To Anyone who lives in Britain.

[repiV]

I'm also wondering if the bricks religion might have an impact upon it's performance...

A Christian brick will start to rise slowly towards the heavens, then come abruptly crashing down as even the mightiest of Jesus freaks fail to meet the standards set by him.

A Buddhist brick will levitate indefinitely in peaceful meditation.

A Hindu brick will fall at different speeds depending on what caste it belongs to.

A Muslim brick will spontaneously combust.

 

[DaMaN]

Why?
Your mental masturbation doesn't change the fact that every solid object ever thrown into the air by any man in the history of humankind has eventually come down again.

Just to really tick you off, the Voyager spacecraft were thrown into the air by man has not come down again and there's a very good chance it won't.

I bet you're the life and soul of the party...

How did you know?

 

[DaMaN]

A Christian brick will start to rise slowly towards the heavens, then come abruptly crashing down as even the mightiest of Jesus freaks fail to meet the standards set by him.

A Buddhist brick will levitate indefinitely in peaceful meditation.

A Hindu brick will fall at different speeds depending on what caste it belongs to.

A Muslim brick will spontaneously combust.

Seeing as the Muslim religion is still practiced by many people, I would tend to disagree with your final conclusion.

All the other religious bricks look about right though...

 

[repiV]

Just to really tick you off, the Voyager spacecraft were thrown into the air by man has not come down again and there's a very good chance it won't.

No, it wasn't thrown into the air. It was launched into space.

How did you know?

I'm the one who turned you down last week...it was a real blow to your ego...

 

[repiV]

Seeing as the Muslim religion is still practiced by many people, I would tend to disagree with your final conclusion.

All the other religious bricks look about right though...

It was a reference to suicide bombers. It's supposed to be funny. :hmph:

 

[Solaris]

****ing hell this thread is dire.

 

[repiV]

It was good back on page one. I'm glad you saw sense. :thumbs:

 

[Beerdude26]

So what does an atheist brick do? Say it doesn't exist?

 

[repiV]

So what does an atheist brick do? Say it doesn't exist?

It depends. Atheist bricks can be hard to figure out, but this new breed of atheist brick has a tendency to worship the Muslim brick and attack the Christian brick.

 

[Kadayi]

There is a clear lack of discussion about the Jewish Brick here...

 

[Aenama]

from all Religions Jews are the most harmless imo.
They don't try to convert anybody.

 

[KagePrototype]

*blink*

Buh?

 

[Ome_Vince]

You love it

anyhows and more importantly what's your stance on the brick? Do you believe that the brick will hit the floor beyond doubt? :naughty:

hehe, well imo the brick has hit already, on some of the forum people's head

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

We definitely don't need a philosophy forum. One forum full of people talking shite is more than enough.

 

[DaMaN]

We definitely don't need a philosophy forum. One forum full of people talking shite is more than enough.

true dat

 

[Solaris]

Oh my.

Make a philosophy forum!
The hilarity!!

 

[15357]

Woah. I knew it would happen, I just didn't realise it would be so soon. *clap*

By the way numbers, you really do sound like a ****ing commie. It's comical.

You need some serious verification of ideology. *charges tazer*

 

[kirovman]

I think he's refering to when you said:

"Speech is a previlieage, not a right, people."

Sounds like something Long John-Il would say.

 

[repiV]

If other South Koreans are as deranged as numbers, it would certainly explain why so many EFL teachers go crazy after spending time there...

 

[Nemesis6]

Kadayi, your critique of my post is like the Islamists posting comments to anti-Islamist videos; They cannot actually attack what they have seen, so they attack the messenger.

There are 4 guilty parties when it comes to Islamism - The Islamists themselves, the Government(s) that have created them, the people blindly excusing it, and the people who turn their backs to the three beforementioned.

 

[Kadayi]

You tried painting britain as some Muslim warzone, which is laughably far from the truth. I put more faith in the BBC news (or Channel 4 for that matter) regarding the state of the nation than a few dodgy google videos. Yes there are extremists out there, but given the complete lack of muslim kick back at the school assistants dismissal over the veil incident it doesn't seem we are the hotbed of racial tensions you seek to portray.

 

[el Chi]

Islam, is, imho an awful thing, it's a force which restricts individuals civil liberties, turns scholars into idiots, musicians to stop playing, countries to go to war and it motivates attacks against civilians.Now, I think the same thing applies to Christianity, Judaism and other mass-delusional beliefs but I think right now Islam is one of the most dangerous. In Christianity we have fundamentalists who create alot of damage to society, but luckily they are a minority.

Said minority also - frighteningly often - happen to be the ones with their fingers on the proverbial big red button.

What you have to take into account is this:
Which is worse - brain-washing others into blowing themselves up and try to take as many people with you as you can, or sitting behind a desk and authorising military action that you know will kill thousands and thousands of civilians.

I'm not going to say one is worse than the other, but I will say that I think people get blind-sighted by politicians as part of due process which, for some reason, legitimises slaughter.
If terrorists got their hands on a couple of fighter jets, say, and dropped bombs on major cities, the outcry, fear and fury would be far beyond that which people expend on the same, done by a politician's order, and bought with public money.

The same thing however cannot be said about Islam, it is my opinion that all Muslims are fundamentalists, just some are in denial about this. There is no interpretation of the Que-ran that could allow one to claim Islam is a religion of peace, it's filled with passages telling Muslims that they will go to heaven if they kill infidels, killing non-believers is great, all non-believers should be killed ect

As with all religious texts, it's about interpretations and about picking and choosing. There's lots of stuff in the Bible that people now ignore and they are not fundamentalists. The same goes for Islam.

Once again, I'm not trying to sound like an apologist because I think religion is by and large silly and retrogressive, but I do think that the media's broad-brush has infected the public at large and, when there's a lot of racial tension and suspicion as it is, we need to do away with certain stereotypes and think rationally. If just for the sake of co-existence.

I also have a lot of freinds who are Muslims, questioning these people about the Que-ran leads to me learning that they never knew it contained some phrases and were probably over-ruled somewhere.

As I said; picking and choosing.
The reason they hadn't heard about those passages was because no-one had ever taught them about it because it is not relevant to most modern Muslims.

 

[repiV]

Said minority also - frighteningly often - happen to be the ones with their fingers on the proverbial big red button.

What you have to take into account is this:
Which is worse - brain-washing others into blowing themselves up and try to take as many people with you as you can, or sitting behind a desk and authorising military action that you know will kill thousands and thousands of civilians.

I'm not going to say one is worse than the other, but I will say that I think people get blind-sighted by politicians as part of due process which, for some reason, legitimises slaughter.
If terrorists got their hands on a couple of fighter jets, say, and dropped bombs on major cities, the outcry, fear and fury would be far beyond that which people expend on the same, done by a politician's order, and bought with public money.

That's a stupid comparison. We do not target innocent civilians. I shouldn't even have to expand on that point.

The reason they hadn't heard about those passages was because no-one had ever taught them about it because it is not relevant to most modern Muslims.

What's a "modern" Muslim?

 

[jondy]

That's a stupid comparison. We do not target innocent civilians. I shouldn't even have to expand on that point.

Good deeds and good intentions, mate... we've racked up over 50,000 dead innocents over there, whether we 'targeted' them or not.

 

[Ome_Vince]

El Chi, while you have a point, dont overlook that most Muslim immigrants either themselves or their parents came from countries which were under Sharia or similar social laws and traditions.

Because of their lack in proper unbiased education they look upon non-Muslims traditionally as dhimmis
While its not black & white, its not surprising such polarization happens on such a scale.
Perhaps after several more generations and integration programs things will calm down, but as it is now, international politics, mixed with wars and the ignorant "tolerating of intolerance" by a lot of countries prevents this from happening.

 

[repiV]

Good deeds and good intentions, mate... we've racked up over 50,000 dead innocents over there, whether we 'targeted' them or not.

Civilians die in war. That is an unavoidable fact. Our fighter pilots are even trained to abort their bombing runs if striking the target at that moment in time would kill civilians unnecessarily. To draw a moral equvialence between attacking military or industrial targets and accidentally killing civilians and targeting civilians is not far from having no moral compass at all.
Furthermore, the majority of those dead innocents were killed by terrorists, not by us.

 

[jondy]

Civilians die in war. That is an unavoidable fact. Our fighter pilots are even trained to abort their bombing runs if striking the target at that moment in time would kill civilians unnecessarily.

Good intentions, I'm sure - fact remains, large numbers of civilians die, which if you want to play 'moral compass' games, is unavoidably abhorrent

To draw a moral equvialence between attacking military or industrial targets and accidentally killing civilians and targeting civilians is not far from having no moral compass at all.

I didn't. I'm just pointing out that the moral dichotomy you seem to believe exists between military and terrorist deaths is a little greyer that you might think.

Furthermore, the majority of those dead innocents were killed by terrorists, not by us.

That's fair enough. Cut the number in half, or even a quarter. How low does the number of deaths get before the situation is legitimised? The 'worse than us' argument doesn't work.

 

[repiV]

Good intentions, I'm sure - fact remains, large numbers of civilians die, which if you want to play 'moral compass' games, is unavoidably abhorrent

Common law is based primarily on intent for a reason.

I didn't. I'm just pointing out that the moral dichotomy you seem to believe exists between military and terrorist deaths is a little greyer that you might think.

There's nothing grey about the distinction between accidentally killing someone and intending to do so.

That's fair enough. Cut the number in half, or even a quarter. How low does the number of deaths get before the situation is legitimised? The 'worse than us' argument doesn't work.

Many people would have you believe that all of those deaths are our fault.

 

[jondy]

Common law is based primarily on intent for a reason.

'Common law' doesn't apply during wartime.

There's nothing grey about the distinction between accidentally killing someone and intending to do so.

That description doesn't do the situation justice. I don't want to start hypothesising situations, because it would derail the debate, but the army/government/whatever went into that war knowing there'd be heavy civilian losses, knowing that they're an inescapable part of insurgent warfare.

This is where the grey line lies, and I'm simply stating that polarising the morality of the situation is a poor call.

Many people would have you believe that all of those deaths are our fault.

Those people don't include me.

 

[repiV]

'Common law' doesn't apply during wartime.

Indeed not, but it's a good indicator of morality.

That description doesn't do the situation justice. I don't want to start hypothesising situations, because it would derail the debate, but the army/government/whatever went into that war knowing there'd be heavy civilian losses, knowing that they're an inescapable part of insurgent warfare.

Civilian losses (and in fact, losses in general) in Iraq are TAME compared to other wars this century. In relative terms, Iraq is a non-event. 39 million civilians lost their lives in World War 2, as well as 24 million soldiers (80% of them Allied, incidentally).
Over 1000 were killed in the Falklands war, which only lasted about a month. We lost over double the amount of troops in the Falklands than we have during this entire conflict. Puts it into perspective a little, no?
It's just that media coverage of conflict these days can bring the reality of war to the general public. A reality that most people never knew or understood, and it seems, assume did not apply to earlier wars.

This is where the grey line lies, and I'm simply stating that polarising the morality of the situation is a poor call.

I'm not saying warfare is righteous, but el Chi was basically drawing equivalance between military forces and terrorist groups.

Those people don't include me.

I never said they did.

 

[Ome_Vince]

I think in Iraq's case what makes it low on the moral ladder, is that Bush knew there were no WMD's and his administration lied there way into Iraq, using the deep anger of the US people after 9/11.
If i were American I'd be pretty pissed my government lied to me, and used my anger to invade some country, where more of my fellow countrymen each day will die still based on a cardhouse of lies.

This however, is a separate issue, and is not the cause of Islamists and/or immigration issues. At most its a nice bucket of fuel on an already existing fire.

 

[jondy]

Indeed not, but it's a good indicator of morality.

Hehe, that's another debate, I'll let that rest.

Civilian losses (and in fact, losses in general) in Iraq are TAME compared to other wars this century. In relative terms, Iraq is a non-event. 39 million civilians lost their lives in World War 2, as well as 24 million soldiers (80% of them Allied, incidentally).
Over 1000 were killed in the Falklands war, which only lasted about a month. We lost over double the amount of troops in the Falklands than we have during this entire conflict. Puts it into perspective a little, no?
It's just that media coverage of conflict these days can bring the reality of war to the general public. A reality that most people never knew or understood, and it seems, assume did not apply to earlier wars.

The perspective you're applying here with regards to WWII isn't really relevant here. The nature of warfare 60 years ago was very different, the scale was very different - and I've got strong issues with Thatcher's war as well, but we'll say no more about that.

The world we live in now, and as you rightly point out, the way wars are dealt with in the media, means that if you're the aggressor nation, you'd better be damned sure you look before you leap, and make sure any foreseen 'accidents' are worth the risk.

I'm not saying warfare is righteous, but el Chi was basically drawing equivalance between military forces and terrorist groups.

That's fine, but I don't think that was what el Chi meant, and I don't like the way people (you? I don't know) pigeonhole the two sides into two neat, opposing moral in-trays.

 

[repiV]

Hehe, that's another debate, I'll let that rest.
The perspective you're applying here with regards to WWII isn't really relevant here. The nature of warfare 60 years ago was very different, the scale was very different - and I've got strong issues with Thatcher's war as well, but we'll say no more about that.

It's not that the nature of conventional war is hugely different, it's that we haven't fought any conventional wars since the Falklands (completely one-sided battles like Desert Storm aside). A full-scale war between two industrialised nation-states would be infinitely more destructive than anything we've seen in Iraq.
Indeed, we're not even at war with Iraq. It's a different animal entirely.
Korea, Vietnam, Falklands - all are infinitely more horrific wars than Iraq. I've never spoken to a Vietnam veteran who isn't still suffering every day from that war, often to the point that it ruins their lives.
The point is that people think there is something extra horrific about the destruction in Iraq, but that's not the case at all. A question I find interesting is, if the media had covered WW2 like they cover Iraq, would we have lost?

The world we live in now, and as you rightly point out, the way wars are dealt with in the media, means that if you're the aggressor nation, you'd better be damned sure you look before you leap, and make sure any foreseen 'accidents' are worth the risk.

The media would paint the war in a bad light no matter what the situation. It's just the way this country is these days. The concepts of "white man's shame" and "the evil West" overrides any kind of common sense.
If there was a civil war between Islamists and secularists on our own soil right now, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the BBC and Guardian would write articles about how we should try to understand the poor marginalised Muslims and how it is our fault for not making allowances for them and really we should be laying down our arms and making concessions to a "Sharia-inspired democracy". People just don't take things seriously anymore. We're too sheltered.

That's fine, but I don't think that was what el Chi meant, and I don't like the way people (you? I don't know) pigeonhole the two sides into two neat, opposing moral in-trays.

It depends on what you mean by "sides". There is the crucial difference that soldiers are people just like you and me, contracted to do a job on behalf of their country, at the whim of their politicians. Such separation between fighter and leader cannot be applied to terrorists.
There is also the point that we do actually do a lot of good things in Iraq, and our troops genuinely want to help. We are not the machine of evil empire.

 

[jondy]

It's not that the nature of conventional war is hugely different, it's that we haven't fought any conventional wars since the Falklands (completely one-sided battles like Desert Storm aside). A full-scale war between two industrialised nation-states would be infinitely more destructive than anything we've seen in Iraq.
Indeed, we're not even at war with Iraq. It's a different animal entirely.
Korea, Vietnam, Falklands - all are infinitely more horrific wars than Iraq. I've never spoken to a Vietnam veteran who isn't still suffering every day from that war, often to the point that it ruins their lives.
The point is that people think there is something extra horrific about the destruction in Iraq, but that's not the case at all. A question I find interesting is, if the media had covered WW2 like they cover Iraq, would we have lost?

The reason people find the Iraq conflict adhorrent is because (and I hate using this phrase, it's got horrible 'lefty' connotations, but it nevertheless applies here) 'the government lied to us about WMD'. If the Iraq war had been more justifiable - if the Iraqi state was the aggressor, for example - the media would have been a little less scathing, and the public less disgusted.

As for the question posed, I thought you'd have known better than to indulge in pointless hypotheticals but in all seriousness, the question isn't well thought out - there are lots of factors but I'll point out two discontinuities. Firstly, Hitler was the clear aggressor (another circumstantial piece of evidence for Godwin's law ), spurning appeasement, invaded Poland yak yak blah blah. This bears no parallel to the pre-emptive doctrine applied to Iraq, a situation far less justifiable. The media -in general, there will always be sources that are consistently antiwar- only turns against conflict when its justifiability is called into account.

Secondly, war media coverage today relies on technology. Internet blogs, small, handheld cameras and cameraphones, wireless technology beaming pictures across the globe - countless examples. These were all developed as military technology, before filtering down to consumers. The upshot of this is, to achieve the level of media coverage required to disseminate a war so completely, advanced technology is needed. This level of technology is preceded by the invention of the atom bomb. World war two wouldn't have happened if, prior to 1939, the bomb had been invented. In short, it is both impossible to have a world war like world war two with today's technology, and equally impossible to achieve the level of media coverage required to disseminate a war like world war two without today's technology. Christ, that was probably unnecessarily long, but I'm sure it makes sense

If there was a civil war between Islamists and secularists on our own soil right now, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the BBC and Guardian would write articles about how we should try to understand the poor marginalised Muslims and how it is our fault for not making allowances for them and really we should be laying down our arms and making concessions to a "Sharia-inspired democracy". People just don't take things seriously anymore. We're too sheltered.

I've read enough of your opinion here to be reasonably sure that I won't be able to alter it, and although you might entertain thoughts of being able to alter mine, the discussion would stray too far from the topic at hand. So I'll let that rest for the time being.

It depends on what you mean by "sides". There is the crucial difference that soldiers are people just like you and me, contracted to do a job on behalf of their country, at the whim of their politicians. Such separation between fighter and leader cannot be applied to terrorists.
There is also the point that we do actually do a lot of good things in Iraq, and our troops genuinely want to help. We are not the machine of evil empire.

Armies are just tools doing jobs - no matter how honourable the intentions of individual soldiers, and there are stories of heroism and integrity that are incredible, the job remains the same. If the job of the army is to invade a country on false pretexts (and once again, I hate the connotations associated with these phrases), and by doing so inevitably rack up a high civilian death count, then the organisation wielding the tool is the one responsible, but the job the tool does is still reprehensible.

 

[Solaris]

You tried painting britain as some Muslim warzone, which is laughably far from the truth. I put more faith in the BBC news (or Channel 4 for that matter) regarding the state of the nation than a few dodgy google videos. Yes there are extremists out there, but given the complete lack of muslim kick back at the school assistants dismissal over the veil incident it doesn't seem we are the hotbed of racial tensions you seek to portray.

Funnily enough, the google video posted was made by channel 4.

 

[99.vikram]

Dublin, England?

Oh, you mean like Bangalore, England?

So I live in England now?....!!

EDIT: And for as long as I can remember, BBC has been less sensationalist than CNN.
The muslim community as a whole are not bent on world domination
(from my everyday experiences with them, anyway).

 

[Jerry_111]

atheism > all religions

 

[Nemesis6]

ISMs - Great in the hands of rational people, not great in the hands of irrational people.

 

[jondy]

Good to see we're still plumbing the depths of psuedo-profundity with such eloquence mate

 

[Nemesis6]

Well, something needed to be said. People who walk around and call religious people "religitards" and actually believe the world will be a better place without religion are wrong.