Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Obama absolves Islam, rebukes Christianity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
    Eh, I think it was pretty clear that it was cheating disguised as anti-cheating. Had it been done at a normal time with years for people to get registered and obtain them, there would have been little fuss. The only real answer to "why right this instant?" was "because we'll lose". I have no problem with voter ids on their own.
    The problem with this reasoning is that there is no evidence that voter ID laws actually suppress turnout, on which this particular conspiracy theory rests. My belief is that Republicans introduced this legislation to make their conservative base look like they're fighting progressive cheating, when in reality it's an empty, pointless gesture.

    Oh I don't disagree that both sides argue based on harm. I just think they did so poorly, and you seem to agree.
    Only in one particular instance. I think conservative arguments on other issues are usually superior to the progressive ones and on the whole conservatives are better at preventing harm than liberals.

    Right. This was already happening, though. Even were I to grant there was an additional push from accepting same-sex marriage, it's a drop in the bucket compared to everything else that was already happening.
    Fair enough.

    Any good craftsman knows that a bigger hammer can't solve every problem. It's a useful backup, but it's seldom the first tool for the job. I think the sort of thinking you show here is indicative of the general political problems we deal with. Everyone is fighting over the biggest hammer, but neither side actually knows when or where to use it. Even the most well-intentioned still do more harm than good.
    I think a hammer is a poor analogy. I'd view it more as a van full of hundreds of useful tools for all sorts of jobs, though I agree that neither side knows when and how it should be used. Conservatives are trying to drive the van into a ditch because they're afraid they'll get run over with it. Liberals will happily also drive it into a ditch trying to run down the conservative with it. And the centrist takes the van to McDonalds because they can't drive any car without a ramp and room for their Walmart mobility scooter.

    On the whole though, I don't see the problem with using government to deal with mass social dysfunction. It's not a small localized issue.
    "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
      The problem with this reasoning is that there is no evidence that voter ID laws actually suppress turnout, on which this particular conspiracy theory rests. My belief is that Republicans introduced this legislation to make their conservative base look like they're fighting progressive cheating, when in reality it's an empty, pointless gesture.
      I'm not sure how this counters what I said. The issue to me was not an overall negative impact but one for the current election cycle. Asking for voter ids as of mid- 2012 for 2012 presidential elections is dumb. Asking for them as of mid-2010 for 2012 elections would be fine. I think I said before that I was behind them, just not making the requirements go into effect that quickly.


      Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
      Only in one particular instance. I think conservative arguments on other issues are usually superior to the progressive ones and on the whole conservatives are better at preventing harm than liberals.
      Sure, but I was only referring to that particular instance. I take these on a case by case basis without regard for which side might be typically superior. Even if granted, that doesn't exempt the group with typically superior arguments from coming up with stupid ones.


      Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
      I think a hammer is a poor analogy. I'd view it more as a van full of hundreds of useful tools for all sorts of jobs, though I agree that neither side knows when and how it should be used. Conservatives are trying to drive the van into a ditch because they're afraid they'll get run over with it. Liberals will happily also drive it into a ditch trying to run down the conservative with it. And the centrist takes the van to McDonalds because they can't drive any car without a ramp and room for their Walmart mobility scooter.
      I better buckle my seatbelt.


      Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
      On the whole though, I don't see the problem with using government to deal with mass social dysfunction. It's not a small localized issue.
      I think it's mostly a question of efficacy, not necessarily scale. Use the tool (or van of tools) that will work, whatever tool that may be. I'm just not convinced the government is the right van for the job.
      I'm not here anymore.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
        I'm not sure how this counters what I said.
        If voter ID laws don't depress turnout and this info is available (as it would be to the average politician, particularly one plotting underhanded tactics) then it makes no sense to claim that they were implemented to depress turnout.

        The issue to me was not an overall negative impact but one for the current election cycle. Asking for voter ids as of mid- 2012 for 2012 presidential elections is dumb. Asking for them as of mid-2010 for 2012 elections would be fine. I think I said before that I was behind them, just not making the requirements go into effect that quickly.
        According to this list the only state which implemented one in 2012 is New Hampshire, and it wasn't a photo ID law. So even if only having a few months to get a photo ID was unreasonable, this doesn't appear to have been the case anywhere.

        Sure, but I was only referring to that particular instance. I take these on a case by case basis without regard for which side might be typically superior. Even if granted, that doesn't exempt the group with typically superior arguments from coming up with stupid ones.
        I don't think having good arguments counts for much at all myself.

        I think it's mostly a question of efficacy, not necessarily scale. Use the tool (or van of tools) that will work, whatever tool that may be. I'm just not convinced the government is the right van for the job.
        What is the right tool for the job in your opinion then?
        "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

        There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by phank View Post
          I'm always amused at people who represent 85% of the population, complaining that they are somehow the victims of bigotry and prejudice. I guess the other 15% of the people must be pretty awful.

          I'm bemused by people who use words like 'bigoted' and 'prejudice' in a way that implies there is some majority v minority content to their meaning. Neither of those two words has any meaning that refers to the majority group being the bigoted or prejudiced ones by default. A 15% minority can be bigoted ("utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.") just as much (or as little) as an 85% majority can. Same for prejudice ("an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason." or "unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding an ethnic, racial, social, or religious group.").

          Can you tell me what the exact % cut off is for your new definition of these words? At what % of the population can I safely consider my ethnic group to be the ones 'prejudiced' against and facing 'bigotry'?

          Are these words like 'racism' - now restricted to being used by non-whites and their liberal white 'protectors' against whites?
          ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

          Comment


          • #65
            Looks like Obama picked up his history lessons from Edited by a Moderator

            http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/...ic-jihad-same/

            In February 2008, while participating in the William G. Anderson Slavery to Freedom lecture series at at Michigan State University, then still candidate Barack Obama’s pastor and spiritual advisor, Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., gave a speech on religious arrogance, in the form of fundamentalism, causing the Christian Crusades and Islamic Jihad.

            Rev. Wright said all religious fundamentalist think, “Do you see some people who are infidels? They are to be killed. We can not live together. You have Jihad, Crusades. You must be killed.”

            Wright continued, “When you have that kind of Euro-centric ignorance, you’re not only superior but you start demonizing others who are different,” adding, until you have “the Christian Crusades. Just kill all the Muslim infidels.”
            Last edited by Jedidiah; 02-12-2015, 12:15 PM.
            "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

            There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by MaxVel View Post

              Can you tell me what the exact % cut off is for your new definition of these words? At what % of the population can I safely consider my ethnic group to be the ones 'prejudiced' against and facing 'bigotry'?

              Are these words like 'racism' - now restricted to being used by non-whites and their liberal white 'protectors' against whites?
              Reminds me of a personal ad I read when I used to use dating sites. It had questions you could answer to determine if you were compatible. One such question was "Can minorities be racist?"

              She replied "No because it is impossible for the oppressed to oppress the oppressee".

              My response:
              post-16442-NOPE-gif-INH0.gif

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Knowing Thomas View Post
                Reminds me of a personal ad I read when I used to use dating sites. It had questions you could answer to determine if you were compatible. One such question was "Can minorities be racist?"

                She replied "No because it is impossible for the oppressed to oppress the oppressee".

                My response:
                [ATTACH=CONFIG]3954[/ATTACH]
                dateable.png


                In all seriousness, while I'm not fond of what's probably her definition of racism, her answer technically isn't wrong. It's just an issue of semantics. Minorities are certainly capable of having racist beliefs and performing racist actions, so in that sense obviously they can be racist. But she probably thinks of racism as "racial prejudice plus power," and it's true that for most of American history, minorities haven't had the power to influence policy with racism. I don't know of any rational person who'd disagree with those facts?
                Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

                I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by square_peg View Post
                  [ATTACH=CONFIG]3955[/ATTACH]


                  In all seriousness, while I'm not fond of what's probably her definition of racism, her answer technically isn't wrong. It's just an issue of semantics. Minorities are certainly capable of having racist beliefs and performing racist actions, so in that sense obviously they can be racist. But she probably thinks of racism as "racial prejudice plus power," and it's true that for most of American history, minorities haven't had the power to influence policy with racism. I don't know of any rational person who'd disagree with those facts?
                  But that's the whole point: Her definition of 'racism' is non-standard, and specifically excludes certain groups (e.g. minorities who lack power) that the actual meaning of the word doesn't exclude. What she should use to convey what she actually means is something like 'racially-based oppression'.

                  racism
                  misogynist
                  homophobia
                  Islamophobia
                  bigot
                  prejudice
                  privilege
                  (and their derivatives and related forms)


                  All words that are used to attack people who disagree (or just refuse to immediately kow-tow) to certain presently popular political and social positions. Yet the way they're used doesn't usually reflect their actual meaning. Someone who thinks Islam is a dangerous religion is not necessarily an Islamophobe. Someone who disagrees with legislation allowing state-recognised homosexual marriages is not necessarily a bigot.

                  But it's very easy to throw poopy words and smear. Easier than actually showing that the person is those things. When I see people throwing those terms around I can usually safely conclude that they have not substantive argument, and are most likely wrong on the issue being discussed to boot.
                  ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                    Looks like Obama picked up his history lessons from Edited by a Moderator

                    http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/...ic-jihad-same/
                    Breitbart, therefore your argument is invalid.
                    Last edited by Jedidiah; 02-12-2015, 12:12 PM.
                    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                    sigpic
                    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by siam View Post
                      Europeans (with the exception of France) are standing upto Islamophobia and anti-Islam rallies---and their governments are taking notice....

                      In France--there were almost 200 attacks on Muslims, Mosques, and Businesses after Charlie Hebdo.

                      European countries are also worried about their citizens going off to fight in foreign wars.....many of these youths believe the media narrative that it has to do with Islam (which it does not---all these fights have political motivations)

                      Or maybe...people are simply getting tired of bigotry and prejudice...?......

                      There was a Pew poll of some state(?) in the U.S. which asked Republicans of that state what they thought of Islam---and the negative views had surprisingly gone down!!! http://www.desmoinesregister.com/sto...ions/22825839/

                      There are a lot of problems to solve in the world and it is better for all people to unite and work together for solutions than go about arguing who is the baddest....
                      ## That's fine as a rule of thumb - but would you work alongside a jihadi or an abortionist ? I wouldn't.

                      People don't have a phobia of Islam - they have Islamonausea, which is a different matter entirely. It is neither bigoted nor prejudiced nor unfair to point out that Muslims, not Christians, Jews, atheists, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, Buddhists or Hindus, are the parties whose "religion" now has protected status in Britain; it is Muslim Shari'a law that now has courts in the UK; it is Muslim halal meat that is sold to people without their knowing it; it is Islam that is trying to take over parts of the UK on the sly, as it has already taken over parts of France & Sweden - Muslim areas of France not only attract criminals, but are in practice off-limits to the French themselves.

                      Islam is invading the West, and Islamising it - it is acting no differently from an invader, which is what it is. And the politicians & clergy, with very rare exceptions, either deny there is a problem, or misdescribe, or minimise it, or falsify it in some other way. Other than that, they flatter it. It is a religion of peace in the same sense as the Hitler cult was a religion of philo-Judaism: it has a good deal in common with the Hitler cult.

                      Islam is evil, it is anti-Christian, it regards Jews & Christians as little better than subhuman, it is viciously anti-Jewish, it commits barbarities like burial alive, mutilation, crucifixion, stoning, burning alive, kidnapping of children, & enslaving of captives that the rest of the world has given up. It is deceitful, and its "god" is a deceiver. It has absolutely nothing to contribute to society.

                      A religion that advocates polygamy because its false prophet practiced polygamy is contradicting the doctrine of Christ on marriage as much as gay marriage was said to. It is blatant hypocrisy to make a huge fuss about "teh evul gayz" & gay marriage, because of how unChristian gay marrage is said to be, while turning not a hair at Muslim polygamy. If people are unbothered by polygamy, it is impossible to deny that their abhorrence of gay marriage was not zeal for the doctrine of Christ at all, but - as was claimed - anti-gay prejudice, and nothing more. Either the teaching of Christ on marriage is sacred & inviolable - or it is not. If it is, then the Muslim doctrine & practice, which is based on the example of Mohammed, is anti-Christian.
                      Last edited by Rushing Jaws; 02-12-2015, 02:41 AM.

                      Comment

                      Related Threads

                      Collapse

                      Topics Statistics Last Post
                      Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Today, 09:17 AM
                      13 responses
                      60 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                      Started by Gondwanaland, Yesterday, 04:51 PM
                      6 responses
                      42 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post Gondwanaland  
                      Started by Gondwanaland, Yesterday, 12:16 PM
                      37 responses
                      135 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post Gondwanaland  
                      Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 10:11 AM
                      0 responses
                      29 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post rogue06
                      by rogue06
                       
                      Started by Reepicheep, 10-23-2021, 12:53 PM
                      58 responses
                      306 views
                      2 likes
                      Last Post Mountain Man  
                      Working...
                      X