Pat condells new video

[No Limit]

I'm all for ending wars. Israeli politics are also not something i look up to.
I'm not denying anyone to practice their faith unless it interferes with modern, secular norms and values.

What? Do you understand what you just said? you are okay with practicing religion as long as that religion doesn't interfere with secular values? A secular religion is an oxymoron. If you are trying to say religion has no right to influance our laws then yes, absolutely. But that isn't what you are advocating, you are advocating a lot more than that.

Look, instead of doing this quote war I'll just leave you with this. If your argument is that all religion sucks then great, I totally agree with you. If you want to start a war against all religion I will be right there with you. But that is not what your argument seems to be. Your argument seems to be that we should go and treat one religion differently than another. My question is why? What gives you the right to do that? As you have been shown and you were not able to dispute is that christian and jewish religions have way more influance in the world than muslim ones do. I still to this day can not buy alcohol on Sunday before noon not because of muslims, but because of christians. In this country there is a real debate about wether or not creation should be tought in schools, something that can have a horrible effect on generations to come. Islam does not affect me directly in any way, never has. Any effect it does have on me is the result of the west over-reacting to a very small threat. And if you aren't looking at just what has a personal effect on me you can look at all the dead palestinians because they didn't get the supplies they need because of an Israeli blockade or because Israel decided to flex it's muscle and drop a few thousand bombs.

What you are advocating is racism in my opinion (spare me the crap about Islam not being a race). You do not understand a culture so just because you don't understand it you are scared of it and want to oppress it. Yes, women in much of Islam have the right to chose wether or not to wear a burka. I don't know what the Koran says about this nor do I care. The bible says a lot of things too, like don't eat shell fish. Christianity in many ways has evolved when it comes to mainstream christians and much of that stuff isn't followed anymore. You make the mistake of assuming that Islam hasn't done the same, it has. Most muslims out there are in fact moderate. Go look at some pictures of Iran, check out some of their just absolutely gorgeous babes walking their streets, the image you have in your head is simply not accurate. Out of a billion some people very few do stupid shit, yet you want to punish all one billion and then you actually claim with a streight face that this will somehow make fundimentalism less extreme when if you have any common sense in you you know that it will do the opposite.

Edit: I'm curious No Limit...what is your definition of a moderate person? Let's say a religious moderate? You can take a christian is you like.

Any religious person that doesn't try to take over (or maybe influance is the better word) government with their idiotic 2,000 year old beliefs. Most christians are moderate, so are most jews, and so are most muslims. Yes, politically all these groups might preach how gay marriage is bad, or how abortion is bad, or how bombing the middle east constantly is bad and they will probably vote that way as they have a right to do in our legal framework. But most aren't going to strap bombs to themselves to try and change those politics if simply voting isn't working out for them.

 

[jverne]

What? Do you understand what you just said? you are okay with practicing religion as long as that religion doesn't interfere with secular values? A secular religion is an oxymoron. If you are trying to say religion has no right to influance our laws then yes, absolutely. But that isn't what you are advocating, you are advocating a lot more than that.

Secular values...values that strive for the need to separate religion and state.
Yes i'm advocating this.

Look, instead of doing this quote war I'll just leave you with this. If your argument is that all religion sucks then great, I totally agree with you. If you want to start a war against all religion I will be right there with you. But that is not what your argument seems to be. Your argument seems to be that we should go and treat one religion differently than another. My question is why? What gives you the right to do that? As you have been shown and you were not able to dispute is that christian and jewish religions have way more influance in the world than muslim ones do. I still to this day can not buy alcohol on Sunday before noon not because of muslims, but because of christians. In this country there is a real debate about wether or not creation should be tought in schools, something that can have a horrible effect on generations to come. Islam does not affect me directly in any way, never has. Any effect it does have on me is the result of the west over-reacting to a very small threat. And if you aren't looking at just what has a personal effect on me you can look at all the dead palestinians because they didn't get the supplies they need because of an Israeli blockade or because Israel decided to flex it's muscle and drop a few thousand bombs.

Give me any petition where i can vote against banning of alcohol based on religious views. I'll happily sign it for you!
I actually think current Israeli politics are completely wrong, i'm against them!

What you are advocating is racism in my opinion (spare me the crap about Islam not being a race).

"people who are believed to belong to the same genetic stock"

You have no idea what racism means then.
Mexicans are brown and the last time i've checked they're mostly Christians. So you're accusation is completely baseless.

You do not understand a culture so just because you don't understand it you are scared of it and want to oppress it.

I ask you again, what part of the culture the Taliban (fundamentalists, or whatever) demand i don't understand?

Yes, women in much of Islam have the right to chose wether or not to wear a burka. I don't know what the Koran says about this nor do I care.

"O Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (jalabib) close round them (when they go abroad)..." (33:59)

The bible says a lot of things too, like don't eat shell fish. Christianity in many ways has evolved when it comes to mainstream christians and much of that stuff isn't followed anymore. You make the mistake of assuming that Islam hasn't done the same, it has. Most muslims out there are in fact moderate. Go look at some pictures of Iran, check out some of their just absolutely gorgeous babes walking their streets, the image you have in your head is simply not accurate. Out of a billion some people very few do stupid shit, yet you want to punish all one billion and then you actually claim with a streight face that this will somehow make fundimentalism less extreme when if you have any common sense in you you know that it will do the opposite.

Yep, the iranians want a more moderate, secular "culture" from what i can tell and the fundamentalist "culture" that has control right now doesn't allow them. ZING ZING! Kinda my point all along.

I really don't want to punish all of them. Sure we got a bit out of hand with the burka thing i admit that. However some things must be upheld due to serious security consequences. Just as you are asking for trouble going in a bank with a pantyhose over your face. Not sure, is that actually illegal?

Any religious person that doesn't try to take over (or maybe influance is the better word) government with their idiotic 2,000 year old beliefs. Many christians are moderate, so are many jews, and so are many muslims.

So where do you categorize someone who wants halal or kosher meat in our society where it is illegal to treat animals like that?
Is he a dangerous extremist? A moderate perhaps?

 

[No Limit]

Secular values...values that strive for the need to separate religion and state.
Yes i'm advocating this.

Great that you are adovating this now, you weren't before. Before you were saying religion is something you can live with as long as that religion isn't Islam.

So where do you categorize someone who wants halal or kosher meat in our society where it is illegal to treat animals like that?
Is he a dangerous extremist? A moderate perhaps?

Is he willing to strap a bomb to himself if voting doesn't accomplish his goal? No? Then he's probably fairly moderate for a religious person and frankly he has no effect on me.

"people who are believed to belong to the same genetic stock"

You have no idea what racism means then.
Mexicans are brown and the last time i've checked they're mostly Christians. So you're accusation is completely baseless.

As I said spare me the crap about religion not being a race. You know exactly what I mean.

I ask you again, what part of the culture the Taliban (fundamentalists, or whatever) demand i don't understand?

I'll ask you again, what the hell does the Taliban have to do with this? We are talking about Islam and you clearly don't understand Islam if you think women are forced to wear burkas. Yes, in some countries they are, but this has nothing to do with the religion as a whole, which is the entire point here. If you ban burkas you are banning them for the entire religion, even for those women who want to wear it.

Yep, the iranians want a more moderate, secular culture from what i can tell and the fundamentalist culture that has control right now doesn't allow them. ZING ZING! Kinda my point all along.

I really don't want to punish all of them. Sure we got a bit out of hand with the burka thing i admit that. However some things must be upheld due to serious security consequences. Just as you are asking for trouble going in a bank with a pantyhose over your face. Not sure, is that actually illegal?

You are now trying to change the subject. Do I think muslim women should get special treatment at banks? No I don't. But that's up to each individual bank to decide atleast here in this country, and that's exactly how it should be. If you don't want burkas on your private property that is your right. But the government has no right telling you when they are and aren't allowed.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

And please don't start with the racist, xenophobe comments because there is nothing racist or xenophobic about this.

Don't need to mention how contradicting i may be. You're talking from a theoretical point of view which i would agree in different circumstances, but in reality harboring someone who wishes to change your ways is asking for trouble.
Sure you might want to live in a multicultural society where you won't mind backward practices. I can't see myself doing that, especially if they would be forced upon me.

They don't hate us directly, they just want to practice their ways which are in direct conflict with ours.

xenophobia/ noun extreme dislike or fear of foreigners, their customs, their religions etc. xenophobic

Also, how do their ways conflict with ours?

 

[jverne]

Great that you are adovating this now, you weren't before. Before you were saying religion is something you can live with as long as that religion isn't Islam.

I was advocating this all along, i can quote myself on this if you'd like?

Is he willing to strap a bomb to himself if voting doesn't accomplish his goal? No? Then he's probably fairly moderate for a religious person and frankly he has no effect on me.

No but he's "torturing" animals which i am against and also the law is on my side. If law means anything he must stopped by producing such type of meat.
Guess what, this would spark some anger from the extremist side, ebcause we're denying them their holy food. But hey, it's our ways and this is how our law demands it.
It doesn't affect you, but what about those who are against animal torture?

As I said spare me the crap about religion not being a race. You know exactly what I mean.

Yes i know what you mean, however you should correct yourself because what you're saying is completely wrong.

I'll ask you again, what the hell does the Taliban have to do with this? We are talking about Islam and you clearly don't understand Islam if you think women are forced to wear burkas. Yes, in some countries they are, but this has nothing to do with the religion as a whole, which is the entire point here. If you ban burkas you are banning them for the entire religion, even for those women who want to wear it.

Fundamental Islam is a patriarchal religion, women are not equal. The Koran demands women to be covered on way or another and to be modest.
The Koran also condones wife beating.
For any woman that wants freely to be a masochist she'd probably choose this life. But i bet my arse most of them would like to be treated with the same respect as men.

I think we need to define what Islam are we talking about, the Islam which is clearly written in the book or the Islam that was interpreted.
Well... if you're interpretation of islam maybe doesn't stone anymore but still discriminates women, then it's not a good enough interpretation for me. Interpret some more.

What is actually going on is the humanization of a fundamentalist view. Morals that were once given by the Koran are substituted by humanistic morals. Which is in a way watering down a religion.

As i've already stated i'm against fundamental Islam/Christianity/... and also against incompatible interpretations of it.

You are now trying to change the subject. Do I think muslim women should get special treatment at banks? No I don't. But that's up to each individual bank to decide atleast here in this country, and that's exactly how it should be. If you don't want burkas on your private property that is your right. But the government has no right telling you when they are and aren't allowed.

What about town halls?

xenophobia/ noun extreme dislike or fear of foreigners, their customs, their religions etc. xenophobic

Also, how do their ways conflict with ours?

You haven't read the thread have you?


Here's my idea how the burka issue might work:

A husband who came or was raised in a more extreme environment he'll probably be used to the burka. His wife one day must go to a government building which would prohibit face covers. The husband might feel a bit upset because it's not what he's used to but since at heart he's not really a hardcore believer he'll probably say the wife "just wear a scarf" and calm down.
This is in my view a possible moderate person. What happened here is actually government law affecting their views. And in the long run most of them will be pretty used seeing his wife with just a scarf and after some time if the wife would like to take the scarf off he'll be less weary of it.
Effectively breaking the loop.

Just like the government makes a law you don't like...you don't go bomb the shit out of it, you rant a bit but then you get used to it and do as they want.

Ok let's not make this the center argument, because i realize it's a delicate one. This might work very well for the ones not moderate enough.

 

[No Limit]

I was advocating this all along, i can quote myself on this if you'd like?

You never once advocated banning religious symbols outside of Islam.

No but he's "torturing" animals which i am against and also the law is on my side. If law means anything he must stopped by producing such type of meat.
Guess what, this would spark some anger from the extremist side, ebcause we're denying them their holy food. But hey, it's our ways and this is how our law demands it.
It doesn't affect you, but what about those who are against animal torture?

Ok, well if he is torturing the animals then he is breaking the law and he needs to be punished for it. This is the same law everyone must abide by and his religion doesn't factor in to that at all. I don't give 2 shits if he is offended are not. THis is not the point. The point again is that what you are trying to do is install laws that target an individual group, not society as a whole.

On late final edit:

Let me give you an example. I'm sure you are against preaching that says Islam should violently take over the government. If you set up a law that says that you can't preach that violent islam should take over the government then that would be a problem, you are targetting a group. However, you can set up a law that bans any talk of violent overthrow of the government and that would be fine. But suddenly if you tried to do that you would get a lot more resistance, wouldn't you? Because all of the sudden everyone's rights of freedom of speech are being pissed on. Do you not see the hypocrisy there?

/End Edit

Fundamental Islam is a patriarchal religion, women are not equal. The Koran demands women to be covered on way or another and to be modest.
The Koran also condones wife beating.
For any woman that wants freely to be a masochist she'd probably choose this life. But i bet my arse most of them would like to be treated with the same respect as men.

I think we need to define what Islam are we talking about, the Islam which is clearly written in the book or the Islam that was interpreted.
Well... if you're interpretation of islam maybe doesn't stone anymore but still discriminates women, then it's not a good enough interpretation for me. Interpret some more.

What is actually going on is the humanization of a fundamentalist view. Morals that were once given by the Koran are substituted by humanistic morals. Which is in a way watering down a religion.

As i've already stated i'm against fundamental Islam/Christianity/... and also against incompatible interpretations of it.

Yes, obviously fundimentalist Islam doesn't respect women, as most other fundementalists in any religion dont. yes fundimentalist Islam is wrong. But you continue to miss the point which is that you can not punish an entire group for something a minority in that group does; something you were advocating for earlier.

By the way on that point, if you changed your mind on banning burkas and minarets (have you?) what else are you willing to do?

What about town halls?

Town halls are not private property, they are government property. Now if you want to argue that there are security issues involved then absolutely you have a point, but there are ways to get around those security issues without outright banning the burka. Or maybe banning the burka in those vennues for those security issues is the way to go, whatever. Lets be honest, you and I know your opinion on this matter has nothing to do with security issues relating to security cameras so lets not pretend. This has to do with you wanting to ban a religious symbol to make a point (I still dont know what that point is).

I am getting sick of these quote wars and I just got home so this will probably be my last post for the day. But again, it boils down to what you actually want to do about the fundemantalist problem. As you agreed there are reasons that fundimentalists hate us to the point where they would want to hurt innocent people. I think we should simply minimize those reasons for the hate as much as possible. Obviously this will not stop all crazy people but it will stop most of them. Terrorism has been around since the beginning of time, that will never go away. But if you stop giving people reason to hate you then guess what, they will not hate you. Lets try that route for once instead of doing what we have always done and what you are advocating now, pissing all over a group of people the majority of whom never did anything to bother you.

 

[jverne]

You never once advocated banning religious symbols outside of Islam.

Well, i kinda did. Maybe not that outright as you'd like.

Fundamentalist Muslims/Christians/Jews culture has got to go...NO, NO tolerance to it.

Also religious arbiter courts are a joke IMO. Legally allowing discrimination against women.

Ok, well if he is torturing the animals then he is breaking the law and he needs to be punished for it. This is the same law everyone must abide by and his religion doesn't make him above that law. I don't give 2 shits if he is offended are not. THis is not the point. The point again is that what you are trying to do is install laws that target an individual group, not society as a whole.

Well my friend, we've just pissed off alot of muslims by saying that.

I did focus on Islam most of the time i give you that, but it's pretty evident i wasn't exempting other fundamentalist religious cultures. You can't deny that i have.

Yes, obviously fundimentalist Islam doesn't respect women, as most other fundementalists in any religion dont. yes fundimentalist Islam is wrong. But you continue to miss the point which is that you can not punish an entire group for something a minority in that group does; something you were advocating for earlier.

Punish, i never said anything about punishing an entire culture. My main argument was not bowing down to them.
I honestly don't know what do you define as punishment?
Banning the burka? Meh, depends on how you look at it. If the majority of women hate it then i'd be doing them a favor, at least technically.
Banning it would also mean we don't allow such practices of segregation.
And don't start with the irony thing again, you know what i mean by that.
To be honest if i'd knew that banning the retched things would work 100%, then i'd would be prepared to ignore a part of our core beliefs in exchange for practicality.

By the way on that point, if you changed your mind on banning burkas and minarets (have you?) what else are you willing to do?

The last sentence of the above paragraph deals with it. But since i can't be 100% sure, i won't be so hasty about it.
I still think the gradual restriction could work for some cases.
As for minarets/mosques. Hmm...maybe if they made them completely unnoticeable and adhere to any architectural standards of the region and other laws. Actually, many mosques don't have minarets, because as i understand it minarets are used as calling for prayer and not much else, besides the visual effect of separation from other buildings. Since yelling is basically restricted under noise laws, no need for them.

But to be honest i still find the best solution by restricting new constructions. Not because i dislike them, but because other religious communities might start to rant too. What's been built has been built, enough religion for one area. If you're really moderate you won't mind praying and socializing in a hall or at home, after all...you consider faith to be just a personal thing, right? Aren't you moderate after all? Or do you want your religion to have a greater effect...hmmm?

Town halls are not private property, they are government property. Now if you want to argue that there are security issues involved then absolutely you have a point, but there are ways to get around those security issues without outright banning the burka. Or maybe banning the burka in those vennues for those security issues is the way to go, whatever. Lets be honest, you and I know your opinion on this matter has nothing to do with security issues relating to security cameras so lets not pretend. This has to do with you wanting to ban a religious symbol to make a point (I still dont know what that point is).

And if i told you it does (which partially it really does), what then?

How do you not know my point, i plaster it all over?!

I am getting sick of these quote wars and I just got home so this will probably be my last post for the day. But again, it boils down to what you actually want to do about the fundemantalist problem. As you agreed there are reasons that fundimentalists hate us to the point where they would want to hurt innocent people. I think we should simply minimize those reasons for the hate as much as possible. Obviously this will not stop all crazy people but it will stop most of them. Terrorism has been around since the beginning of time, that will never go away. But if you stop giving people reason to hate you then guess what, they will not hate you. Lets try that route for once instead of doing what we have always done and what you are advocating now, pissing all over a group of people the majority of whom never did anything to bother you.

Yup, brb...i have to go tell the parents of that kid that he cannot be exempt of class because of his religious need.

Also the last time somebody offended nazis they couldn't kill him, the same can't be said for islamofascists. Which only means they have more influence right now than any other extremist group, thus the need to raise the issue.

 

[jverne]

Oh and another fun fact.

Or government last year banned smoking in public places. You won't believe how much better it is indoors. Some even resorted to quitting the habit because it's unpractical or at least refrain from doing it indoor. You don't see people bombing the parliament. Sure banning it outright might cause massive outrage, instead they choose a milder way.

Same could be done for the burka. If the majority of muslims are moderate as it is presumed, then it wouldn't be such a problem. They'd understand. Maybe, just maybe...some even want it but are scared because of pressure from the more devouted ones.
The world is not really that black and white as we sometimes made it out to be.

 

[No Limit]

You still believe from what I can see that banning the burka, the minarets, and possibly other religious symbols is justified (the justifications you give for it don't really matter to my point).

So it took you all of those words for you to say "Nah No Limit, I think pissing on the rights of certain people while not on others is cool". Because that's what it boils down to. And you might not call it punishment but thats exactly what you should call it, because that's what it is. And in the end it's the same as pissing on a hornets nest and then being suprised why you got stung. Me personally? I'm gonna wait a few more decades for religion to be lowered to the stupidity that it is by society, that's inevitable. I just hope that people like you don't **** that inevitability up in the mean time because you are afraid of a few brown people.

 

[No Limit]

Oh and another fun fact.

Or government last year banned smoking in public places. You won't believe how much better it is indoors. Some even resorted to quitting the habit because it's unpractical or at least refrain from doing it indoor. You don't see people bombing the parliament. Sure banning it outright might cause massive outrage, instead they choose a milder way.

Same could be done for the burka. If the majority of muslims are moderate as it is presumed, then it wouldn't be such a problem. They'd understand. Maybe, just maybe...some even want it but are scared because of pressure from the more devouted ones.
The world is not really that black and white as we sometimes made it out to be.

Jesus christ. Do me a favor, before you post the next time around spend a few minutes thinking about what you are about to post because I know you're smart enough to stop yourself after you thought it through.

Did we ban smoking for everyone? No we didn't. We banned smoking when that smoking causes harm to other people. Does the burka cause you harm jverne?

Also, the reasons don't bomb things when government bans public smoking is because when the government does that it isn't seen as a war against your people (and I mean a literal war here, where your people actually die).

 

[jverne]

You still believe from what I can see that banning the burka, the minarets, and possibly other religious symbols is justified (the justifications you give for it don't really matter to my point).

So it took you all of those words for you to say "Nah No Limit, I think pissing on the rights of certain people while not on others is cool". Because that's what it boils down to. And you might not call it punishment but thats exactly what you should call it, because that's what it is. And in the end it's the same as pissing on a hornets nest and then being suprised why you got stung. Me personally? I'm gonna wait a few more decades for religion to be lowered to the stupidity that it is by society, that's inevitable. I just hope that people like you don't **** that inevitability up in the mean time because you are afraid of a few brown people.

For certain situations it could be banned...i've said that. And i also said that i wouldn't be to hasty of banning it outright.
There where it actually poses some kind problem.
What would you say for the fact that if the burka posed some kind of health hazard for the wearer or the surroundings. Vitamin D deficiency. Or getting stuck somewhere.
If the woman doesn't have a choice to not wear it, shes basically handicapped.
I'll repeat again...i don't honestly know what is the best option for the burka but i do think in some cases it can be restricted. I've said that earlier. And i repeat i'm not for an outright ban! I've also explained that earlier. Stop being a prick.

As for mosques/churches/... they should be restricted in some form.

God damn it you're starting to irritate me by implying i hate one group in particular.

A few decades...heh, you fail to notice that Christianity didn't really start to fade until people confronted it and that took what? 500 years?
I'm more worried for things that might affect my life, like the blasphemy law or the fact that animals should be treated worse than what they already are or that some people have privileges that i don't because of religious beliefs.

It's really annoying how you condense all of my arguments into the "banning burka" one and hinge all of your rebuttal on it.

Oh and you also called me a racist, indirectly.

 

[No Limit]

I actually called you a racist directly . Do you have any idea how absolutely absurd you sound? "If the burka caused a vitamin D deficiency"? I honestly can't tell if you're just ****ing with me at this point.

And the reason I concentrate on you wanting to ban the burka or minarets is because that's a huge part of your argument for 2 reasons. First you keep bringing up this notion that women are forced to wear a burka. In the west and in fact in most middle eastern countries this is simply not true. These women choose to wear the burka. Muslim women in britain are protected under the same laws you are, their husband can't make them do anything.

Second it is a big part of your argument, remember I asked what you wanted to do to help stop fundementalism aside from bitching about muslims on the internet. You named the burka specifically along with banning miranets. None of which will do anything to slow down or stop fundementalism, all it will do is piss off a billion plus people. Do you have any other ideas about how to stop fundamentalism that you would like to name?

 

[jverne]

I actually called you a racist directly .

Then you obviously have no idea what racist means and i'm just wasting my time with you.

Do you have any idea how absolutely absurd you sound? "If the burka caused a vitamin D deficiency"? I honestly can't tell if you're just ****ing with me at this point.

Scientists had previously found high rates of vitamin D deficiency in Arab and East Indian women living in the United Arab Emirates. A follow-up study investigated the effect of vitamin D supplements on 178 UAE women, many of whom covered themselves entirely, faces and hands included, when outside their homes. Only two of the women did not have vitamin D deficiency prior to receiving supplements. The results were published by a team of scientists in the June issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2007/06/27/are_muslim_dress_codes_bad_for_womens_health

Oh snap, no i didn't!

And the reason I concentrate on you wanting to ban the burka or minarets is because that's a huge part of your argument for 2 reasons. First you keep bringing up this notion that women are forced to wear a burka. In the west and in fact in most middle eastern countries this is simply not true. These women choose to wear the burka. Muslim women in britain are protected under the same laws you are, their husband can't make them do anything.

Well a statistic would be nice.

The women choose to wear the burka? Sure they choose, because the alternative would mean facing repercussions from husband, community,...
If we looked purely statistically there are more women forced to cover themselves than they actually choose to. Basically anywhere where the hand of Islam is strong.
How exactly would that work? If a muslim women wanted to suntan on a beach in Saudi arabia, what would happen? Sure, theoretically she might have a choice, but not in reality.

Sure they are protected with the same laws...wait, they have arbiter courts that offer less protection, hmm. It would be nice if you dug up how many cases involved a muslim family were run under a regular court and how many under an arbiter court. I'm betting Sharia courts are more visited by the local muslim community than regular ones.
But then again neither you or i don't have proof for that, however i do have proof that discriminating judgments were made.

Second it is a big part of your argument, remember I asked what you wanted to do to help stop fundementalism aside from bitching about muslims on the internet. You named the burka specifically along with banning miranets. None of which will do anything to slow down or stop fundementalism, all it will do is piss off a billion plus people. Do you have any other ideas about how to stop fundamentalism that you would like to name?

It seems no matter what i say you just keep hearing one thing "BAN THE BURKAAAAA!!"
God damn it, it's tough or almost impossible to argue with you.

Yes big part of my argument

Overhaul the immigration system, where people who don't agree with our norms from the start should not enter.
Try to accept less immigrants to allow integration to take place.
Get rid of the public multicultural agenda.
Reinforce the watch over illegal immigrants entering the country.
Stop bowing down to fundamentalist loudmouths.

I just propose a possible solution and you hang on to it as if your life was at stake.
But ok i understand, it's easier to pick on an argument that has no clear lines.

Like i've said, in some instances some form of restrictions can be beneficial.
Are you going to repeat the same thing again now?

 

[Solaris]

How about going back to why we should kill innocent children when they are forced to live under a brutal dictator? Wanna address that Solaris? You were quick to blame Islam for all they have done wrong, blaming the west for what they did isn't as big a priority for you?

Well here we are No Limit. I had my last exam lats night, then had to go to work, then went to a party at 2am. It is now 4am. So I am not in the most logical state of mind, (its a good party ). However I feel I must interput my fun to make this retort.

We should not kill innocent children, nor should we tolerate that innocent children should live under a brutal genoicdal tyrant.

I think the sanctions policy was done to delay the impossible (invading Iraq to remove Sadam'. Previous policitians, post gulf war 1, didn't have the guts and responcability to do what was nessecary.

However, given that our leaders would not all out invade Iraq, I do not agree that we should have just let Sadamn do what he will, free of sanctions, perhaps he would have killed more kurds, invaded another country, who knows?

Our sanctions policy was misguided, and I believe we should have invaded Iraq fully during the first world war.

However, you seem to believe that our western policy creates our eneimes in the middleeast. I will use the term 'islamofacists' to describe them. I do not understand how you could disagree with that term either, though I am sure that you will.

Can't you see that they seek a theocratic society, where Islamic rule is enforced? Surely, imposing such a system through violence is nessecary for this - and thus the term: Islamicfacism.

How could we then, as the west, be morally responcable for creating facists? Facism is not rooted in personal pain, France was not an oppressed working class man. Jews commited no crime worthy of any punishment, never mind the holocaust.

To think facism could have a logical cause would be to agree the German people had a legitimate greviance against the Jews.

Clearly then, Facism has no logical roots, the facists we fight cannot be created by us, they are out enemy and must be defeated.

It is why I have such good faith in your character, I know although I have diverged, we both believe in core socialist ideals. That the poor should be looked after, that all should have an equal voice, that our nation must have the interest of humanity as a whole applied through it's actions.

It's why we both despise facists, they stand for the powerful elite, biggoted and 'evil' (if you'll allow a fellow atheist the term). I hope you can see that the enemies in the taliban and Al-Queda are enemies of humanity at a whole. If we allow them Afganistan, they will take pakistan, if we allow Islamic terrorism to be advocated by radical immams in our mosques, they will blow up our buses.

The fight against IslamicFacism is the continued fight that was before fought against the aristocracies, the strikebreakers, the nazis, the arrogant elitists, the racists who wouldn't allow black women at the front of the bus and those who would not allow nations to make descisions with the consent of the people.

As much as I despise the pasts of American and British military actions, the north ireland is close to heart. I feel that our armed forces can be used for good, if directed with the right intentions.

I hope this post has given you an insite into why I feel what I feel and I hope you agree that we both think with the sincere hope to improve the common condition at heart.


Your Friend

Danny

 

[Solaris]

In retrospect, the above is obviously ludicrously worded, I was high as a kite.
I retract nothing, to hilarious to edit.

 

[Eejit]

How could we then, as the west, be morally responcable for creating facists? Facism is not rooted in personal pain, France was not an oppressed working class man. Jews commited no crime worthy of any punishment, never mind the holocaust.

To think facism could have a logical cause would be to agree the German people had a legitimate greviance against the Jews.

Clearly then, Facism has no logical roots, the facists we fight cannot be created by us, they are out enemy and must be defeated.

Yet the Germans had legitimate grievances against the other parties involved in the Treaty of Versailles. The powers responsible for forcing that agreement on Germany held a large part of the responsibility for the rise of Fascism.
Trying to cloud the issue by saying the Jews didn't do anything doesn't make your analogy support your point.

Also, Godwin's Law.

 

[Solaris]

Yet the Germans had legitimate grievances against the other parties involved in the Treaty of Versailles. The powers responsible for forcing that agreement on Germany held a large part of the responsibility for the rise of Fascism.
Trying to cloud the issue by saying the Jews didn't do anything doesn't make your analogy support your point.

Also, Godwin's Law.

Godwin's Law?!?
I AM THE LAW!!!

 

[No Limit]

Then you obviously have no idea what racist means and i'm just wasting my time with you.

Calm down.

Oh snap, no i didn't!

Again, do you have any idea how absolutely absurd you sound? What, you want the government to regulate how much vitamin D everyone needs to get? But only for Muslim women of course. This has nothing to do with the health of the women for you, you simply don't like the burka and are looking for a excuse to ban it so you could pretend that you aren't punishing Islam. It's absolutely absurd.

I won't do the quote war thing, I'll just address your points directly.

I'm sorry I don't feel like looking for a statistic on how many women wear a burka by force, I have better things to do. It's a simply fact that you don't dispute, if you want stats you can look them up yourself. Im sure wikipedia has everything you need to know.

Yes, many women are pressured by their community to wear a burka. These women in my opinion are naive. When did being naive become illegal?

You say they have arbiter courts in the UK, yes, they do. They are only subject to those courts if both parties agree to it, again there is that choice which you seem to ignore. Although I absolutely agree with you such courts probably should not exist.

I must have missed the things you mentioned about immigration reform somewhere in this long discussion, my apologies for that. So how exactly would you reform immigration? Securing the border is fine, I don't disagree you shouldn't do that if you wanna waste your money. But what else would you do? Would you target specific countries? Specific religions?

And honestly I don't see where all this bowing down to fundamentalist loudmouths is taking place. From what I can see the exact opposite is happening.

 

[No Limit]

Solaris, so you don't think we share some of the blame for the fundementalism that exists today? You agree the Iraq sanctions were bad. What about what Israel is doing to palestine today? The west supports these policies. But once again these policies are having the same effect on innocent people that the Iraqi sanctions did. Do those innocent people need to die? Is their death justified in your eyes?

 

[jverne]

Again, do you have any idea how absolutely absurd you sound? What, you want the government to regulate how much vitamin D everyone needs to get? But only for Muslim women of course. This has nothing to do with the health of the women for you, you simply don't like the burka and are looking for a excuse to ban it so you could pretend that you aren't punishing Islam. It's absolutely absurd.

Well if my tax money went for their treatment, i could have a say in it.
However i do not know that yet.
Like i've sadi, depends on how you look at it. You obviously see it as a punishment. And i also said i'm willing to contemplate upon it since it's such a delicate issue.

I'm sorry I don't feel like looking for a statistic on how many women wear a burka by force, I have better things to do. It's a simply fact that you don't dispute, if you want stats you can look them up yourself. Im sure wikipedia has everything you need to know.

Yes, many women are pressured by their community to wear a burka. These women in my opinion are naive. When did being naive become illegal?

I tried searching for it, but i couldn't find anything.

Secular Islamic countries are few and far in between. Women in some countries can be punished for not covering herself. How is that naive?
The fact that in Iran where women over the ages were not oppressed as in Afganistan, clearly shows the if given a choice they'll choose to wear less not more. You can clearly observe women covered less in more modern cities like Tehran and more in conservative villages outside major cities.
What does that mean, eh? If given a choice most women opt for the less restricting one.
Those who wear burkas most likely do not choose it themselves.

You say they have arbiter courts in the UK, yes, they do. They are only subject to those courts if both parties agree to it, again there is that choice which you seem to ignore. Although I absolutely agree with you such courts probably should not exist.

Yeah, both parties agree...i wonder if that woman agreed to have their daughters get less. Come on man, you know in reality it doesn't work that way.
Sure they might have a choice to disagree, but that would mean awful consequences for them.

I must have missed the things you mentioned about immigration reform somewhere in this long discussion, my apologies for that. So how exactly would you reform immigration? Securing the border is fine, I don't disagree you shouldn't do that if you wanna waste your money. But what else would you do? Would you target specific countries? Specific religions?

-Secure borders
-Make workers visas more flexible so people can be easily moved if needed.
-Take less immigrant workers in, especially those with lower education.
-Some companies just bring immigrants to work and once it's finished they leave them there to rot. Force them to be more responsible.
-More strict citizenship requirements.
-Maybe even require them to show proof that they integrated properly into society (if it is not like that already).
-Establish more help services for legal immigrants.
-Strengthen police watch of know criminal neighborhoods.
-Especially not give them any privileges that the regular population doesn't have. Ok except the help services which is not really a privilege but a need in this case.
-Of course, improve foreign politics.
-Deport illegal immigrants.

And honestly I don't see where all this bowing down to fundamentalist loudmouths is taking place. From what I can see the exact opposite is happening.

Then you haven't really paid attention to all the articles i've posted.



Just another curious question, how many here think that the security measures taken (airports,...) have no effect? Not meant as a provocation, but i'm just curious.

 

[No Limit]

So if you are worried about the health aspect of it because you don't want your tax dollars paying for it why aren't you trying to ban smoking? How about drinking? How about sex with multiple partners? Stop this dumb pretense, this has nothing to do with their health.

Here, I'll do a 2 second search for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa

Yeah, both parties agree...i wonder if that woman agreed to have their daughters get less. Come on man, you know in reality it doesn't work that way.
Sure they might have a choice to disagree, but that would mean awful consequences for them.

What awful consequences exactly? You think these women will be beaten or killed as a result? You do understand that these women are protect by laws against violance right? So if they choose note to do the courts they know they will be protected. Again, it is their choice.

Everything you listed has to do with immigration policy in general, it doesn't target any specific group; congratulations. That doesn't mean I fully agree with everything you listed (in many cases I don't) but my entire point this entire conversation was for you not to target specific gorups.

Just another curious question, how many here think that the security measures taken (airports,...) have no effect? Not meant as a provocation, but i'm just curious.

Most of them don't work. We are trying to spend billions of dollars to get machines that can post a picture of your dick online. Why can't we simply use dogs? They'll detect anything and you don't need to slow everyone down at security checkpoints doing stupid inefficient searches. This latest christmas bombing plot was a perfect example. Because of the shoe bomber I have to take off my shoes every time I fly. What did the genius terrorists do? They moved the bomb up to the crotch.

 

[jverne]

So if you are worried about the health aspect of it because you don't want your tax dollars paying for it why aren't you trying to ban smoking? How about drinking? How about sex with multiple partners? Stop this dumb pretense, this has nothing to do with their health.

Technically it's true, that's why there are speed limits, helmets for bikers, smoking is banned in public places. You can't buy alcohol after 9 PM in stores here. Some even suggested having people who do extreme sports pay more for their health insurance.

I do admit that it's not really about the health care issue. I have said already that it's more of a personal issue and that i'm willing to put it aside for now.
But it is still on the table if the need becomes legitimate.
How long are you gonna poke into it, wasn't i clear enough like the 10 last posts?

Before the Taliban took power in Afghanistan, the chadri was infrequently worn in cities. While they were in power, the Taliban treatment of women required the wearing of a chadri in public. Officially, it is not required under the present Afghan regime, but local warlords still enforce it in southern Afghanistan. Burqa use in the remainder of Afghanistan is variable and is observed to be gradually declining in Kabul. Due to political instability in these areas, women who might not otherwise be inclined to wear the chadri must do so as a matter of personal safety.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa

Kinda proves my point.

What awful consequences exactly? You think these women will be beaten or killed as a result? You do understand that these women are protect by laws against violance right? So if they choose note to do the courts they know they will be protected. Again, it is their choice.

Read above! Yes man, i totally agree with you that on paper they have the choice. But in reality it doesn't work like that.

An example that will explain it better: Before i had the choice of punching someone in the face who didn't want to stop smoking while in a bar, but it doesn't work that way. Now when the ban is active, alot of people are happy because of it. Before it was almost impossible to do anything without too much trouble.
We've already said it's not the same case with the burka, but there might be cases where it might work. Some people might need an excuse to change their ways. I've explained that already.

Everything you listed has to do with immigration policy in general, it doesn't target any specific group; congratulations. That doesn't mean I fully agree with everything you listed (in many cases I don't) but my entire point this entire conversation was for you not to target specific gorups.

Don't be so thick man, you know i've talked about everyone, it's just that i focused on Islam as the main example.
If you can't understand that, sadly i can't help you.

Most of them don't work. We are trying to spend billions of dollars to get machines that can post a picture of your dick online. Why can't we simply use dogs? They'll detect anything and you don't need to slow everyone down at security checkpoints doing stupid inefficient searches. This latest christmas bombing plot was a perfect example. Because of the shoe bomber I have to take off my shoes every time I fly. What did the genius terrorists do? They moved the bomb up to the crotch.

Terrorists are quite ingenious. I don't know if dogs would solve all the issues, they have their limitations.
But i presume you do agree with more strict security measures?

 

[No Limit]

Read above! Yes man, i totally agree with you that on paper they have the choice. But in reality it doesn't work like that.

Jesus, do you not udnerstand that what happens in Afghanistan isn't true for the entire religion? How many more times does this have to be repeated? infact if you read the wikipedia article you will see if completely disproves your point:

A burqa (Arabic pronunciation: [?b?rqa]; also transliterated burkha, burka or burqua from Arabic: ????? burqu‘ ) is an enveloping outer garment worn by women in some Islamic traditions

I really don't feel like doing this anymore, it's getting dumb. We are just repeating the same things over and over. If I still haven't accomplished explaining to you how smoking and wearing a burqa are different (you brought this comparission up again, dont blame me) and that Afghanistan doesn't represent Islam I really dont see the point.

 

[jverne]

Jesus, do you not udnerstand that what happens in Afghanistan isn't true for the entire religion? How many more times does this have to be repeated? infact if you read the wikipedia article you will see if completely disproves your point.

According to islam you must cover yourself i've shown that. So the principle is true for the whole religion just the implementation differs.
Wiki is more or less in line with this "assertion".

If I still haven't accomplished explaining to you how smoking and wearing a burqa are different (you brought this comparission up again, dont blame me) I really dont see the point.

I agree with you, but you missed the point with the burka/smoking story.

 

[No Limit]

According to islam you must cover yourself i've shown that. So the principle is true for the whole religion just the implementation differs.
Wiki is more or less in line with this "assertion".

The wiki clearly says that in the Koran there is no mention of a burka. Instead you went to quote what happens in Afghanistan and then tried to present all of Islam as what happens in Afghanistan. It is absolutely false.

No, I am not missing the point with the smoking story. You keep trying to relate 2 things that are not related. Smoking was not banned, what was banned was smoking in public places. The reason for that is it causes harm to other people. The burka does you no harm. In addition comparing policies on smoking to our policies dealing with the middle east where thousands of people die each year is again absurd. We already talked about all of this before.

 

[jverne]

The wiki clearly says that in the Koran there is no mention of a burka. Instead you went to quote what happens in Afghanistan and then tried to present all of Islam as what happens in Afghanistan. It is absolutely false.

I said the implementations differ from culture to culture, but the principle remains the same.

No, I am not missing the point with the smoking story. You keep trying to relate 2 things that are not related. Smoking was not banned, what was banned was smoking in public places. The reason for that is it causes harm to other people. The burka does you no harm. In addition comparing policies on smoking to our policies dealing with the middle east where thousands of people die each year is again absurd. We already talked about all of this before.

Yes you are. I'm not implying that the burka causes harm to society (it might in some way prevent integration of women into society, but we probably shouldn't get into this).
I'm saying that by restricting certain types of covers, some people might have an excuse now to change their ways which otherwise wouldn't probably happen in a very, very long time (and just might speed up the integration process).

 

[No Limit]

I said the implementations differ from culture to culture, but the principle remains the same.

NO IT ISN'T THE SAME!!!!!!!!!1111

Women in Afghanistan have no rights. In the UK for example they do. So in the UK when a women wears a burka she does so by choice. Wether that choice is driven by her religion is irrelevent, it is her choice. A choice you want to take away.

Yes you are. I'm not implying that the burka causes harm to society (it might in some way prevent integration of women into society, but we probably shouldn't get into this).
I'm saying that by restricting certain types of covers, some people might have an excuse now to change their ways which otherwise wouldn't probably happen in a very, very long time (and just might speed up the integration process).

Restricting sex until you are married might give people an excuse not to have sex early leading to underage pregnency. So lets ban sex till you're married; as you know plenty of people don't like the fact you **** before you get married. Does that make any sense to you? No? Then why does banning the burka do? We know the answer.

 

[jverne]

NO IT ISN'T THE SAME!!!!!!!!!1111

Women in Afghanistan have no rights. In the UK for example they do. So in the UK when a women wears a burka she does so by choice. Wether that choice is driven by her religion is irrelevent, it is her choice. A choice you want to take away.

On paper yes. But if they choose not to they have to leave Islam and that brings along alot of other problems.
But yes, i won't deny they don't have the theoretical choice.

Restricting sex until you are married might give people an excuse not to have sex early leading to underage pregnency. So lets ban sex till you're married; as you know plenty of people don't like the fact you **** before you get married. Does that make any sense to you? No? Then why does banning the burka do? We know the answer.

Actually having sex is illegal under certain circumstances. But ok i know what you mean.
This burka thing is really getting old. May i end it by saying that (PARTIAL) restrictions on it might be legitimate if it causes hazards or security problems to people.
For example an officer can legally take it off somebody if deemed necessary.
I think it's wrong to implement a whole new security system in order to accommodate a specific group based just on religious sensitivity.
Of course you'll probably oppose it.

 

[No Limit]

But if they choose not to they have to leave Islam and that brings along alot of other problems.

Did you just make this up?

 

[jverne]

Did you just make this up?

Just speculation, yes. There are cases where some family members were punished by their family and so forth. But i agree that in Britain it's probably not such a wide spread problem. As for Saudi Arabia, they kill you for that.

At least until some data is collected.

 

[No Limit]

Right, so you did just make it up. When I checked you don't live in Saudi Arabia, so what the hell does Saudi Arabia have to do with this? If you want to move on to Saudi Arabia be my guest, but actually post what you want to do (bomb them?).

 

[jverne]

Right, so you did just make it up. When I checked you don't live in Saudi Arabia, so what the hell does Saudi Arabia have to do with this? If you want to move on to Saudi Arabia be my guest, but actually post what you want to do (bomb them?).

Like i've said, there are some cases but it's PROBABLY not a problem in Britain.
If you think that classifies as "made up" then your standards are really skewed.

Why do you think i want to bomb them?

 

[No Limit]

Like i've said, there are some cases but it's PROBABLY not a problem in Britain.
If you think that classifies as "made up" then your standards are really skewed.

You said, and I quote..."But if they choose not to they have to leave Islam". No, if they don't wear a burka they don't have to leave Islam. You made it up. If you had meant in some cases you should have put it in there. Me saying "Americans are ****ing idiots" is a lot different from "In some cases americans are ****ing idiots".

Why do you think i want to bomb them?

I never said you did. But you did bring them up for what appeared to be no reason at all.

 

[jverne]

You said, and I quote..."But if they choose not to they have to leave Islam". No, if they don't wear a burka they don't have to leave Islam. You made it up. If you had meant in some cases you should have put it in there. Me saying "Americans are ****ing idiots" is a lot different from "In some cases americans are ****ing idiots".

In plain words you're saying i generalized. It was actually a inaccurate induction based on some specific cases. True, it's not appropriate to generalize here, i agree even if it is quite tempting.

Whether you're a muslim or not is disputable, the Koran says women must be covered one way or another. So if one chooses not to be covered, can we consider her a muslim? Tough decision, open to much interpretation.
Only after we come to a consensus on wheter you're muslim or not (if not covered in some way)

No, if they don't wear a burka they don't have to leave Islam.

this statement can hold any truth.

edit: yes if you're talking specifically about the burka then you're correct, but i'm talking in general.

 

[No Limit]

Whether you're a muslim or not is disputable, the Koran says women must be covered one way or another. So if one chooses not to be covered, can we consider her a muslim? Tough decision, open to much interpretation.

Really? I'm sure you have where in the Koran it says that; because I'm sure you wouldn't just make shit up again after what we just talked about. Please, do post it.

edit: yes if you're talking specifically about the burka then you're correct, but i'm talking in general.

At this point I have absolutely no clue as to what "in general" means, I lost you somewhere along the way.

 

[jverne]

Really? I'm sure you have where in the Koran it says that; because I'm sure you wouldn't just make shit up again after what we just talked about. Please, do post it.

At this point I have absolutely no clue as to what "in general" means, I lost you somewhere along the way.

"O Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (jalabib) close round them (when they go abroad)..." (33:59)

 

[No Limit]

Wow, one line out of a book with thousands of pages where it doesn't say anything about forcing women to be covered. He is telling the prothet that his wives should be covered when they go abroad. Do you know why? Did the website you pull that quote from explain to you why?

You know what, here, just read this:

http://middleeast.about.com/od/religionsectarianism/f/me080209.htm

Which I'm sure you ran in to that link as you were googling for a quote. The fact is there is nothing in the Quaran about women being forced to be covered, you made it up. Whatever there is about covering women is open to interpretation, as anything in religion always is. It's designed this way, because if it wasn't left open to interpretation most people would accept its bullshit.

 

[unozero]

Seing that Islam is a male fabrication does it really Surprise you No Limit?
IRRC without reading that article both women and men were supposed to be modest however this has perverted in to meaning that women must dress in this fashion.
But why I wonder do you insist on defending this religion I know you don't mind taking potshots at Christians (which I enjoy as well.)

 

[Baserape>]

Burkas where originally worn by wealthy Muslim women to conceal there identity when out in public. Over time this has been distorted into a religious agenda. A man made agenda.

 

[jverne]

Wow, one line out of a book with thousands of pages where it doesn't say anything about forcing women to be covered. He is telling the prothet that his wives should be covered when they go abroad. Do you know why? Did the website you pull that quote from explain to you why?

You know what, here, just read this:

http://middleeast.about.com/od/religionsectarianism/f/me080209.htm

Which I'm sure you ran in to that link as you were googling for a quote. The fact is there is nothing in the Quaran about women being forced to be covered, you made it up. Whatever there is about covering women is open to interpretation, as anything in religion always is. It's designed this way, because if it wasn't left open to interpretation most people would accept its bullshit.

"Explain why?" Do you need someone to interpret it for you? Who are you going to ask the extremist or a "liberal" muslim.
Of course it's open to interpretation, we can both do it differently. We're really not getting anywhere if we're going to try to interpret the Koran, don't you think?
Even if they weren't, then they should have no problem taking it off in certain situations that demand it.
As of right now a lot (if i dare say most) interpret it as a requirement.