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

  • Rushing Jaws
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • MaxVel
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • fm93
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Knowing Thomas
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Executor
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • MaxVel
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Executor
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Carrikature
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Executor
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • pancreasman
    replied
    Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
    A forced resignation is an impeachment, not an election.
    True, but I strongly doubt there is a realistic chance of that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Carrikature
    replied
    Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
    I believe such a process is called an election and I understand that you guys have one in a while.
    A forced resignation is an impeachment, not an election.

    Leave a comment:


  • Carrikature
    replied
    Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
    I find it amusing that you list an anti-cheating measure as cheating. You could call that a form of cheating.
    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.


    Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
    I also wouldn't conflate the Republican Party with conservatives. The Republican Party is conservative in some areas (like taxes) but where it counts (culture) it's indistinguishable from a center-left party. I agree that conservatives are stupid though, which is part of why Republicans play them easier than Democrats play their base.
    That's fair.


    Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
    The point I was making is that both sides usually argue for/against legislation based on harm done, so there was no reason to distinguish conservatives as being any different. On the whole there is literally no issue on which conservatives argue on something other than harm. Even gay marriage, with their inept attempt at linking it to the decay of the family unit, they still argue harm (they just argue the wrong harm).
    Oh I don't disagree that both sides argue based on harm. I just think they did so poorly, and you seem to agree.


    Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
    I disagree that acceptance of same-sex marriage is not a big fish to fry. Getting people to accept degeneracy contributes to the collapse of culture. The more bizarre and absurd the things you can get the population to accept are, the easier it is to make them accept just about anything.
    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.


    Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
    The government is the single greatest concentration of power in any country. When it comes to fixing mass social problems it's the first tool for the job.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • DLAbaoaqu
    replied
    Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
    I believe such a process is called an election and I understand that you guys have one in a while.
    Probably'd just XO the results...

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Executor
    replied
    Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
    I think the conservative groups are happy cheating, they're just not nearly as skilled at it. Witness voter id laws and district restructuring.
    I find it amusing that you list an anti-cheating measure as cheating. You could call that a form of cheating.

    I also wouldn't conflate the Republican Party with conservatives. The Republican Party is conservative in some areas (like taxes) but where it counts (culture) it's indistinguishable from a center-left party. I agree that conservatives are stupid though, which is part of why Republicans play them easier than Democrats play their base.

    I haven't actually argued that progressive/liberal positions don't cause harm, though. I think both sides have a lot of ideas that ultimately cause harm. That's part of the reason I'm independent.
    The point I was making is that both sides usually argue for/against legislation based on harm done, so there was no reason to distinguish conservatives as being any different. On the whole there is literally no issue on which conservatives argue on something other than harm. Even gay marriage, with their inept attempt at linking it to the decay of the family unit, they still argue harm (they just argue the wrong harm).

    You've answered your own question. The disappearance of the family unit is not attributable to an acceptance of same-sex marriage. We have bigger fish to fry, but they aren't the sort that can be legislated into place.
    I disagree that acceptance of same-sex marriage is not a big fish to fry. Getting people to accept degeneracy contributes to the collapse of culture. The more bizarre and absurd the things you can get the population to accept are, the easier it is to make them accept just about anything.

    I'm of the belief that government is not the tool for the job.
    The government is the single greatest concentration of power in any country. When it comes to fixing mass social problems it's the first tool for the job.

    I think a lot of conservatives claim to want small government except for where they need to make people comply with their beliefs. I think that exception ends up being relied upon more often than the rule.
    I wish this was actually true.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 07:29 AM
10 responses
35 views
1 like
Last Post Cow Poke  
Started by firstfloor, Today, 03:49 AM
37 responses
168 views
0 likes
Last Post Ronson
by Ronson
 
Started by Thoughtful Monk, Yesterday, 01:18 PM
3 responses
26 views
0 likes
Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 10:44 AM
2 responses
49 views
0 likes
Last Post Sparko
by Sparko
 
Started by NorrinRadd, Yesterday, 01:15 AM
13 responses
107 views
0 likes
Last Post NorrinRadd  
Working...
X