I commend everyone on this board for conspicuously avoiding the ongoing situation with paraquat in France.
Oh well I guess I ruined that.
Nuff said.
Quote from: BikerDude on January 09, 2015, 09:33:19 AM
I commend everyone on this board for conspicuously avoiding the ongoing situation with paraquat in France.
Oh well I guess I ruined that.
Nuff said.
Funny you should say that; I've posted stuff all over Facebook on those scum bag assholes. For some reason, we seem to have burned out on posting material on islam and islamic terrorism in this forum. As far as I'm concerned, the French muslims who did this are goat fucking sub human maggots who should be hung by their balls and gutted in public after having pig's blood shoved down their fucking throats.
islam; the religion of peace...
(http://img540.imageshack.us/img540/9003/T2gmwO.png)
That's just like my Walterish opinion, man.
Quote from: DigitalBuddha on January 09, 2015, 09:59:33 AM
Quote from: BikerDude on January 09, 2015, 09:33:19 AM
I commend everyone on this board for conspicuously avoiding the ongoing situation with paraquat in France.
Oh well I guess I ruined that.
Nuff said.
Funny you should say that; I've posted stuff all over Facebook on those scum bag assholes. For some reason, we seem to have burned out on posting material on islam and islamic terrorism in this forum. As far as I'm concerned, the French muslims who did this are goat fucking sub human maggots who should be hung by their balls and gutted in public before having pig's blood shoved down their throats.
islam; the religion of peace...
(http://img540.imageshack.us/img540/9003/T2gmwO.png)
That's just like my Walterish opinion, man.
Couldn't agree more DB. What I find interesting is when these things happen you rarely hear the so-called "peaceful Muslims" speaking out against these acts or pleading for them to cease. Far as I'm concerned any person/religion who believes others should be slain if they don't "believe" is 100% evil.
Way to go bikerdude for opening a can of shit haha. ;)
While this could turn into a total shit storm of a thread, fuck it man it's a worthy conversation for the times we're living in.
Yeah there just isn't much more that can be said.
Except perhaps that Ben Affleck should smoke a giant bag of dicks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vln9D81eO60 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vln9D81eO60)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo7z2Ml2tI0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo7z2Ml2tI0)
Quote from: BikerDude on January 09, 2015, 10:05:48 AM
Yeah there just isn't much more that can be said.
Except perhaps that Ben Affleck should smoke a giant bag of dicks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vln9D81eO60 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vln9D81eO60)
Hahahaha indeed he should. Even if I'm being unDude by saying so, guy's a total nozzle.
I wonder what the outcome of the recent deadly islamic terror attack in France would have been like if the boys and girls, who grew up to be the men and women in that magazine publishing office, would have been trained like this little girl, and could carry firearms.
I bet there would have been a lot less dead innocent people, and two dead scum bag terrorist maggots shot full of holes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZE-EDGw2vo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZE-EDGw2vo)
(http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/assets_c/2009/08/Walter%27s%20Gun-thumb-510x466.jpg)
Quote from: DigitalBuddha on January 09, 2015, 10:54:08 AM
I wonder what the outcome of the recent deadly islamic terror attack in France would have been like if the boys and girls, who grew up to be the men and women in that magazine publishing office, would have been trained like this little girl, and could carry firearms.
I bet there would have been a lot less dead innocent people, and two dead scum bag terrorist maggots shot full of holes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZE-EDGw2vo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZE-EDGw2vo)
Point taken.
Suffice it to say that while I'm not an advocate of guns in places like schools I would term it common sense that
if I ran a magazine that routinely published cartoons of Muhammad I would NOT ROLL OUT NAKED!I do find the 13 year old with the auto weapons a little on the sick side.
I intend to teach my 11 year old some shooting next summer but it'll be a .22.
That..... a toe over the line IMO.
But I'm all for teaching gun safety among other safety rules.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVLI9a_Qgs0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVLI9a_Qgs0)
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2007/01/05/toon1.jpg)
Man what a bunch of ignorant, backward fucks. "We want to die as martyrs"..
New flash dickheads, you're gonna die as sick assholes, period.
It's always the same bit- kill innocent people and blow yourself up.
Fuckin jihads, nothin changes...
Looks like they shot them dead.
The latest
http://news.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/updates-on-the-manhunt-for-the-charlie-hebdo-suspects/ (http://news.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/updates-on-the-manhunt-for-the-charlie-hebdo-suspects/)
Quote
French security forces launched simultaneous raids on two locations where suspected killers were holding hostages. These two major police operations underway around Paris appear to be the culmination of the search for the suspects in Wednesday?s attack at the offices of the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris.
What We Know
? Suspects in Charlie Hebdo attack are killed in siege in Dammartin-en-Go?le, northeast of Paris, officials said.
? The gunman at the site of the second hostage-taking at a supermarket in Paris, was killed, officials said.
? The authorities have said there is a connection between the Charlie Hebdo suspects and the suspect in Paris.
What We Don?t Know
? The status of the hostages from Dammartin-en-Go?le and the Paris supermarket.
Muslims need to get the fuck over themselves. Radio show host (and hot chick), Dana Loesch, nailed it: "You do not have the right to not be offended." Any group unable to understand this concept and which, instead, resorts to murder when offended, provides a justification for its own genocide. In a rational world, we'd accept that invitation. In our world, though, that would come uncomfortably close to saying something basic and true about all religions. Can't have that; better to accept the occasional, albeit regular and predictable, loss of innocent life as a sacrifice to man's collective ignorance and cowardice.
See, it's not entirely the fault of islam - we who tolerate this are also to blame.
I'm actually pretty damn sick of the moderates in just about all religions distancing themselves from the lunatics. These crazy fucks get this shit from the books. For real. It's in there.
To have to listen to the "moderates" say "it's not the book it's the reader".
No it's the book. The reader just decides whether parts of it are insane.
And the fact that some people take it all seriously and do crazy shit is on the religion.
I don't think you can ask people to judge a religion more on the basis of people who only believe a portion of it than on the people who believe it all. It's an absurd concept. Even if numerically they are more numerous than fundamentalists. The fact is fundamentalism is a more honest representation of scripture.
The fact that most moderates reject portions of these religions is the effect of non religious, secular values that we derive from today's societies. Not anything in the religion.
People will insist that a lot of the bible is metaphor. OK show me where is says that.
Or where ANY actually Christian denomination has made as part of their canon an official statement to that effect. It's a lie and they know it. This stuff is 2000 years old and it was written to believed literally. The rest is just weaseling out of the fact that it's absurd.
What I posted on Facebook would not be appropriate here.
But as an artist, I'm posting along with others holding our tools of the trade.
Quote from: BikerDude on January 09, 2015, 04:25:59 PM
I'm actually pretty damn sick of the moderates in just about all religions distancing themselves from the lunatics.
I agree. It's even infected the way we speak about things like this. Governments and media outlets have parroted phrases like "radical" and "moderate" in ways that intentionally obscure the nature of the underlying problem. The people we call "radical" muslims are nothing of the sort - they're the ones who actually believe what their purportedly holy book preaches. The truly "radical" muslim is the one who sees through its ignorance, propaganda of religious conquest, and rather disturbing psychological projections.
Both conservatives and liberals do this, though for different reasons. Liberals because they worship multiculturalism, reflexively favor any minority over its majority, and can't bring themselves to make value judgments. Conservatives because they are too closely bound to similarly flawed belief systems - they've just had a few more centuries to stop killing people who disagree with their imaginary friend.
+1 jgiffin.
http://jameshutchisonblog.blogspot.ca/2015/01/is-islam-peaceful-religion.html (http://jameshutchisonblog.blogspot.ca/2015/01/is-islam-peaceful-religion.html)
To be honnest, even if I find it horrifying, all this starts to bore me. Totally undude.
Looks like people are getting pissed at this shit and organizing.........
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30774114 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30774114)
...as they should. I say cull the herd of any such assholes, no questions asked. But that's me.
Quote from: Hominid on January 12, 2015, 04:55:36 AM
...as they should. I say cull the herd of any such assholes, no questions asked. But that's me.
>>> THIS is islam; perhaps it's time to designate islam as an International Terrorist Organization and Movement, and then outlaw it's practice, just as nazism was in Germany?
Yes, I know...freedom of religion, most of us believe in it, as I do. But the freedom to murder, oppress and terrorize under the influence of your religion?
Just a Reminder: African Boko Haram Terrorists Killed an ENTIRE Town of People Last Week...
http://www.libertynews.com/2015/01/just-a-reminder-african-boko-haram-terrorists-killed-an-entire-town-of-people-last-week/ (http://www.libertynews.com/2015/01/just-a-reminder-african-boko-haram-terrorists-killed-an-entire-town-of-people-last-week/)
What does the Religion of Peace Teach About...
Violence
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm)
Nuff said...IMHO.
It worries me when I see this line of conversation.
I do not condone what happened in Paris, nor the African situation, neither am I making excuses for the extremists, but let's remember this is a few ass hats conveniently choosing what they do and don't comply with in a book they choose to make significant.
from The real threat from the Islamic State is to Muslims, not the west (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/real-threat-from-islamic-state--201482316357532975.html):
Quote from:
The establishment of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria poses a far greater threat to Muslims than it does to the west. Western government may worry sleeper cells at home or radicalised Muslims travelling back from Iraq, but it is Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere who have most to worry about from the Islamic State. Even the brutal and horrifying decapitation of the journalist James Foley doesn't change anything - the number of Iraqis executed by Islamic State fighters is far, far more.
I recommend
J.K. Rowling takes Rupert Murdoch to Hogwarts School over his Islamophobia (http://www.juancole.com/2015/01/murdoch-hogwarts-islamophobia.html)
please see also (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/heroic-muslim-man-saved-jewish-hostages-during-paris-siege-by-hiding-them-in-chiller-9970051.html) (from Rowling's tweet).
It is easy to quote inflammatory passages of the quran, but there are some just as inflammatory passages in the bible (http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/terrorinthebible.htm).
No one has mentioned Top Ten Ways Islamic Law forbids Terrorism (http://www.juancole.com/2013/04/islamic-forbids-terrorism.html).
Also try to remember you are tarring almost a third of the worlds population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations) (23.20% by 2010 figures) with the same brush .
And finally look again to your own government.
I remember how quickly the media ramped up just after the Oklahoma Bombing, and how fast the US state was to point fingers at Islamist Extremists even then, only to look a bit sheepish when they found out it was a domestic Caucasian guy with a problem with local government.
What are they up to whilst they have you gnashing you're teeth and shouting about the Muslim threat (not a new theme for governments).
Look closer at the "measures" and legislation they "have to" bring in for your "safety".
Police in London major rail stations are now openly and obviously armed.
(Just thought that there is another point of view, not just the Islamist Extremist and the Anti-Islamist Extremist one).
Quote from: jgiffin on January 09, 2015, 11:56:32 PM
Both conservatives and liberals do this, though for different reasons. Liberals because they worship multiculturalism, reflexively favor any minority over its majority, and can't bring themselves to make value judgments. Conservatives because they are too closely bound to similarly flawed belief systems - they've just had a few more centuries to stop killing people who disagree with their imaginary friend.
Well stated!
We generally get to choose between 2 realities.
1.The "Rose Colored Glasses" version of liberal reality where ideas become sacrosanct and interchangeable with identity For instance Ben Affleck's ridiculous insistence on comparing criticism of Islam to racism which is obviously absurd. You can convert to Islam but can't convert to being black. Beliefs are beliefs and as such open to criticism without charges of racism.
2. Out crazying the crazies. Ann Coulter saying "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Well actually you can pick any of a huge number of quotes. That is just appropriate in this context.
This is what you get in a world with this sort of Religious lunacy.
If there is any hope for change it is a slow change in perception to a place where religious ideas are evaluated in the same way as any other type of idea. Where the absurd is required to stand some type of basic test of credulity and acceptance of the absurd is treated the same in all contexts. Belief in Big Foot being equivalent to belief in the resurrection.
In other words we are probably fucked in a country so full of Idiots.
Never happen. We are probably more likely to eventually imprison people who even suggest it. They win.
Quote from: meekon5 on January 12, 2015, 09:47:17 AM
It worries me when I see this line of conversation.
I do not condone what happened in Paris, nor the African situation, neither am I making excuses for the extremists, but let's remember this is a few ass hats conveniently choosing what they do and don't comply with in a book they choose to make significant.
from The real threat from the Islamic State is to Muslims, not the west (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/real-threat-from-islamic-state--201482316357532975.html):
Quote from:
The establishment of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria poses a far greater threat to Muslims than it does to the west. Western government may worry sleeper cells at home or radicalised Muslims travelling back from Iraq, but it is Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere who have most to worry about from the Islamic State. Even the brutal and horrifying decapitation of the journalist James Foley doesn't change anything - the number of Iraqis executed by Islamic State fighters is far, far more.
I recommend
J.K. Rowling takes Rupert Murdoch to Hogwarts School over his Islamophobia (http://www.juancole.com/2015/01/murdoch-hogwarts-islamophobia.html)
please see also (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/heroic-muslim-man-saved-jewish-hostages-during-paris-siege-by-hiding-them-in-chiller-9970051.html) (from Rowling's tweet).
It is easy to quote inflammatory passages of the quran, but there are some just as inflammatory passages in the bible (http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/terrorinthebible.htm).
No one has mentioned Top Ten Ways Islamic Law forbids Terrorism (http://www.juancole.com/2013/04/islamic-forbids-terrorism.html).
Also try to remember you are tarring almost a third of the worlds population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations) (23.20% by 2010 figures) with the same brush .
And finally look again to your own government.
I remember how quickly the media ramped up just after the Oklahoma Bombing, and how fast the US state was to point fingers at Islamist Extremists even then, only to look a bit sheepish when they found out it was a domestic Caucasian guy with a problem with local government.
What are they up to whilst they have you gnashing you're teeth and shouting about the Muslim threat (not a new theme for governments).
Look closer at the "measures" and legislation they "have to" bring in for your "safety".
Police in London major rail stations are now openly and obviously armed.
(Just thought that there is another point of view, not just the Islamist Extremist and the Anti-Islamist Extremist one).
There is always the danger of attacking people in an organization simply because of the behavior of a few within it. I agree with that. But, being overly concerned for that problem can also blind people to recognizing and dealing with a real threat coming from the organization. I'm sure there were nazis in WWII that were more or less peaceful, but nazism was certainly not.
Check this out.............
The 'peaceful Muslims' question
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiSS-dR5dmk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiSS-dR5dmk)
Largest Demonstration in History: 3.7 million March in France to Honor Attack Victims
https://heiscomingblog.wordpress.com/2015/01/12/largest-demonstration-in-history-3-7-million-march-in-france-to-honor-attack-victims/
Quote from: meekon5 on January 12, 2015, 09:47:17 AM
It worries me when I see this line of conversation.
It worries me not to see it enough.
Or that making the obvious observation that these jerks are telling the truth when they say that they are motivated by Islam is tantamount to being a member of the Klan.
As an atheist I increasingly resent being told that I need to differentiate one version of religion x from another version. When I see people acting on verses in a holy book that are not in any way vague or ambiguous and I'm told that I need to not hate the beliefs just some subset of the believers. It's like some guy leaving a loaded gun laying around on his front porch and when somebody picks them up and shoots a bullet through the wall of my house I should not blame the guy who left the gun out. Personally I don't care about parsing through the meanings of these books. I think it's pretty clear that they are metaphorically a loaded gun and I personally resent the way people of religions duck responsibility for acts done in the exact spirit of the "teachings" contained in them. Why should the world suffer for this lunacy. Telling me that most people don't practice it is like telling me that most people walk past the loaded gun and don't pick it up. It's beside the point.
And I don't reserve my Ire for Islam. I believe that there is a huge upswing in the "Death Cult" version of evangelical Christianity. At least in the US. There is a version of Christianity that truly stands as a looming threat.
Something like half the population of the US truly believing that Christ will return in their lifetime and bring about the end times with all of the Apocalyptic tongues of fire and death to non Christians.
http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/jesus-christs-return-to-earth/ (http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/jesus-christs-return-to-earth/)
A portion of the population would cheer as the missile trails rise from the prairies of Kansas so long as they were adequately certain that it was Jesus behind it.
Quote
Most chilling, though, is the willingness to engage in what?s known in the Word of Faith world as ?revelation knowledge,? or believing, as Copeland exhorted his audience to do, that you learn nothing from journalism or academia, but rather just from the Bible and its modern ?prophets.? It is in this way that the self-styled prophets have had their greatest impact on our political culture: by producing a political class, and its foot soldiers, who believe that God has imparted them with divine knowledge that supersedes what all the evil secularists would have you believe.
Last week CNN?s Jack Cafferty asked, ?How much does it worry you if both Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry have ties to dominionism?? That worry crops up every election cycle. If people really understood dominionism, they?d worry about it between election cycles.
And a significant number of the republican candidates for President were self affirmed to be of the part of the faith that embrace this stuff.(Now you can include Ted Cruz,Ralph Reed,Sam Brownback, and even Rand Paul)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rockbeyondbelief/2013/10/06/christian-dominionists-in-the-us-congress-today-or-a-book-review-of-christian-nation-by-fredric-c-rich/ (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rockbeyondbelief/2013/10/06/christian-dominionists-in-the-us-congress-today-or-a-book-review-of-christian-nation-by-fredric-c-rich/)
And the idea the Christians should establish a theocracy to make ready for the end times. It's really not tin foil hat stuff.
They are open about it. How did we get to a place where a significant number of Candidates for the Presidency of the largest nuclear power in the world, with the largest standing army in the world truly believe it is their duty to make ready for the end times and nobody really is very disturbed by it? Wow!
http://www.salon.com/2011/08/21/posner_nar_dominionism/ (http://www.salon.com/2011/08/21/posner_nar_dominionism/)
Quote from: Hominid on January 12, 2015, 04:55:36 AM
...as they should. I say cull the herd of any such assholes, no questions asked. But that's me.
Well I've heard people take note that they do gather at Mecca every year.
Great find DB. And M5: yes, there are as many examples in the bible showing Christianity to be anything BUT peaceful. The issue isn't whether we should give safe harbour to the peaceful Muslims, Jews, or Christians... the real issue is that ALL these old-world religious writings should be seen for what they are: contradictory and violent. You'll get one chapter espousing peace, and another one espousing violence, misogyny, you name it. If a Muslim or a Christian decides to interpret their religion to be peaceful, that is telling of their personality. Same for the ones who decide to be violent, as there is more than enough in the Quran (and the bible) for anyone looking for inspiration to be evil and violent.
Quote from: Hominid on January 12, 2015, 02:18:22 PM
Great find DB. And M5: yes, there are as many examples in the bible showing Christianity to be anything BUT peaceful. The issue isn't whether we should give safe harbour to the peaceful Muslims, Jews, or Christians... the real issue is that ALL these old-world religious writings should be seen for what they are: contradictory and violent. You'll get one chapter espousing peace, and another one espousing violence, misogyny, you name it. If a Muslim or a Christian decides to interpret their religion to be peaceful, that is telling of their personality. Same for the ones who decide to be violent, as there is more than enough in the Quran (and the bible) for anyone looking for inspiration to be evil and violent.
Then I'll ask the same "Silly" question I always ask when people take this track.
Then what good is any of it?
I naively thought they were all supposed to suggest some type of answers or guidance.
But apparently you might as well be reading my little pony.
And I reject the idea that it is interpretation. It is a matter of ignoring parts.
Some things just aren't open to interpretation.
It's like the pathetic dodge that moderate Muslims use where the say that Jihad is actually supposed to be an "internal battle". Cmon. Give me a break. Or when Christians insist that they "used to treat slaves better in those days" despite all of the instruction about the ways you can beat your slaves to the edge of death.
It's like if you can get past the fact that you are taking advice from people who kept slaves, advocated the whole sale extermination of people of other tribes, treated women like cattle, clearly believed in magic etc etc then there is some real wisdom to be gained at the core. Sorry I seriously doubt it. In the market for a credo to live by I'd say getting any of that stuff so completely wrong sort of eliminates said credo from any serious consideration.
These just are not small details. It would be like going half way around the world and finding a Witch Doctor in deepest Africa and asking him for investment advice.
You're right; we don't need any of it. That's kinda my point: the fact that these writings are self-contradictory should keep any sane person away from them. I've always said that the best evidence against the bible is the bible itself. Same for the Quran. But these belief systems are so entrenched in society, leaving them behind isn't going to happen overnight.
Quote from: Hominid on January 12, 2015, 03:39:05 PM
You're right; we don't need any of it. That's kinda my point: the fact that these writings are self-contradictory should keep any sane person away from them. I've always said that the best evidence against the bible is the bible itself. Same for the Quran. But these belief systems are so entrenched in society, leaving them behind isn't going to happen overnight.
Oh yeah. We're fucked.
That is beyond any doubt. Do they have a rapture in Islam?
Maybe all of em will get raptured.
Aren't they all supposed to go into a big hole somewhere and come out after the first of the tribulations?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=186Hvzh6II4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=186Hvzh6II4)
OK.
I'm out.
I promise.
I don't need to sweat this shit.
Here's the problem: islam is a religion of conquest and subjugation, with an overtly theocratic worldview, followed by roughly 1 billion people, possessed of texts and oral histories (not just the koran, look also to the hadiths and sunnahs) which mandate or condone oceans of violent absurdities. Even if the percentage of those acting on a literal reading of the texts is small (and it likely is - else they'd already have suicide bombed themselves into extinction or formed a caliphate susceptible to traditional warfare against a nation state) a substantially larger sect endorses or tolerates their actions and none take up arms against them based on their beliefs. Yes, of course muslims are fighting muslims (see, e.g., perpetual war between sunnis and shiites), but it's not - to my knowledge - ever been a war to "moderate" their beliefs or, gasp, reform their outmoded ways. The more common reasons for inter-muslim war are the usual suspects everywhere: power, money, land, resources, ancient disputes, control, etc.
I'm not persuaded by statistics demonstrating muslims pose more danger to themselves than the rest of the world. It's true enough but not the question. If they posed "no" danger to the western world I'd say fine and leave them to it. That's not the case and, given globalization, integration, and vigorous western imperialism, won't be the case in my lifetime. Speaking of the latter element, the rest of the world (US, especially) doesn't help things. Just look at the past 150 years - we've invaded, colonized, arbitrarily apportioned, attacked, occupied, destroyed, rebuilt, propped up, destroyed (redux), and rebuilt muslim lands ad nauseam. If we could learn from our own histories, then "isolationist" wouldn't be viewed as an epithet; it would be acknowledged as a world view affirming the inherent capacities and moral responsibilities for people to manage themselves.
Muslims have legitimate criticisms of western action; but cartoons depicting a bigamist, slave-owning, pedophile prophet (see, e.g., Aisha and ten or eleven other wives, the counts vary) isn't one. And this brings it all home - islam is simply different at this moment in time. Batshitcrazy as christian fundamentalists and rapture-hatted doomsdayers might be, they're not routinely engaged in wholesale premeditated murder, supported by the "moderate" of their faith, and promising to convert, enslave, or kill the rest of the world.
Sam Harris pointed out we just can't afford to tolerate a religion like this given the clear and deadly risks it poses. I agree. I'm not willing to continue risking my life so muslims can freely practice a religion of hate. The only rational counter to "convert or die" is "renounce your faith or be exterminated."
Quote from: jgiffin on January 12, 2015, 09:26:04 PM
...Sam Harris pointed out we just can't afford to tolerate a religion like this given the clear and deadly risks it poses. I agree. I'm not willing to continue risking my life so muslims can freely practice a religion of hate. The only rational counter to "convert or die" is "renounce your faith or be exterminated."
And when Hitler said this about the Jews it was a bad thing, and don't argue that the Jews were not killing people. I can provide any number of instances where the Nazi's "proved" they were.
(http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/holoprelude/naziprop2gal/Depiction%20of%20Herschel%20Grynszpan,%20the%20Jewish%20assassin%20of%20Ernst%20vom%20Roth.jpg)
Depiction of Herschel Grynszpan, the Jewish assassin of Ernst vom Roth
Quote from: meekon5 on January 13, 2015, 06:02:14 AM
Quote from: jgiffin on January 12, 2015, 09:26:04 PM
...Sam Harris pointed out we just can't afford to tolerate a religion like this given the clear and deadly risks it poses. I agree. I'm not willing to continue risking my life so muslims can freely practice a religion of hate. The only rational counter to "convert or die" is "renounce your faith or be exterminated."
And when Hitler said this about the Jews it was a bad thing, and don't argue that the Jews were not killing people. I can provide any number of instances where the Nazi's "proved" they were.
Depiction of Herschel Grynszpan, the Jewish assassin of Ernst vom Roth
Hitler's hatred of Jews was in fact more about racism than religion.
Judaism is unique. Antisemitism is racist. Because there are 2 things.
Being Jewish ethnically and being of the Jewish religion.
Hitlers lunacy was all about race.
A person was "guilty" of being Jewish as a matter of bloodline in Hitler's view.
It was not about the Jewish religion.
A person can adopt the Jewish religion but not the ethnicity.
The same does not hold true for Islam or Christianity.
There is no ethnic component.
A person is Islamic or Christian by choosing to follow a set of beliefs.
Quote from: jgiffin on January 12, 2015, 09:26:04 PM
Sam Harris pointed out we just can't afford to tolerate a religion like this given the clear and deadly risks it poses. I agree. I'm not willing to continue risking my life so muslims can freely practice a religion of hate. The only rational counter to "convert or die" is "renounce your faith or be exterminated."
I would never personally support that.
In my opinion the greatest counter to irrationality is rationality.
The real problem is that Islam seems uniquely determined to isolate it's self from outside influences. At least in a good number of Islamic countries.
All things being equal I really believe that the secular world will eventually provide a more appealing option. As long as people are allowed to have choices.
Quote from: BikerDude on January 13, 2015, 09:28:02 AM
Quote from: jgiffin on January 12, 2015, 09:26:04 PM
Sam Harris pointed out we just can't afford to tolerate a religion like this given the clear and deadly risks it poses. I agree. I'm not willing to continue risking my life so muslims can freely practice a religion of hate. The only rational counter to "convert or die" is "renounce your faith or be exterminated."
I would never personally support that.
In my opinion the greatest counter to irrationality is rationality.
The real problem is that Islam seems uniquely determined to isolate it's self from outside influences. At least in a good number of Islamic countries.
All things being equal I really believe that the secular world will eventually provide a more appealing option. As long as people are allowed to have choices.
Thank the gods!
Your first post (on antisemitism) missed the point entirely.
Quote from: BikerDude on January 13, 2015, 09:28:02 AM
In my opinion the greatest counter to irrationality is rationality.
I completely agree and that's the point I was trying to raise.
With the comment
Quote from: jgiffin on January 12, 2015, 09:26:04 PM
Sam Harris pointed out we just can't afford to tolerate a religion like this given the clear and deadly risks it poses. I agree. I'm not willing to continue risking my life so muslims can freely practice a religion of hate. The only rational counter to "convert or die" is "renounce your faith or be exterminated."
All I was seeing was make Muslims wear badges so we can spot them more easily, mark their homes and businesses, and fire up the ovens in Auchwitz, Buchenwald, et al (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nazi_concentration_camps).
Another interesting article (http://justice.gawker.com/these-world-leaders-are-a-worse-threat-to-free-press-th-1679032136) off the back of What is your Government doing to you now whilst they are throwing images of Muslim atrocities at you.
Particularily:
Quote
U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron
In 2013, the British prime minister publicly threatened to use court injunctions against newspapers that published information from the Edward Snowden leaks. When the Guardian published anyway, technicians from the GCHQ arrived at the newspaper's office and forced editors to destroy their hard-drives with angle grinders.
Quote from: meekon5 on January 13, 2015, 09:57:25 AM
Another interesting article (http://justice.gawker.com/these-world-leaders-are-a-worse-threat-to-free-press-th-1679032136) off the back of What is your Government doing to you now whilst they are throwing images of Muslim atrocities at you.
Particularily:
Quote
U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron
In 2013, the British prime minister publicly threatened to use court injunctions against newspapers that published information from the Edward Snowden leaks. When the Guardian published anyway, technicians from the GCHQ arrived at the newspaper's office and forced editors to destroy their hard-drives with angle grinders.
Another front in the battle over freedom.
You would think that people would have learned something from Snowden.
Nope. The far right in this country generally call him a traitor and support this type of monitoring.
Proof that paraquat comes in many guises. Politics and Religion.
Both take away people's right to be an individual. And both are enemies of privacy.
Quote from: meekon5 on January 13, 2015, 09:47:55 AM
All I was seeing was make Muslims wear badges so we can spot them more easily, mark their homes and businesses, and fire up the ovens in Auchwitz, Buchenwald, et al (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nazi_concentration_camps).
You see this is the problem!
People react with no middle ground.
It is impossible to express any type of condemnation of religion without it going to extremes. This is completely off target.
It's like Sam Harris says elsewhere. "We must be able to criticize bad Ideas".
And criticize them as harshly as one feels is appropriate
Religion continually engages in special pleading where any criticism is tantamount to racism and out of bounds.
It is this sort of reaction that gets in the way.
People have to be able to state the obvious. Otherwise the absurd rules where we are asked to accept the typical liberal view that all religious ideas are inherently benign and it's just a few bad apples. Despite at this point ridiculously abundant evidence to the contrary.
Well if anybody really cares anymore now that we've gone down the undude rabbit hole again,
let me be clear. I'm about freedom. Freedom for people to worship whatever they want and freedom for others to express their opinion about other people beliefs if they want to.
And to disrespect people based on what they believe if a person so chooses.
And in my personal opinion any person who identifies as a Christian or Muslim or whatever else does not get to then choose some sub set of belief. They buy the whole package.
Otherwise it would be like people after Hitler wanting to remain Nazi by making the case that it was only Hitler and Gerbles and all of them that were the bad apples and all the stuff that it says in Mein Kampf comes down to interpretation. Any person can be Nazi's if they so wish but they can't legislate what people should generally think about Nazi's and they have no choice but to carry all the baggage.
Especially when there are still some "Neo Nazi's" beating gays and jews and spreading the virulent version with all it's attendant hatred. In the world of political correctness this is the norm except when it comes to matters of religion. No one suggests, or should suggests that we need to respect a subset of Nazi's who don't beat gays and jews.
I don't accept that I should apply a different metric to someone who is one of the "good" nazi's vs one of the bad Nazi's. Because the problem is with the ideas that define what a Nazi is. It should be the same with religion. I don't really want a better Nazi party. I would rather have no Nazi party and I'd rather have it that being a member of the Nazi party generally disqualifies a person from any serious consideration. Because of the ideas that they choose to ascribe even if they personally redefine those ideas to some more palatable version. The label is enough to condemn a person to supporting hatred. As it should be.
I really believe that we need to apply the same exact metric to religious people. No more bullshit about "interpretation" and "the living word" bla bla bla.
Buy the tshirt you take the ride.
I don't think it's possible or even really desirable to convert people. I do believe it's possible to marginalize them. This has already happened in some countries with very large segments of society being non believers.
Very slowly over generations. It's a matter of changing perceptions.
We can only hope this video is true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyBu9TV4z5M (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyBu9TV4z5M)
I'm done. I swear.
Well said BD, and I agree with everything you say. I'll add a couple of points.
1) As you say, it's about freedom to believe whatever you want - pick your religion. Or not. The point needs to include freedom FROM religion; that - for example - to be told I have to be a Christian to hold public office... WTF? It seems to be getting worse in the states - I blame it on the degradation of public education, but that's another discussion.
2) Anthropologists tell us religion developed at the same time language did. As much as I want to hope religion is on the decline, it provides many personal and cultural needs that will take us a long time to evolve away from as a species. I like the new atheist movement, and whether or not I agree with it 100%, fact is more and people are becoming open about their non-belief, some risking careers, some risking life and limb...
May the Nones flourish!
I should clarify that, to my knowledge, Harris hasn't endorsed the essentially genocidal (loosely termed) conclusions I've reached. I doubt he would. My paraphrasing was accurate, though, and it's the logical endpoint to many of his premises. He, however, takes an evolutionary approach, placing hope in people's eventual adoption of bio/meta/ethical stances in lieu of sacred ancient texts. To be honest, he kind of loses me here. Not much basis in fact to believe people subject to adopting the latter beliefs (often inculcated during childhood) are reading The Lancet or back-ordering copies of The Philosophical Review. A metric fuck-ton of innocent people are going to die for Kafka-esque reasons before that happens.
Despite the well-known and immutable internet tenant that the first to invoke the Nazis loses the argument, I'll point out a few distinctions between what I've endorsed versus perpetrating another holocaust. First, I suppose, the Nazis were, in their own view, primarily biological racists not religious persecutors. Yes, "jewish" is properly a religious and not a racial descriptor but that's what they said - we should take crazy people at their word when they issue threats. And, sure, Nazis also targeted gypsies and homosexuals but these aren't religious factions, either. Nazism, itself, wasn't really concerned with what the jews or anyone else believed, it was focused on shaping German beliefs about who the victims were. That's pretty handy when trying to scapegoat a group; they can't run from a label defined by who they are. (Also, see, Nazi collusion with catholicism). On the other hand, muslims could prove me wrong by not continuing to kill people. I'll give anyone 1,000 - 1 odds if they want to take that bet.
Another component of Nazism relevant here was the primacy of its attack on alternate political beliefs. (A fairly solid working definition of fascism is the absorption of the state within a single party concerting with business interests). In fact, towards the end of the war, Nazi invective against Bolshevism (i.e., communism) was more sharp than that against jews - probably because jews weren't overrunning the eastern front. I admit it's kind of apples to oranges in comparison with religion. Then again, it's apples to oranges to our comparing the Nazi holocaust with my final solution (tongue firmly in cheek) to stop muslim aggression. No one is saying islam is bad because muslims tend to vote republican, yo, its because they kill people through acts of terrorism. Can anyone find three borders between muslim and non-muslim areas ON THE EARTH that are not subject to frequent violence? St. Christopher of Hitchens, himself, noted that islam has perpetually bloody borders.
Nazism, moreover, only picked up attention when it became aggressively expansionist. Well, that's frankly what islam is trying to do. My proposition of stopping them from killing people and taking over the world (hey, it's their self-professed, if absurdist, goal) is more akin to when people stood up and said, "Uh, hey, maybe this Chamberlain guy is giving up too much ground to that little German fella."
I dunno, man, there's a lot more. I'm more perplexed than anything at this point. I just don't see how a continued tolerance of this nonsense is rational or helpful. They are not going to change. At least not within our lifetimes. I guess enough of us (most critically those in power) are patient enough to let muslims kill others for the foreseeable future. Posterity might look favorably on that indulgence. Of course, posterity, by definition, won't include those who died at the hands of islam.
Also, I just saw that an islamic cleric declared jihad against all snowmen.
http://jordantimes.com/saudi-cleric-condemns-snowmen-as-anti-islamic (http://jordantimes.com/saudi-cleric-condemns-snowmen-as-anti-islamic)
I shit you not. These are the people we are talking about. My condolences if anyone you know has or is killed by these fucktards. (Muslims, not snowmen...although, well, that would be interesting, too).
My opinion...
Quote from: jgiffin on January 13, 2015, 08:21:59 PM
I should clarify that, to my knowledge, Harris hasn't endorsed the essentially genocidal (loosely termed) conclusions I've reached.
I have to be completely honest.
The point I have been trying to make:
I do not see genocide as a particularly Dudeist response to any situation.
IMHDO of course.
Quote from: jgiffin on January 13, 2015, 08:29:04 PM
Also, I just saw that an islamic cleric declared jihad against all snowmen.
http://jordantimes.com/saudi-cleric-condemns-snowmen-as-anti-islamic (http://jordantimes.com/saudi-cleric-condemns-snowmen-as-anti-islamic)
I shit you not. These are the people we are talking about. My condolences if anyone you know has or is killed by these fucktards. (Muslims, not snowmen...although, well, that would be interesting, too).
The Amish have banned buttons and dancing.
Also according to one Pharisee ruling I can not carry a handkerchief on the sabbath as it is work, but if I tie it around my waist it's a belt and therefore is permissible.
Quote from: BikerDude on January 13, 2015, 11:37:48 AM
And in my personal opinion any person who identifies as a Christian or Muslim or whatever else does not get to then choose some sub set of belief. They buy the whole package.
You've said this before.
Please can you explain how this point of view applies to the Thirty Years' War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War), Henry the Eighths dissolution of the monasteries (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/dissolution_monasteries.htm), and the Troubles in Ireland (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/troubles)?
I'm just curious.
Quote from: meekon5 on January 14, 2015, 08:35:01 AM
Quote from: BikerDude on January 13, 2015, 11:37:48 AM
And in my personal opinion any person who identifies as a Christian or Muslim or whatever else does not get to then choose some sub set of belief. They buy the whole package.
You've said this before.
Please can you explain how this point of view applies to the Thirty Years' War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War), Henry the Eighths dissolution of the monasteries (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/dissolution_monasteries.htm), and the Troubles in Ireland (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/troubles)?
I'm just curious.
It has nothing to do with any of them.
And Again I don't understand why you keep equating the criticism of ideas with warfare and genocide and racism.
Here is an article written in the wake of the France Shootings by a European cleric.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/01/07/islam-allah-muslims-shariah-anjem-choudary-editorials-debates/21417461/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/01/07/islam-allah-muslims-shariah-anjem-choudary-editorials-debates/21417461/)
Quote
Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people's desires.
Although Muslims may not agree about the idea of freedom of expression, even non-Muslims who espouse it say it comes with responsibilities. In an increasingly unstable and insecure world, the potential consequences of insulting the Messenger Muhammad are known to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, "Whoever insults a Prophet kill him."
However, because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see.
Within liberal democracies, freedom of expression has curtailments, such as laws against incitement and hatred.
And everything that he has said in there is factually correct based on the officially codified doctrine of Islam.
It is clear that these are central ideas that define Islam and time and again we are given clear evidence of this by people willing to kill and die in the name of those ideas.
We see these beliefs play out in countries where the majority of people are Muslim as the lack of personal freedoms, womens rights, gay rights etc.
For a person to simply redefine Islam as something else despite the repeated statements by clerics and the more than ample evidence world wide and scriptural writing is IMO precisely like softening the term Nazi by making the case that there are good Nazi's.
It's beside the point. It only serves to muddy the water and shield vile ideas from criticism.
The simple fact is that the Jackbooted, vile form of Nazi is a truer expression. As is the "radical cleric" or the "fundamentalist Christian" The issue is about ideas. And ideas have consequence.
Here is the explaination for publishing the Clerics statement in USA today
Quote
Choudary, a dedicated London-based radical who defended the 9/11 attacks, is not an appealing figure. But as one of Europe's most visible and outspoken Islamist leaders, he also has both influence and insight, making him a natural choice to write the other side.
His argument is neither an incitement to violence nor a defense of the murders. Both of those would have been unacceptable. Rather, it is a tempered analysis of the motivations behind tragedies like the Charlie Hebdo attack: Nothing is more central to Islam, he points out, than the sanctity of the religion's founder, the prophet Mohammed. So Muslims, passionate in their faith, are duty-bound to reject Western standards of free speech that tolerate blasphemy to the prophet.
Most Americans repudiate this reasoning, and so do more tolerant Muslims. But that doesn't make understanding it any less important.
Twelve people were killed Wednesday in Paris because of it. Hundreds more worldwide have died in riots driven by the same passions. The U.S. military has struggled to cope with it, particularly after the burning of Qurans in Afghanistan. It is at the core of Europe's increasingly hostile debate over Muslim immigration, and every bit as central to the broader clash between the West and radical Islam.
It needs to be understood and countered.
Yet our critics argue that the appropriate response is to blind ourselves. Hear no evil, see no evil, and all will be well.
As sympathetic as their case might be on an emotional level, they are just plain wrong. Ignorance is not bliss, and the long contest against extremist Islam will not be won by donning blindfolds. As Sun Tzu said, "If ignorant of both your enemy and yourself, you are certain to be in peril."
The same reasoning underlies our longstanding commitment to publishing an "opposing view" to the Editorial Board's "our view." If some readers are offended by an unpopular opinion, more are left better informed.
In a curious way, the reader reaction since we published Choudary's opinion seems to confirm this. While the broad social media discussion about the wisdom of publishing Choudary's opinion is predictably negative, internal reader commentary ? reflecting people who actually read the debate ? is more subdued than in some previous opposing view controversies, and it is about evenly split.
Perhaps that's attributable to the nature of the Charlie Hebdo story. French satirists were murdered for being bold enough to criticize Islam. We would have dishonored their memories by refusing to publish offensive commentary from the other side.
Quote from: jgiffin on January 13, 2015, 08:21:59 PM
Despite the well-known and immutable internet tenant that the first to invoke the Nazis loses the argument,
Yeah it sux that I don't have any other better example to invoke.
Basically I need a group who's ideas and actions are universally loathsome while not enjoying the sheltering special treatment that religion enjoys.
A person doesn't get away with softening the term Nazi. You can't say "I'm a Nazi and a really great guy! Love the Jews. All that crazy stuff before? That was a few bad apples. Those where "Extremist Nazis." Waving a flag with a Swastika is not ambiguous.
Yet when it comes to religions we allow people to do this all the time.
Quote from: meekon5 on January 14, 2015, 07:55:04 AM
I have to be completely honest.
The point I have been trying to make:
I do not see genocide as a particularly Dudeist response to any situation.
IMHDO of course.
You might be right. And I get it. But I've yet to hear a tenable alternative solution to the current situation. To my ears, there are three propositions on the table:
(1) Kill, imprison, or otherwise incapacitate every muslim who doesn't renounce his/her faith. Let's call this "Team Genocide/Guantanamo." One vote for "yes" here. Meekon, I'ma put you down as a "maybe." ;)
(2) Continue putting up with random (albeit frequent, predictable, and possibly escalating) acts of deadly violence by muslims until islam outgrows this awkward phase and develops into something more like modern christianity - no less absurd but a little less murdery. Let's call this "Team Chamberlain."
(3) Cooperate with muslims and vigorously identify, punish, and perhaps kill all those who offend, intentionally or not, the worshipful prophet or whom muslims otherwise deem unfit for this moral coil. Let's call this "Team Vichy."
Did I miss any solutions? Seriously - what is left? Presuming there are no viable alternatives, your preference would seem to depend on which side you see as the oppressor and which the oppressed. (1) Likely results in millions of death, disproportionately muslim. (2) Likely results in continued attrition on both sides, probably more heavily muslim, in virtual perpetuity. (3) Likely results in millions of deaths and a muslim world. It's conceivable deaths reach billions - but that's true whether things are escalated now or simply continue on. I'd rather see movement than continue the slow burn - hey, now that actually is a Nazi-esque similarity.
Quote from: BikerDude on January 14, 2015, 03:26:09 PM
Basically I need a group who's ideas and actions are universally loathsome and not enjoying the sheltering special treatment that religion enjoys.
Pedophiles and politicians come to mind.
But I'm loathe to offend pedophiles by putting them in that company.
Quote from: jgiffin on January 14, 2015, 03:26:50 PM
Quote from: meekon5 on January 14, 2015, 07:55:04 AM
I have to be completely honest.
The point I have been trying to make:
I do not see genocide as a particularly Dudeist response to any situation.
IMHDO of course.
You might be right. And I get it. But I've yet to hear a tenable alternative solution to the current situation. To my ears, there are three propositions on the table:
(1) Kill, imprison, or otherwise incapacitate every muslim who doesn't renounce his/her faith. Let's call this "Team Genocide/Guantanamo." One vote for "yes" here. Meekon, I'ma put you down as a "maybe." ;)
(2) Continue putting up with random (albeit frequent, predictable, and possibly escalating) acts of deadly violence by muslims until islam outgrows this awkward phase and develops into something more like modern christianity - no less absurd but a little less murdery. Let's call this "Team Chamberlain."
(3) Cooperate with muslims and vigorously identify, punish, and perhaps kill all those who offend, intentionally or not, the worshipful prophet or whom muslims otherwise deem unfit for this moral coil. Let's call this "Team Vichy."
Did I miss any solutions? Seriously - what is left? Presuming there are no viable alternatives, your preference would seem to depend on which side you see as the oppressor and which the oppressed. (1) Likely results in millions of death, disproportionately muslim. (2) Likely results in continued attrition on both sides, probably more heavily muslim, in virtual perpetuity. (3) Likely results in millions of deaths and a muslim world. It's conceivable deaths reach billions - but that's true whether things are escalated now or simply continue on. I'd rather see movement than continue the slow burn - hey, now that actually is a Nazi-esque similarity.
Wow!
Over the line.
I'd say a solution lies in the change of perceptions.
Number 1 is nuts.
2 is in fact going to happen.
3 is never going to resolve anything. There will be an endless supply as long as people allow horrible ideas to be above reproach as long as they are packaged as religion. Moderate versions simply form a bridge to more radical forms. Christianity has not shed it's lunatics because the hate is still there. It never will.
Secular society will continue it's march toward a more free and enlightened world.
In the process we should not accept the preservation of lunacy by making it sacrosanct.
A person declaring themselves to certain beliefs should be akin to declaring themselves to be a child molester. Societies where these ideas flourish will not be a part of a flourishing economy. They simply will not be a part of the progress toward a better world and will not enjoy the fruits of it. They will be marginalized. Not by killing them but by changing people's perceptions and changing our willingness to accept crazy hateful ideas even if people dress them up as something else.
In societies with very large percentage on non religious people this has started.
It will bear fruit. Over generations.
Once religious beliefs become equivalent to child molesters or politicians and peoples intuitions follow suit. Hearing that a person is "God Fearing" goes from a good thing to a condemnation and people basic perceptions follow suit. Basically as soon as being religious becomes a deal breaker. The nicest person in the world is made an outcast by choosing to ascribe to bad ideas and irrationality.
As hopeless as it seems it also appears that the late Christopher Hitchens was correct when he said that the religious furvor that we are seeing is actually the death rattles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WhSK0_9FJ4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WhSK0_9FJ4)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p45Ut9Iizi0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p45Ut9Iizi0)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulb1tmMgq8c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulb1tmMgq8c)
I think you're right about which option will, in fact, occur, BD. But let's be clear about a few things.
Accepting the status quo means we shouldn't act surprised or offended as muslim violence continues. Not surprised because we expressly acknowledge it will proceed. Not offended because, despite that knowledge, we chose to let the violence take its course instead of effecting change through force.
Changing perceptions and an evolving secular society are fantastic ideals. Muslims don't want any part of them. The pedophile is shamed and prosecuted because his or her actions are not endorsed by the society in which he or she lives. But if the pedophile lived in a community in which nearly the entire population either engaged in pedophilia, tacitly approved of pedophilia in principle, or believed all pedophiles went to heaven - well, you see where I'm going. Let's not hold our breath awaiting "moderate" muslims shaming the rest into passivity.
This isn't a problem we can solve with hashtags, public statements of solidarity, or marches. But, you're completely right, that's all we're going to see. (I'm listening to the youtube clips now - thanks in advance for the links).
Holy shit, the guy in the second link, arguing with Hitchens, conflated the Founders and the Pilgrims to "prove" America was premised on christianity.
I miss Hitchens. Glad he was prolific enough to leave behind so much content.
Changing perceptions will take generations and generations. I do think it's the only logical choice; everyone wants that magic bullet but - religion took eons to become entrenched in our society. It'll take some time to reverse the process.
To get some perspective here: I saw a report today that compared terrorist-caused deaths with the race of the terrorists themselves. Muslims make up less than 10%. The majority are Mexican. (Think drug wars.)
That's interesting, and perhaps accurate in a sense, but very likely dependent upon a very specific definition of "terrorist" used in the report. I think the problem with islam is something more than the base criminality typically associated with the drug trade. Don't get me wrong, let's call off the "drug war" too. That, in fact, seems much more easily accomplished. Finally.
Bigger picture, though, I just can't buy into premise that the rest of the world simply has to suffer the effects of islam until it slowly evolves away from violence. It puts the burden on the wrong parties. It's like saying, "hey, sure I'm pissing on your rug but just be patient, I'll get tired of doing it in a couple twenty or thirty generations." For all my un-dudely thinking (admittedly, at least topically) in this thread, I still think the Dude would not have suffered that insult if he had the means to stop it - we do.
Quote from: jgiffin on January 14, 2015, 11:24:49 PM
That's interesting, and perhaps accurate in a sense, but very likely dependent upon a very specific definition of "terrorist" used in the report. I think the problem with islam is something more than the base criminality typically associated with the drug trade. Don't get me wrong, let's call off the "drug war" too. That, in fact, seems much more easily accomplished. Finally.
Bigger picture, though, I just can't buy into premise that the rest of the world simply has to suffer the effects of islam until it slowly evolves away from violence. It puts the burden on the wrong parties. It's like saying, "hey, sure I'm pissing on your rug but just be patient, I'll get tired of doing it in a couple twenty or thirty generations." For all my un-dudely thinking (admittedly, at least topically) in this thread, I still think the Dude would not have suffered that insult if he had the means to stop it - we do.
Point well taken. But I don't know what the answer is... These jihadists will continue to wreak havoc as long as young men and women all over the globe remain to be susceptible to radicalization. What's the attraction??? I just don't get it.
In the meantime, these are the fucking undude morons that want to run the world...
The Muslim and the glass door
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CewqB-N4gAI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CewqB-N4gAI)
(http://img911.imageshack.us/img911/6853/bfDwgm.jpg)
Lol ... +1 DB!
Quote from: jgiffin on January 14, 2015, 05:00:22 PM
I think you're right about which option will, in fact, occur, BD. But let's be clear about a few things.
Accepting the status quo means we shouldn't act surprised or offended as muslim violence continues. Not surprised because we expressly acknowledge it will proceed. Not offended because, despite that knowledge, we chose to let the violence take its course instead of effecting change through force.
Changing perceptions and an evolving secular society are fantastic ideals. Muslims don't want any part of them. The pedophile is shamed and prosecuted because his or her actions are not endorsed by the society in which he or she lives. But if the pedophile lived in a community in which nearly the entire population either engaged in pedophilia, tacitly approved of pedophilia in principle, or believed all pedophiles went to heaven - well, you see where I'm going. Let's not hold our breath awaiting "moderate" muslims shaming the rest into passivity.
This isn't a problem we can solve with hashtags, public statements of solidarity, or marches. But, you're completely right, that's all we're going to see. (I'm listening to the youtube clips now - thanks in advance for the links).
This is true. The insular nature of Islamic countries makes them impenetrable.
But they do also become isolated from the rest of the world which will increasingly have effects.
Not really sure how you prosecute the war of ideas in this instance. But it can be done.
Look at Iran. Other than the latest backslide which IMO was brought on by the US invasion of Iraq and the saber rattling, Iran had been on a path toward increasing freedoms. Admittedly slow with a long way to go but none the less real improvements. Then we had the knee jerk reaction that resulted in them electing a former military war hero in Amijinidad. It was a complete reaction to US presence in Iraq and then you get the ramping up of the nuclear program etc etc. Bottom line is that western culture is appealing to people even in the most repressed Islamic nations. I'm told that Tehran really rocks at night.
And the UAE is one of the greatest parties on this blue marble for sure.
The politics of Saturday nights is a strong force.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1QiLlgQG0s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1QiLlgQG0s)
No coincidence that the paraquat would call it all "Corruption".
Yes it is thank you very much.
It's also the best hope for progress.
Caucasians, bowling and zesty coitus can save the world.
Quote from: jgiffin on January 14, 2015, 05:17:34 PM
Holy shit, the guy in the second link, arguing with Hitchens, conflated the Founders and the Pilgrims to "prove" America was premised on christianity.
I miss Hitchens. Glad he was prolific enough to leave behind so much content.
Oh I know!
It is literally depressing to watch videos like this.
The first video where the guy calls Christianity a revealed truth.
The interviewer makes the point that none of the people who wrote the gospels ever met Jesus in real life. He had been dead for anywhere from 80 to several hundred years.
And the Guy tells us with a straight face that they met Jesus because Jesus appeared to them.
And that's the foundation. Based on the supposed appearances of a ghost. And to the mind of a Christian this is a positive. A revealed religion.
I've grown to find it infuriating that we are asked to listen to this garbage.
You see a Christopher Hitchens or a Carl Sagan and you juxtapose them against the fucking waste of oxygen that these religious nut jobs are and it's just depressing that we need to engage in this sort of nonsense. These jerks have as much credibility as a palm reader or a fortune teller.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBCFQtDLPA0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBCFQtDLPA0)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz1EE_c0ops (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz1EE_c0ops)
VS (Grab a beer. Sit back. Hilarity ensues.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5zUjvJQQYM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5zUjvJQQYM)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV4CsLgCwmU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV4CsLgCwmU)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpryi8ffdJI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpryi8ffdJI)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuR0aF0Vw58 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuR0aF0Vw58)
Quote from: Hominid on January 15, 2015, 10:22:02 AM
Lol ... +1 DB!
They x-rayed him later to see if he was hurt...
(http://sleevage.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/homer_simpson_xray.jpg)
Quote from: DigitalBuddha on January 15, 2015, 09:37:38 AM
In the meantime, these are the fucking undude morons that want to run the world...
The Muslim and the glass door
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CewqB-N4gAI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CewqB-N4gAI)
Oh that is f'in hilarious!
Great find!
Quote from: BikerDude on January 15, 2015, 02:59:01 PM
Quote from: DigitalBuddha on January 15, 2015, 09:37:38 AM
In the meantime, these are the fucking undude morons that want to run the world...
The Muslim and the glass door
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CewqB-N4gAI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CewqB-N4gAI)
Oh that is f'in hilarious!
Great find!
;D(http://dudeism.com/smf/Themes/default/images/post/thumbup.gif) ;D(http://dudeism.com/smf/Themes/default/images/post/thumbup.gif)
Quote from: BikerDude on January 15, 2015, 12:56:53 PM
These jerks have as much credibility as a palm reader or a fortune teller.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBCFQtDLPA0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBCFQtDLPA0)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz1EE_c0ops (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz1EE_c0ops)
VS (Grab a beer. Sit back. Hilarity ensues.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5zUjvJQQYM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5zUjvJQQYM)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV4CsLgCwmU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV4CsLgCwmU)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpryi8ffdJI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpryi8ffdJI)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuR0aF0Vw58 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuR0aF0Vw58)
If anyone here is associated with www.******.com (http://www.******.com), please let them know BD was responsible for lowering their web traffic by about 4% this week. I can't keep up with my religio/political commentaries and amateur asian flashing...but I damn sure try.
Post Script: Sorry, I didn't think about the potential problems with actually posting the website name. Would have been easy to just make up one.
I've been pretty disappointed in what I perceived as overtly political criticism that no significant US representative attended the Charlie Hebdo march in Paris. Doesn't seem like a big deal to me. It's their gig - might even be grandstanding for us to show up.* Same with Obama saying "extremism" is a problem the world has to address but not specifically mentioning "islamic extremism." Whatever, we all get what he means. Dude just doesn't want to piss off his liberal base or highlight muslims for reciprocal violence.
Then I see this: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-13/obama-declares-war-extremism-%E2%80%93-are-you-extremist (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-13/obama-declares-war-extremism-%E2%80%93-are-you-extremist) . Shit. These 72 loosely-termed "groups" are deemed extremists by the US government. I'm sympathetic to, oh, about 60% of them. The full list is worth reading. Instead of hitting you with a wall of text, I'll just pull out a few examples.
1. Those that talk about "individual liberties"
2. Those that advocate for states' rights
5. Those that are interested in "defeating the Communists"
6. Those that believe "that the interests of one's own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations"
22. Anyone that is "opposed to the New World Order" **
32. Anyone that "is frustrated with mainstream ideologies"
38. Anyone that "suddenly acquires weapons" ***
42. Citizens that have "bumper stickers" that are patriotic or anti-U.N.
46. Those that are "suspicious of centralized federal authority" ****
47. Those that are "reverent of individual liberty"
59. "Returning veterans"
60. Those concerned about "illegal immigration"
61. Those that "believe in the right to bear arms"
Discerning readers will note, however, the words "islam" and/or "muslim" are nowhere to be found on the list - well, except to target those who are "anti-muslim." Those references have been removed so as to not offend the savages. I simply can't comprehend how millions of US citizens are not apoplectic...oh, wait, The Bachelor is on. I'll BRB YOLO!
*Or, worse, you could be Saudi Arabia and send a representative to the march but, back home, still FLOG A PERSON IN PUBLIC for daring to question islam the same day. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/11/flogging-global-outrage-saudi-arabia-silent (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/11/flogging-global-outrage-saudi-arabia-silent) .
** Does No. 22 concede "The New World Order" exists? I've never bought that line but now that I know the government is worried I might...
*** How does one acquire weaponry other than "suddenly?" Do we have to buy guns and ammo on lay-a-way now?
**** Such as compiling lists of "extremist" groups which pretty much track the Bill of Rights but omit mention of a certain religion of peace engaged in wholesale slaughter? Oh, okay.
Um... too much caffeine?
Quote from: Hominid on January 18, 2015, 02:50:22 AM
Um... too much caffeine?
But never too much beer!
(http://faceybros.com/wp-content/uploads/14-0306-Facey-Broads-Thirst-THURSDAY_00001.jpg)
Quote from: DigitalBuddha on January 18, 2015, 12:51:05 PM
Quote from: Hominid on January 18, 2015, 02:50:22 AM
Um... too much caffeine?
But never too much beer!
(http://faceybros.com/wp-content/uploads/14-0306-Facey-Broads-Thirst-THURSDAY_00001.jpg)
Oh cool. A pirate chick.
Never thought of that one.
Very hot.
She could be a pirate and I'd be a British sailor boarding the ship by force...
Well you know. Like that.
But she loses points for drinking Canadian mega swill.
Quote from: Hominid on January 20, 2015, 06:28:19 PM
But she loses points for drinking Canadian mega swill.
I could overlook it.
Quote from: BikerDude on January 21, 2015, 10:21:35 AM
Quote from: Hominid on January 20, 2015, 06:28:19 PM
But she loses points for drinking Canadian mega swill.
I could overlook it.
Sure, sure...right up to the point when she realizes she drank too much and vomits it all over you. ;D
Quote from: Reverend Al on January 22, 2015, 01:36:00 AM
Quote from: BikerDude on January 21, 2015, 10:21:35 AM
Quote from: Hominid on January 20, 2015, 06:28:19 PM
But she loses points for drinking Canadian mega swill.
I could overlook it.
Sure, sure...right up to the point when she realizes she drank too much and vomits it all over you. ;D
Oh yeah a reversal is a real party killer.
Quote from: Reverend Al on January 22, 2015, 01:36:00 AM
Quote from: BikerDude on January 21, 2015, 10:21:35 AM
Quote from: Hominid on January 20, 2015, 06:28:19 PM
But she loses points for drinking Canadian mega swill.
I could overlook it.
Sure, sure...right up to the point when she realizes she drank too much and vomits it all over you. ;D
Hurling is not all that bad; one of my best times getting laid was right before losing some good alcohol all over the bed of a girlfriend. She cleaned it up no questions asked. That's my idea of a real trooper! ;D(http://dudeism.com/smf/Themes/default/images/post/thumbup.gif)
Lol - so, you nail her, then toss your cookies all over her bed. Must have left quite the impression!