to critically reason. That is embarrassment enough, but I do not feel it for myself.
As seem later in this reply, you seem to have missed completely what I was saying and I had to painfully spell it out again, and so the irony and hypocrisy of you saying "Do pay attention" is palpable.
So looks like there are different reasons to build a wall and these reasons are NOT bigoted. I could say that people who do not wish to prevent this through are immoral. In this sense it could be viewed that the build of the wall without even taking into account anyone else's reasons for wanting it, has virtue.
Looks like the reasons are bigoted, actually. How would you explain away what he says about Mexicans?
Mainly Hyperbole and speaking elliptically. I have already shown the issue he has with Mexicans and exactly which Mexicans he meant. He got more Mexican support than Romney or McCain did. The reason is that they, like I, and like many more millions who voted understood it was not ALL Mexicans that he had an issue with.
Fuck, I know you don't get it and you will not get it regardless. Confirmation Bias is well entrenched and you have no fucking clue.
The Mexicans he was referencing and doesn't like is NOT a Boogeyman. They DO exist. They are the ones that rape (as seen with images above. That is all at the border. Rape Trees everywhere and plenty of corpses of immigrants who were too slow or too frail or injured to cross quickly and were left behind to die. The are also beheadings and dismemberment of opposing cartel members, all of which I have spared the forum. These people are Mexican and a huge issue and coming across the border. The Murderers, drug dealers, and rapists. Horrible things to call people and ALL true.
He also said some were also good people I presume. Accurate disclaimer. Some (illegal immigrants being preyed upon) MAY be good people. I mean they are leaving Mexico to start a new life and breaking the law crossing into US. So either they are decent people just wanting best for their family, even though they are breaking the law in order to do so, OR they are people trying to escape bad things done in Mexico and to disappear into US and happily break the law in order to do so. So Some are good people he presumes.
Nothing he said had ANY bearing on Mexicans who were in US legally.
SO
Looks like the reasons are bigoted, actually. How would you explain away what he says about Mexicans?
Looks to me well and truly explained. Maybe when you said "Mexicans" you mean Illegal Immigrants who are Mexican and coming over the border illegally? Maybe. Who really knows what the fuck you mean?
You are trapped into black and white. A dearth of intellectual investigation. You lack the inability to see beyond you preconceived ideological narrative. Ironically, you are the first to imply others are seeing things only in black and white and are unable to see things from other angles or are unable to admit when they are wrong.
I think you mean "ability". Not that you'd know.
That is about the only point you scored here. The only sound premise. "Al you made a typo. It now means something other than what you meant. Aren't I clever to pick it up?"
The answer, of course, is to say Yes I did and no you aren't"
-
People like Odeon have made it clear on numerous occasions they aren't a fan of evidence that proves them wrong.
One of the problems I have with you is that your world really does come in black and white. Thus, to you, a single video is proof that I'm wrong.
It's never that easy, though. I tend to find your posts to go a couple of steps too far, meaning that you frequently start with a comment or a view that is entirely sensible to me--several of your posts take a reasoned approach to Muslims and Islam--only to then grab your tinfoils and take your argument far beyond any reason.
It's not a single video, it's numerous videos or links you refuse to acknowledge, because they prove you wrong, so you just say "tinfoil" and that's enough for you. "Too far" because it goes out of your knowledge zone. Just because you don't understand the argument or were unaware of the information or see it as "tinfoil hat" stuff because you didn't know about it or it would mean you were wrong doesn't mean what I've said is crazy or wrong. You can't actually go into any detail about what you think is "tinfoil" stuff, it's just too much for you. So it's hardly me who's black and white.
-
People like Odeon have made it clear on numerous occasions they aren't a fan of evidence that proves them wrong.
One of the problems I have with you is that your world really does come in black and white. Thus, to you, a single video is proof that I'm wrong.
It's never that easy, though. I tend to find your posts to go a couple of steps too far, meaning that you frequently start with a comment or a view that is entirely sensible to me--several of your posts take a reasoned approach to Muslims and Islam--only to then grab your tinfoils and take your argument far beyond any reason.
It's not a single video, it's numerous videos or links you refuse to acknowledge, because they prove you wrong, so you just say "tinfoil" and that's enough for you. "Too far" because it goes out of your knowledge zone. Just because you don't understand the argument or were unaware of the information or see it as "tinfoil hat" stuff because you didn't know about it or it would mean you were wrong doesn't mean what I've said is crazy or wrong. You can't actually go into any detail about what you think is "tinfoil" stuff, it's just too much for you. So it's hardly me who's black and white.
Yes he goes in with a self-vaulted faux moral superiority, so when it gets too hard for him to out muscel it intellectually his mind allows his the failsafe fallback off ignoring it and saying "This is just tinfoil" or "It is bigoted" and he will do this with smug faux intellectual indignation or faux moral righteousness
-
Nothing he said had ANY bearing on Mexicans who were in US legally.
Sir Les does have a point here; Trump was talking about illegals. The fact is, it's estimated about 45% of the non-citizen population of the US is in the country illegally, making up about 3.5 percent of the total population. Don't know of another country which can say that. Approximately 25% of federal and state prison populations are also illegal immigrants, and the majority of those prisoners are incarcerated only for the crime of being in the country illegally, which speaks to failures in deportation measures. While not all illegal immigrants are from mexico, central and south America, over 80% are. Would have to assume the average American realizes this has been a long term issue, so when someone starts saying extreme things about addressing it, people probably suspect those extremes may not be fully met, but some sort of something new will be likely done rather than doing nothing different at all.
-
^agreed
Also, I might say there's no need to misrepresent Trump, to make him look bad. That makes the guy look misunderstood instead, which I'd guess isn't the point.
Odeon's observation that this little side-issue is off-topic holds more water, IMO; but c'mon Odeon, you followed that up by debating the off-topic pioint, thus taking the thread even further off-topic , according to your own estimation. So I'd guess that's not a problem , in your book, just so long as it's clear who started it? :apondering:
:flamer: :litigious:
-
Nothing he said had ANY bearing on Mexicans who were in US legally.
Sir Les does have a point here; Trump was talking about illegals. The fact is, it's estimated about 45% of the non-citizen population of the US is in the country illegally, making up about 3.5 percent of the total population. Don't know of another country which can say that. Approximately 25% of federal and state prison populations are also illegal immigrants, and the majority of those prisoners are incarcerated only for the crime of being in the country illegally, which speaks to failures in deportation measures. While not all illegal immigrants are from mexico, central and south America, over 80% are. Would have to assume the average American realizes this has been a long term issue, so when someone starts saying extreme things about addressing it, people probably suspect those extremes may not be fully met, but some sort of something new will be likely done rather than doing nothing different at all.
Thanks Jack.
Yup, it is one of those things that was actually clear to most but most of the Liberals were pushing a narrative they knew to be a lie to try and make the things that he said sound worse and push a narrative.
He was all simple and yet hyperbolic statements with broad generalisations to get his message out. I think most of his supporters understood there would NEED to be an amount of "walking back" or "reclarifying positions" or simply having to making the ideas fit into policy and doing whatever changes and compromises to make sure most of what he was wanting implement can be done without leaving himself open to legal challenges or party infighting.
See that is, ironically, why when the news comes out that he will keep some parts of Obamacare, the only ones who were complaining that he was not totally discarding Obamacare were the ones that did not want him to discard any of it in the first place and voted against him partially for doing so. What they were furious about is that his fans were not furious with him and trying to hold his feet to the fire. As far as they were concerned, "Sure he said he would scrap Obamacare and replace it. That's great, Obamacare is crap BUT maybe he is right in that a couple of aspects are good, so why not let him keep the framework and a couple of good bits to flesh out a new plan. It will be done a lot quicker that way. (Under budget and ahead of schedule)." It becomes a shrug of the shoulders rather than a wave of the fist.
Same with deporting immigrants. Increase and support ICE. Deport the Illegal immigrants in the jails and prisons, Round up the illegal immigrants with outstanding warrants and deport them. Do the same for illegal immigrants with arrest records in USA. Then you cancel any benefits and pathway to citizenship for people in USA illegally. The border is secured to prevent others coming over to USA illegally.
That begs two questions. What about the illegal immigrants who remain that do not have criminal records and are not put off by the prospect of having no pathway to citizenship and are not taking benefits? Well they can remain but are on notice that they are in the country illegally and are on notice. Secondly, what about the billions they collectively send out of the country to Mexico and other South American countries? The answer to that is that Trump needs some collateral when he negotiates as to who is paying for the wall.
-
^agreed
Also, I might say there's no need to misrepresent Trump, to make him look bad. That makes the guy look misunderstood instead, which I'd guess isn't the point.
Odeon's observation that this little side-issue is off-topic holds more water, IMO; but c'mon Odeon, you followed that up by debating the off-topic pioint, thus taking the thread even further off-topic , according to your own estimation. So I'd guess that's not a problem , in your book, just so long as it's clear who started it? :apondering:
:flamer: :litigious:
just so long as it's clear who started it
That is me, right? :apondering:
-
^agreed
Also, I might say there's no need to misrepresent Trump, to make him look bad. That makes the guy look misunderstood instead, which I'd guess isn't the point.
Odeon's observation that this little side-issue is off-topic holds more water, IMO; but c'mon Odeon, you followed that up by debating the off-topic pioint, thus taking the thread even further off-topic , according to your own estimation. So I'd guess that's not a problem , in your book, just so long as it's clear who started it? :apondering:
:flamer: :litigious:
just so long as it's clear who started it
That is me, right? :apondering:
Yes , Al. It's crystal clear that you were the one to write the initial letter of that particular sentence, in that particular paragraph, in that particular chapter of the neverending saga. Now we call all sleep easy, with that little mystery cleared up :LOL:
-
^agreed
Also, I might say there's no need to misrepresent Trump, to make him look bad. That makes the guy look misunderstood instead, which I'd guess isn't the point.
Odeon's observation that this little side-issue is off-topic holds more water, IMO; but c'mon Odeon, you followed that up by debating the off-topic pioint, thus taking the thread even further off-topic , according to your own estimation. So I'd guess that's not a problem , in your book, just so long as it's clear who started it? :apondering:
:flamer: :litigious:
just so long as it's clear who started it
That is me, right? :apondering:
Yes , Al. It's crystal clear that you were the one to write the initial letter of that particular sentence, in that particular paragraph, in that particular chapter of the neverending saga. Now we call all sleep easy, with that little mystery cleared up :LOL:
Okay, happy to own it. Not sure it was a terribly contentious issue. In light of everything else here which IS an issue, I would have put that at the very bottom of the pile. Sounds a bit of a "Well he started it!" kind of trope.
I think Odeon lying, misrepresenting, ignoring and calling bigotry and pandering to a false appreciation of his presumed moral superiority and assumed superior intellect is far more interesting.
-
^agreed
Also, I might say there's no need to misrepresent Trump, to make him look bad. That makes the guy look misunderstood instead, which I'd guess isn't the point.
Odeon's observation that this little side-issue is off-topic holds more water, IMO; but c'mon Odeon, you followed that up by debating the off-topic pioint, thus taking the thread even further off-topic , according to your own estimation. So I'd guess that's not a problem , in your book, just so long as it's clear who started it? :apondering:
:flamer: :litigious:
just so long as it's clear who started it
That is me, right? :apondering:
Yes , Al. It's crystal clear that you were the one to write the initial letter of that particular sentence, in that particular paragraph, in that particular chapter of the neverending saga. Now we call all sleep easy, with that little mystery cleared up :LOL:
Okay, happy to own it. Not sure it was a terribly contentious issue. In light of everything else here which IS an issue, I would have put that at the very bottom of the pile. Sounds a bit of a "Well he started it!" kind of trope.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I was saying, in what was meant to be a light-hearted jokey sort of way ;)
-
I think Odeon lying, misrepresenting, ignoring and calling bigotry and pandering to a false appreciation of his presumed moral superiority and assumed superior intellect is far more interesting.
Al. You are not going to get a sincere, frank , honest response out of Odeon by throwing bitter accusations at him. You know why? Because people, quite naturally become defensive in the face of that sort of thing. It takes a special kind of strength to be totally sincere all the time, even when under attack. You can't realistically demand that kind of strength of Odeon or anyone .
You know most people respond to personal attacks by being ever-less-sincere in their responses? They might "make fun" of their attacker; they might make facetious , smart-ass remarks. That's not the same as being "dishonest" ; that's more like throwing up a shield. However, , time and again, I'm seeing you take that sort of thinng as further evidence of Odeon's "dishonesty" ; and then you attack him all the more bitterly on that basis. It's a vicious cycle, you see? It's not a fight that either party can win. And whatever the underlying grievance is, that's not being addressed , just buried under deepening piles of shit.
Now I'm not saying that you're doing all the attacking . Looks like six-of-one, half-a-dozen-of-the-other to me. I'm just saying : here's two people with two very different , completely incompatible defensive styles, can't help but get up each others noses and make matters worse. Is that really what you want? I don't think so. So, can you figure out some other way of dealing with this?
Or shall I just give in and change the thread title to Al v Odeon #1001? :LOL:
-
I think Odeon lying, misrepresenting, ignoring and calling bigotry and pandering to a false appreciation of his presumed moral superiority and assumed superior intellect is far more interesting.
Al. You are not going to get a sincere, frank , honest response out of Odeon by throwing bitter accusations at him. You know why? Because people, quite naturally become defensive in the face of that sort of thing. It takes a special kind of strength to be totally sincere all the time, even when under attack. You can't realistically demand that kind of strength of Odeon or anyone .
You know most people respond to personal attacks by being ever-less-sincere in their responses? They might "make fun" of their attacker; they might make facetious , smart-ass remarks. That's not the same as being "dishonest" ; that's more like throwing up a shield. However, , time and again, I'm seeing you take that sort of thinng as further evidence of Odeon's "dishonesty" ; and then you attack him all the more bitterly on that basis. It's a vicious cycle, you see? It's not a fight that either party can win. And whatever the underlying grievance is, that's not being addressed , just buried under deepening piles of shit.
Now I'm not saying that you're doing all the attacking . Looks like six-of-one, half-a-dozen-of-the-other to me. I'm just saying : here's two people with two very different , completely incompatible defensive styles, can't help but get up each others noses and make matters worse. Is that really what you want? I don't think so. So, can you figure out some other way of dealing with this?
Or shall I just give in and change the thread title to Al v Odeon #1001? :LOL:
That is one reading Walkie. A charitable one to Odeon but not a dishonest one.
Here is my reading. Odeon screwed the pooch. Odeon adopted a number of unfortunate positions. Stupid ones. Many of them ideological. He then was then highly stupid and dishonest in doubling down on these positions which proved to be difficult to defend. Being unable to defend them or to retreat from them without being contested he was forced to a situation where he had either to admit he had been dishonest with all the claims (and later on- claims to misrepresent the situation or deflect or obfuscate or cover for) OR continue debasing himself with lie after lie after misrepresentation after misrepresentation after deflection after derision.
In the reply above, he clearly in two instances indicated, that I had not backed a position, and he had not seen me back the positions. I then proved doing so months before, and as the text in both instances points out, the quoted posts from months previously were in complete opposition to what he was claiming as fact. Lies. Verifiable Lies.
I will give him no quarter. No let off. No compromise. No handshake. No agreeing to disagree. He chose to call me intellectually dishonest. He did not have to. He refused to back himself (the attempts were weak and a display of cringeworthy dishonesty unto themselves, he ought to do far better than that and he has in the past). He called me a bigot and refused to back that. (Again, his attempts were disingenuous and pitiful and he can do better) and he also used the mod on me to censor me.
So to all of that I say "Fuck Odeon." I am not upset nor angry. But Odeon deserves what Odeon gets. I see no reason after his actions towards me to do anything less. He probably should not lie and probably should not have done so in the first place. He did and that is on him. I did give him ample time to either make a decent case or to retract and he decided on this path instead. I even out of a sense of fairplay, gave him two more opportunities to make this right. He could not bring himself to do that an dhe does not get a third opportunity , at all.
-
<snippety>
Al, repeating failed arguments won't magically unfail them. Once again, you haven't shown that a ban on Muslims at the border would help; nobody has, not you, not Trump, not anyone else. You all imply it by selectively citing factoids, but that's about it. Trump frequently lies and misrepresents, too.
I'm also stunned by your defending his comments on Mexicans. Have you heard (or read) the entire speech?
But this is not going anywhere and I have better things to do than reading your posts.
-
People like Odeon have made it clear on numerous occasions they aren't a fan of evidence that proves them wrong.
One of the problems I have with you is that your world really does come in black and white. Thus, to you, a single video is proof that I'm wrong.
It's never that easy, though. I tend to find your posts to go a couple of steps too far, meaning that you frequently start with a comment or a view that is entirely sensible to me--several of your posts take a reasoned approach to Muslims and Islam--only to then grab your tinfoils and take your argument far beyond any reason.
It's not a single video, it's numerous videos or links you refuse to acknowledge, because they prove you wrong, so you just say "tinfoil" and that's enough for you. "Too far" because it goes out of your knowledge zone. Just because you don't understand the argument or were unaware of the information or see it as "tinfoil hat" stuff because you didn't know about it or it would mean you were wrong doesn't mean what I've said is crazy or wrong. You can't actually go into any detail about what you think is "tinfoil" stuff, it's just too much for you. So it's hardly me who's black and white.
I never said you only ever posted a single video, I used it as an argument to make a point--please reread my comment.
That said, please note that I don't watch most videos here. Not yours, not anyone else's. I would probably read an argument made by you in a post but I don't come here to watch videos as a general rule. I sometimes follow links and look up things people mention, but normally, I don't watch the videos because that is not why I come here.
It's hardly the same as me not knowing what you're on about.
-
People like Odeon have made it clear on numerous occasions they aren't a fan of evidence that proves them wrong.
One of the problems I have with you is that your world really does come in black and white. Thus, to you, a single video is proof that I'm wrong.
It's never that easy, though. I tend to find your posts to go a couple of steps too far, meaning that you frequently start with a comment or a view that is entirely sensible to me--several of your posts take a reasoned approach to Muslims and Islam--only to then grab your tinfoils and take your argument far beyond any reason.
It's not a single video, it's numerous videos or links you refuse to acknowledge, because they prove you wrong, so you just say "tinfoil" and that's enough for you. "Too far" because it goes out of your knowledge zone. Just because you don't understand the argument or were unaware of the information or see it as "tinfoil hat" stuff because you didn't know about it or it would mean you were wrong doesn't mean what I've said is crazy or wrong. You can't actually go into any detail about what you think is "tinfoil" stuff, it's just too much for you. So it's hardly me who's black and white.
Yes he goes in with a self-vaulted faux moral superiority, so when it gets too hard for him to out muscel it intellectually his mind allows his the failsafe fallback off ignoring it and saying "This is just tinfoil" or "It is bigoted" and he will do this with smug faux intellectual indignation or faux moral righteousness
:rofl:
-
Nothing he said had ANY bearing on Mexicans who were in US legally.
Sir Les does have a point here; Trump was talking about illegals.
Actually, he wasn't:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/06/16/full-text-donald-trump-announces-a-presidential-bid/
His famed comments on Mexicans come early on.
-
^agreed
Also, I might say there's no need to misrepresent Trump, to make him look bad. That makes the guy look misunderstood instead, which I'd guess isn't the point.
Odeon's observation that this little side-issue is off-topic holds more water, IMO; but c'mon Odeon, you followed that up by debating the off-topic pioint, thus taking the thread even further off-topic , according to your own estimation. So I'd guess that's not a problem , in your book, just so long as it's clear who started it? :apondering:
:flamer: :litigious:
Fair point.
-
I think Odeon lying, misrepresenting, ignoring and calling bigotry and pandering to a false appreciation of his presumed moral superiority and assumed superior intellect is far more interesting.
Al. You are not going to get a sincere, frank , honest response out of Odeon by throwing bitter accusations at him. You know why? Because people, quite naturally become defensive in the face of that sort of thing. It takes a special kind of strength to be totally sincere all the time, even when under attack. You can't realistically demand that kind of strength of Odeon or anyone .
You know most people respond to personal attacks by being ever-less-sincere in their responses? They might "make fun" of their attacker; they might make facetious , smart-ass remarks. That's not the same as being "dishonest" ; that's more like throwing up a shield. However, , time and again, I'm seeing you take that sort of thinng as further evidence of Odeon's "dishonesty" ; and then you attack him all the more bitterly on that basis. It's a vicious cycle, you see? It's not a fight that either party can win. And whatever the underlying grievance is, that's not being addressed , just buried under deepening piles of shit.
Now I'm not saying that you're doing all the attacking . Looks like six-of-one, half-a-dozen-of-the-other to me. I'm just saying : here's two people with two very different , completely incompatible defensive styles, can't help but get up each others noses and make matters worse. Is that really what you want? I don't think so. So, can you figure out some other way of dealing with this?
Or shall I just give in and change the thread title to Al v Odeon #1001? :LOL:
That is one reading Walkie. A charitable one to Odeon but not a dishonest one.
Here is my reading. Odeon screwed the pooch. Odeon adopted a number of unfortunate positions. Stupid ones. Many of them ideological. He then was then highly stupid and dishonest in doubling down on these positions which proved to be difficult to defend. Being unable to defend them or to retreat from them without being contested he was forced to a situation where he had either to admit he had been dishonest with all the claims (and later on- claims to misrepresent the situation or deflect or obfuscate or cover for) OR continue debasing himself with lie after lie after misrepresentation after misrepresentation after deflection after derision.
In the reply above, he clearly in two instances indicated, that I had not backed a position, and he had not seen me back the positions. I then proved doing so months before, and as the text in both instances points out, the quoted posts from months previously were in complete opposition to what he was claiming as fact. Lies. Verifiable Lies.
I will give him no quarter. No let off. No compromise. No handshake. No agreeing to disagree. He chose to call me intellectually dishonest. He did not have to. He refused to back himself (the attempts were weak and a display of cringeworthy dishonesty unto themselves, he ought to do far better than that and he has in the past). He called me a bigot and refused to back that. (Again, his attempts were disingenuous and pitiful and he can do better) and he also used the mod on me to censor me.
So to all of that I say "Fuck Odeon." I am not upset nor angry. But Odeon deserves what Odeon gets. I see no reason after his actions towards me to do anything less. He probably should not lie and probably should not have done so in the first place. He did and that is on him. I did give him ample time to either make a decent case or to retract and he decided on this path instead. I even out of a sense of fairplay, gave him two more opportunities to make this right. He could not bring himself to do that an dhe does not get a third opportunity , at all.
As if I care, Al. Fuck you too, you dishonest, bigoted bully. You deserve what you get. And no, I'm not upset either.
-
<snippety>
Al, repeating failed arguments won't magically unfail them. Once again, you haven't shown that a ban on Muslims at the border would help; nobody has, not you, not Trump, not anyone else. You all imply it by selectively citing factoids, but that's about it. Trump frequently lies and misrepresents, too.
I'm also stunned by your defending his comments on Mexicans. Have you heard (or read) the entire speech?
But this is not going anywhere and I have better things to do than reading your posts.
Ignoring facts will not make them lies. Ignoring replies is not a counter. Saying something failed is not a self-evident truth nor does your pronouncement make it so.
Odeon, you are an idiot.
If a bigot said "Blacks are not brave and wouldn't ever swim with piranhas" and people were up in arms saying how bigoted the statement was and how blacks are just as brave as any other race, and how black people "SHOULD swim with piranhas", then a non-bigoted person CAN say "No, black people should NOT swim with piranhas because it is dangerous as fuck."
Both are asking for the same thing and one would be from a place of bigotry. The end result is NOT reflective of being bigoted nor of bigoted intent. You cannot follow this because you are ideologically blinded, but guaranteed most people can.
You keep saying Trump is bigoted. He may or may not be. But you do not have to be a bigot to agree with any of his ideas EVEN IF the whole reason he said them was either to be a bigot or appeal to bigots.
As to whether a ban at the border would help, HOW would one PROVE it. No, let's flip this around Odeon. What exactly are you asking? I can say that IF we KNOW within groups of desperate Muslim refugee families are radical Muslim extremists. If we KNOW that THOSE Muslims ABSOLUTELY mean harm to the host country and seek to individually and collectively subjugate and terrorise the host nation. We KNOW that vetting is substandard and effectively leaving the door open for people from those countries to walk through unchecked.
So that is what we have. Would a ban art the borders help? Logic dictates that IF those people motivated and wanting to harm a country are prevented from doing so them ABSOLUTELY. That is the intent. Can we PROVE they will not find some other way to hurt US citizens? Maybe they will find US citizens abroad and kill them? Maybe they will find another avenue to sneak into US? Maybe they have another political or financial way to hurt America? So can I absolutely prove that no harm would be done or that an equal harm could not be achieved?
Is THAT what you are asking me to prove? You would not be THAT disingenuous would you? You are not for one dishonest moment saying that the inability to prove it is reason enough to let people in unchecked and unvetted because there is a chance they may find ways to hurt America overseas so you may as well risk them in America?
That would be beyond stupid and it is both illogical and dishonest. Back on you. I have made my points well enough and you have been doing a lot of deflecting. Make your point and make it well.
-
Nothing he said had ANY bearing on Mexicans who were in US legally.
Sir Les does have a point here; Trump was talking about illegals.
Actually, he wasn't:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/06/16/full-text-donald-trump-announces-a-presidential-bid/
His famed comments on Mexicans come early on.
Yup he WAS referring to illegal immigrants and only idiots still hold onto the narrative that he was speaking about all Mexicans. Why do you?
-
I think Odeon lying, misrepresenting, ignoring and calling bigotry and pandering to a false appreciation of his presumed moral superiority and assumed superior intellect is far more interesting.
Al. You are not going to get a sincere, frank , honest response out of Odeon by throwing bitter accusations at him. You know why? Because people, quite naturally become defensive in the face of that sort of thing. It takes a special kind of strength to be totally sincere all the time, even when under attack. You can't realistically demand that kind of strength of Odeon or anyone .
You know most people respond to personal attacks by being ever-less-sincere in their responses? They might "make fun" of their attacker; they might make facetious , smart-ass remarks. That's not the same as being "dishonest" ; that's more like throwing up a shield. However, , time and again, I'm seeing you take that sort of thinng as further evidence of Odeon's "dishonesty" ; and then you attack him all the more bitterly on that basis. It's a vicious cycle, you see? It's not a fight that either party can win. And whatever the underlying grievance is, that's not being addressed , just buried under deepening piles of shit.
Now I'm not saying that you're doing all the attacking . Looks like six-of-one, half-a-dozen-of-the-other to me. I'm just saying : here's two people with two very different , completely incompatible defensive styles, can't help but get up each others noses and make matters worse. Is that really what you want? I don't think so. So, can you figure out some other way of dealing with this?
Or shall I just give in and change the thread title to Al v Odeon #1001? :LOL:
That is one reading Walkie. A charitable one to Odeon but not a dishonest one.
Here is my reading. Odeon screwed the pooch. Odeon adopted a number of unfortunate positions. Stupid ones. Many of them ideological. He then was then highly stupid and dishonest in doubling down on these positions which proved to be difficult to defend. Being unable to defend them or to retreat from them without being contested he was forced to a situation where he had either to admit he had been dishonest with all the claims (and later on- claims to misrepresent the situation or deflect or obfuscate or cover for) OR continue debasing himself with lie after lie after misrepresentation after misrepresentation after deflection after derision.
In the reply above, he clearly in two instances indicated, that I had not backed a position, and he had not seen me back the positions. I then proved doing so months before, and as the text in both instances points out, the quoted posts from months previously were in complete opposition to what he was claiming as fact. Lies. Verifiable Lies.
I will give him no quarter. No let off. No compromise. No handshake. No agreeing to disagree. He chose to call me intellectually dishonest. He did not have to. He refused to back himself (the attempts were weak and a display of cringeworthy dishonesty unto themselves, he ought to do far better than that and he has in the past). He called me a bigot and refused to back that. (Again, his attempts were disingenuous and pitiful and he can do better) and he also used the mod on me to censor me.
So to all of that I say "Fuck Odeon." I am not upset nor angry. But Odeon deserves what Odeon gets. I see no reason after his actions towards me to do anything less. He probably should not lie and probably should not have done so in the first place. He did and that is on him. I did give him ample time to either make a decent case or to retract and he decided on this path instead. I even out of a sense of fairplay, gave him two more opportunities to make this right. He could not bring himself to do that an dhe does not get a third opportunity , at all.
As if I care, Al. Fuck you too, you dishonest, bigoted bully. You deserve what you get. And no, I'm not upset either.
Fuck you too r
You deserve everything you get.
As a Swedish man, why do Swedish men rape Swedish women and girls so much? Why are the numbers second only to South Africa? Why do Swedish men not protect women and girls and let them be raped so much? Its a crisis. One that is internationally recognised. What is the major character flaw in Swedish men?
-
As I also said though, FGM isn't a Muslim problem or just a Muslim problem. It mainly is an African problem, but we aren't allowed to protest against Africans coming here.
.
I know that. I just gave it as an example. There are issues like forced marriage that go way beyond Africa, though also way beyond Muslim communities. We've been looking at that one for decades, haven't we? It was brought here by people from the Indian sub-continent. My impression is that the Muslim communities have stubbornly clung to such practices , wheras the Sikhs and Hindus have...integrated more , shall we say?
One thing people outside Britain don't ever seem to realise is that our Sikhs , Hindus and other minorities are as worried by Islam as the white people are. Especially the Sikhs and Hindus indeed (just look at India's history!)
No one has really integrated that well as a whole. The focus is just on Muslims since 9/11. That's because Indians hate each other where religion is concerned.
Do you have any knowledge or opinions of Israel/Palestine?
-
People like Odeon have made it clear on numerous occasions they aren't a fan of evidence that proves them wrong.
One of the problems I have with you is that your world really does come in black and white. Thus, to you, a single video is proof that I'm wrong.
It's never that easy, though. I tend to find your posts to go a couple of steps too far, meaning that you frequently start with a comment or a view that is entirely sensible to me--several of your posts take a reasoned approach to Muslims and Islam--only to then grab your tinfoils and take your argument far beyond any reason.
It's not a single video, it's numerous videos or links you refuse to acknowledge, because they prove you wrong, so you just say "tinfoil" and that's enough for you. "Too far" because it goes out of your knowledge zone. Just because you don't understand the argument or were unaware of the information or see it as "tinfoil hat" stuff because you didn't know about it or it would mean you were wrong doesn't mean what I've said is crazy or wrong. You can't actually go into any detail about what you think is "tinfoil" stuff, it's just too much for you. So it's hardly me who's black and white.
I never said you only ever posted a single video, I used it as an argument to make a point--please reread my comment.
That said, please note that I don't watch most videos here. Not yours, not anyone else's. I would probably read an argument made by you in a post but I don't come here to watch videos as a general rule. I sometimes follow links and look up things people mention, but normally, I don't watch the videos because that is not why I come here.
It's hardly the same as me not knowing what you're on about.
With regards to the video in question, it backs up one of the points I made, for which you called me tinfoil for making the point. Michael T Flynn, look him up. Trump has offered him a job.
-
Nothing he said had ANY bearing on Mexicans who were in US legally.
Sir Les does have a point here; Trump was talking about illegals.
Actually, he wasn't:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/06/16/full-text-donald-trump-announces-a-presidential-bid/
His famed comments on Mexicans come early on.
Fair enough. Though in follow-up questioning, he's clarified on numerous occasions he was referencing illegal immigrants. Too in follow-up, he has also clarified he has sources the government of Mexico has been sending criminals to the US. Think that's actually much more interesting than what either your or I assume he meant. :laugh:
-
Nothing he said had ANY bearing on Mexicans who were in US legally.
Sir Les does have a point here; Trump was talking about illegals.
Actually, he wasn't:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/06/16/full-text-donald-trump-announces-a-presidential-bid/
His famed comments on Mexicans come early on.
Fair enough. Though in follow-up questioning, he's clarified on numerous occasions he was referencing illegal immigrants. Too in follow-up, he has also clarified he has sources the government of Mexico has been sending criminals to the US. Think that's actually much more interesting than what either your or I assume he meant. :laugh:
Its the filter. Whho cares what he meant? Who cares what point he was trying to drive? Who cares if he clarifies what he said? Who cares even if he admits he misspoke? Nope if you are a dishonest ideologue like Odeon ABSOLUTELY is, then all you need to do is to say "But he initially said..." and that is argument enough to disclaim everything.
Odeon is a loser.
-
Jack likes the Mexican government conspiracy theory. :M
-
Jack likes the Mexican government conspiracy theory. :M
Meh. That rant was aimed squared at Odeon for being a loser, because he is a loser.
-
This conversation has me wondering if it's common for Mexican people to gripe about the US stealing their honest hard-working citizens and sending back the criminals. Probably. Might have to ask someone.
-
This conversation has me wondering if it's common for Mexican people to gripe about the US stealing their honest hard-working citizens and sending back the criminals. Probably. Might have to ask someone.
Certainly they could say that. I would not take it as a literal comment though. Someone saying that would likely be not saving that the US ACTUALLY stole or took them, but rather that whilst US benefited from the hard labour Ramon the pool boy or Conseula the maid they send back Enrique the gangbanger.
The larger point about how illegal immigration may adversely affect Mexico could be discussed. Of course an obvious counter would be that Enrique is unlikely to have sent money home to Mexici whereas Conseula and ramon do and so do millions of other, to the tune of $28 billion a year.
This would certainly open dialogue. So long as there were not too many rabid ideologues trying to shut down the conversationwith calls of bigotry.
I think it would be a conversation worth having.
-
I would not take it as a literal comment though.
Definitely not; it was just a funny thought, just like funny to think about the US and Mexican governments playing pingpong with criminals. Certainly there must be some nationalistic Mexicans though who might view those living in the US as some type of traitor, and fault the US for luring the capable. Similar to Americans who spout they're stealing our jobs, and thus Mexicans equally spouting they're stealing our workers. :laugh: Looked it up and they do indeed exist; good for them.
The larger point about how illegal immigration may adversely affect Mexico could be discussed. Of course an obvious counter would be that Enrique is unlikely to have sent money home to Mexici whereas Conseula and ramon do and so do millions of other, to the tune of $28 billion a year.
28 billion is definitely a big number, but when considering it against the Mexican economy as a whole, it only amounts to about 2% of their GDP, so would assume Mexico would be fine without the US dollars sent home by immigrants. Also, when one takes that 28 billion and divides it by the number of Mexican immigrants in the US, it equates to about 2,300 per person each year. The average income of what is considered the Mexican middle class is about 20,000 USD per year, so the typical person sending money to Mexico is likely only helping to increase their family's standard of living by 10-20%. The Mexican economy has improved in the last decade, and that could partially be equated to the recession in the US. During the height of the recession from 07-09, more immigrants returned to Mexico than migrated to the US, and Mexico is no longer the top origin country among the most recent US immigrants. The Mexican unemployment rate is similar to the US, so it could be easily argued that US immigrants sending money to Mexico would be more beneficial to the Mexican economy if they were living and working in it.
-
I would not take it as a literal comment though.
Definitely not; it was just a funny thought, just like funny to think about the US and Mexican governments playing pingpong with criminals. Certainly there must be some nationalistic Mexicans though who might view those living in the US as some type of traitor, and fault the US for luring the capable. Similar to Americans who spout they're stealing our jobs, and thus Mexicans equally spouting they're stealing our workers. :laugh: Looked it up and they do indeed exist; good for them.
The larger point about how illegal immigration may adversely affect Mexico could be discussed. Of course an obvious counter would be that Enrique is unlikely to have sent money home to Mexici whereas Conseula and ramon do and so do millions of other, to the tune of $28 billion a year.
28 billion is definitely a big number, but when considering it against the Mexican economy as a whole, it only amounts to about 2% of their GDP, so would assume Mexico would be fine without the US dollars sent home by immigrants. Also, when one takes that 28 billion and divides it by the number of Mexican immigrants in the US, it equates to about 2,300 per person each year. The average income of what is considered the Mexican middle class is about 20,000 USD per year, so the typical person sending money to Mexico is likely only helping to increase their family's standard of living by 10-20%. The Mexican economy has improved in the last decade, and that could partially be equated to the recession in the US. During the height of the recession from 07-09, more immigrants returned to Mexico than migrated to the US, and Mexico is no longer the top origin country among the most recent US immigrants. The Mexican unemployment rate is similar to the US, so it could be easily argued that US immigrants sending money to Mexico would be more beneficial to the Mexican economy if they were living and working in it.
Would certainly help Trump in his efforts to get rid of illegal immigrants by limiting their ability to send money hone, thereby reducing tge amount of money leaving the US therefore Mexico "pays for tge wal" and some illegal immigrants may decide in straw that broke the camel's back" fashion to go back to Mexico.
I think that would be great for his narrative, possibly less so for his agenda (I do think his concern is the criminal element in the illegal immigrant population). I do not know whether it would be an economic plus or minus.
There is another thing too. Illegal immigrants are not one collective homogeneous grouping.. Whilst the Democrats like to trot out the best case examples of illegal immigrants and their families as either victim or sensational successes and Trump points out the worst of them, I'd imagine most fall somewhere in between.
I think some will bludge and some will work their arses off, some will put into the economy and some take out and some will be criminals and some will be saints.
-
Would certainly help Trump in his efforts to get rid of illegal immigrants by limiting their ability to send money hone,
The patriot act already did that years ago. Limiting any further would infringe on the rights of citizens and people in the country legally.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/GjI90ET.jpg)
-
But now it's in your toilet. :zoinks:
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfXzz68OJwI
-
Grey area, I skipped along a few videos in that collection you linked to after the first you posted when I'd finished watching that.
This is hilarious, and for a scripturesturbator himself the narrator makes some good points. Backed up with some illustrations that I'm pretty sure there are going to be legions of rabid, bearded weaselly little pig-haters spraying spittle from their mouths and waving their prize beheading knives in fury at :D
http://youtu.be/26ZAqs5mTpE
Whats the betting that saudi arabia, pakistan, and somalia are not too high up on his xmas holiday travel itinerary:P
-
This conversation has me wondering if it's common for Mexican people to gripe about the US stealing their honest hard-working citizens and sending back the criminals. Probably. Might have to ask someone.
Mexico needs to stop allowing cartels to murder their honest hardworking citizens, then maybe they wouldn't want to come here.
-
This conversation has me wondering if it's common for Mexican people to gripe about the US stealing their honest hard-working citizens and sending back the criminals. Probably. Might have to ask someone.
Mexico needs to stop allowing cartels to murder their honest hardworking citizens, then maybe they wouldn't want to come here.
While they're the majority of immigrants overall, Mexicans are no longer the largest group of incoming immigrants because their economy has improved.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0u-NeqKR1Y
-
Somehow I don't think the cartels give a tinkers turd what people want them to do, if it conflicts with their agendas. Only way to do anything about them is with military force. Or perhaps the threat of a committed military response if they don't start to keep their slaughtering in-house. That is, to say, ensuring no civilian collateral damage.