| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
 Posted - 05/22/2006 : 11:44:56
|
Careful there Mr. Wrenn. Please don't think I personally have any problem with the image, but you may not have been around for the controversy over "Pictures of Beautiful Women", one of which that most certainly is. It would be a shame to see this already controversial topic shut down over extraneous material.
perfection could use an upgrade |
 |
|
|
s_wrenn
* Dog in the Sand *
Ireland
1851 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2006 : 11:55:47
|
the controversy over "Pictures of Beautiful Women"
Don't believe i was around for that.
I'll tone it down.
LOL, "Mr Wrenn" was what my teachers used to call me in school when i got troublesome.
To avoid future questioning and confusion this was the image:http://www.vdzanden.nl/gvdzanden/1788.jpg
http://myspace.com/seanwrenn  |
Edited by - s_wrenn on 05/22/2006 12:09:08 |
|
|
|
lonely persuader
= Cult of Ray =
Ireland
488 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2006 : 01:52:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
quote:
Originally posted by remig
Erebus is generalizing again with muslims...
what does this story about killing each other means?
I admit over-generalization is unfair, but sometimes it takes distortion to get people off their collective asses. The threat is real and platitudes about tolerance are not helping. Yes, tolerance is a noble principle, but .....
~ Erebus turns into George Bush |
|
|
|
starmekitten
-= Forum Pistolera =-
United Kingdom
6370 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2006 : 04:29:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Fingers
quote:
Originally posted by starmekitten
I question whether this can be a discussion or if it will turn into a bunch of people shouting out how religion is bad. I never got why people get so defensive and aggressive in these discussions. What threat to you is the average religious guy on the street? No threat. Why feel so threatened then? No doubt you'll drag up fundamentalist extremists who absolutely commit atrocities in the name of religion but by their actions show themselves up as liars.
This thread has a pretty negative feeling to it so I just don't think it's going to be a fair and balanced discussion.
I will happily punch anyone in the face who talks seriously about the Da Vinci code though. Ugh.
forum ebook: end of miles
If this discussion lacks balance, it is due to the lack of participation on behalf of the pro-religion side. Many people have given simple reasons why they don't believe or disagree with mainstream religious politics. How about hearing the same from some believers? I would respect a "gotta believe in something" or even a "why not?". Nobody is speaking up. I say give it some time, and keep it friendly.
Now, regarding the Da Vinci Code. It's really the same debate as the existence of god in general. Atheists believe the "code" and christians do not. I would love to have proof that Jesus was married and had a child. It actually sounds very realistic. But it can't be proven. Period. This is not to say that he was never married and sans offspring, because that can't be proven either. There is no more proof of the Bible's truth than of the Da Vinci Code's.
I agree, the book and recently released movie are getting WAY too much press, that's just the way the media and the masses over-do things. It is no different than when Mel Gibson's "The Passion Of The Christ" was popular.
So come on Gibson, and you too Hanks. Show your faces, I have some bones to pick with each of you.
 REMEMBER THIS: Nowhere in history has an atheist taken a human life in the name of his cause.
Some people have also said words along the lines of intelligent people wouldn't be religious. Honestly, these discussions get messy. People get so angry for who knows what reason and get offensive. Why would anyone set themselves up to be insulted? Thats why these things tend to go nowhere. Especially when they start with such a downer. Hey everybody your belief system is a big joke what do you think of that then! ha! see? Never going to work.
My main problem with the Da vinci code is it's a crock of shit actually. Badly written poorly thought out crock of crap. He's not the first to put forward a lineage of Jesus idea (Have you seen Dogma?) and it's been done better. It's crappy *crappy* paperback junk.
I also don't think the atheist or religion debate is all that black and white either. Do you view it as a purely intellectual decision or do you view it as an emotional choice? That interests me.
Erebus, don't make me start. Religion is not what made fundamentalist Islamics kill because it states quite clearly in the Qu'ran that to take the life of an innocent is completely wrong. What it is, is the same old distortions of religious text, discard the document as a whole and focus on key passages open for interpretation. I could take out Hugh Fearnley Whittengstalls cookbook and use it as a reason for me to go on a mass killing spree by selecting key paragraphs (cut up the meat with a large cleaver....) if I wanted to. You cannot judge an entire group of the minority. Well it seems you can but you're weird.
There would be all these bad things if there were no religion as it is religion makes an easy target for excuses. People who are downright wrong will find a reason.
Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to go burn down the local cinema because the Da Vinci code made me.
forum ebook: end of miles |
|
|
|
Homers_pet_monkey
= Official forum monkey =
United Kingdom
17125 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2006 : 04:51:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by starmekitten
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Fingers
quote:
Originally posted by starmekitten
I question whether this can be a discussion or if it will turn into a bunch of people shouting out how religion is bad. I never got why people get so defensive and aggressive in these discussions. What threat to you is the average religious guy on the street? No threat. Why feel so threatened then? No doubt you'll drag up fundamentalist extremists who absolutely commit atrocities in the name of religion but by their actions show themselves up as liars.
This thread has a pretty negative feeling to it so I just don't think it's going to be a fair and balanced discussion.
I will happily punch anyone in the face who talks seriously about the Da Vinci code though. Ugh.
forum ebook: end of miles
If this discussion lacks balance, it is due to the lack of participation on behalf of the pro-religion side. Many people have given simple reasons why they don't believe or disagree with mainstream religious politics. How about hearing the same from some believers? I would respect a "gotta believe in something" or even a "why not?". Nobody is speaking up. I say give it some time, and keep it friendly.
Now, regarding the Da Vinci Code. It's really the same debate as the existence of god in general. Atheists believe the "code" and christians do not. I would love to have proof that Jesus was married and had a child. It actually sounds very realistic. But it can't be proven. Period. This is not to say that he was never married and sans offspring, because that can't be proven either. There is no more proof of the Bible's truth than of the Da Vinci Code's.
I agree, the book and recently released movie are getting WAY too much press, that's just the way the media and the masses over-do things. It is no different than when Mel Gibson's "The Passion Of The Christ" was popular.
So come on Gibson, and you too Hanks. Show your faces, I have some bones to pick with each of you.
REMEMBER THIS: Nowhere in history has an atheist taken a human life in the name of his cause.
I could take out Hugh Fearnley Whittengstalls cookbook and use it as a reason for me to go on a mass killing spree by selecting key paragraphs (cut up the meat with a large cleaver....) if I wanted to.
forum ebook: end of miles
Haha, all the death would almost be worth it.
 I'd walk her everyday, into a shady place
|
|
|
|
vilainde
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Niue
7448 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2006 : 04:56:43
|
Is there a recipe in it of liver with fava beans and a nice chianti?
Denis
I love Guitar Wolf from the Erath! |
|
|
|
PixieSteve
> Teenager of the Year <
Poland
4698 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2006 : 05:05:48
|
religions a bit rubbish for all the moral stuff. i've never thought morals were exclusive to religion. being a good person comes pretty naturally to me....
FAST_MAN RAIDER_MAN - June 19th |
|
|
|
lonely persuader
= Cult of Ray =
Ireland
488 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2006 : 05:19:24
|
Morals are'nt exclusive to religion. Religion's don't say that either. There is a branch of theology and philophosy that deals with natural morality or "ethics", that religions agree are natural and exist outside a specific religions.
I am unsure how or what morals are classified under this topic. I believe it would agree with alot of human rights etc..
Btw,
well done starmekitten, I concur, would'nt mind if it was well researched or something but it's a badly written, badly researched piece of fiction. |
|
|
|
PixieSteve
> Teenager of the Year <
Poland
4698 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2006 : 05:23:49
|
that's the only bit of religion that makes sense to me, so yeah. rubbish.
FAST_MAN RAIDER_MAN - June 19th |
|
|
|
starmekitten
-= Forum Pistolera =-
United Kingdom
6370 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2006 : 06:37:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by PixieSteve
..... being a good person comes pretty naturally to me....
*coughchokegasp*
lonely persuader it is bloody awful isn't it. I read it in one sitting because my dad loaned it to me. I read it in one go just to get it over and done with. Blech.
forum ebook: end of miles |
Edited by - starmekitten on 05/23/2006 06:39:05 |
|
|
|
lonely persuader
= Cult of Ray =
Ireland
488 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2006 : 07:13:58
|
I could say Jesus had 20 pet elephants (it does'nt specifically say he never had). I could write a best seller. We'll maybe I could'nt. I have no qualms against the da vinci code in general cos everyone knows (yes!! they know) its fiction. It not gonna start a crazy cult of people who think they are decended from Jesus or anything.
|
|
|
|
PixieSteve
> Teenager of the Year <
Poland
4698 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2006 : 08:50:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by starmekitten
quote:
Originally posted by PixieSteve
..... being a good person comes pretty naturally to me....
*coughchokegasp*
*performs heimlich maneuver to save tre from choking to death*
see, good person.
FAST_MAN RAIDER_MAN - June 19th |
Edited by - PixieSteve on 05/23/2006 08:51:24 |
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2006 : 10:12:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by starmekitten
Erebus, don't make me start. Religion is not what made fundamentalist Islamics kill because it states quite clearly in the Qu'ran that to take the life of an innocent is completely wrong. What it is, is the same old distortions of religious text, discard the document as a whole and focus on key passages open for interpretation. I could take out Hugh Fearnley Whittengstalls cookbook and use it as a reason for me to go on a mass killing spree by selecting key paragraphs (cut up the meat with a large cleaver....) if I wanted to. You cannot judge an entire group of the minority. Well it seems you can but you're weird.
I guess I am speaking of religion more in terms of it being a broad practice or culture, not so much as the relatively narrow doctrine upon which such practice or culture may originally have been based. It seems clear that millions upon millions of young children are being indoctrinated with varying degrees of hate and intolerance that is sanctioned by the most powerful institution in those children's lives. If even a small percentage of those children grow up to engage in terrorism, then it seems appropriate to place a great deal of the blame at the threshold of the religious institutions of that practice or culture. I am not suggesting that the West attempt to eradicate that culture or its adherents, but I am arguing that many people of apparently good will need to become more realistic about what is rather obviously going on here.
It seems odd to me that those who most strongly support a multicultural Europe seem oblivious to broader demographic trends that will eventually conflict directly with support for tolerance and multiculturalism. Birth rates of the more historical, white Europeans are way down, whereas those of Asian and African immigrants are high, so it would seem that within the next fifty years or so the Islamic populations will become the voting majorities across much of Europe. Given how little practitioners of of Islam support modern ideas of tolerance for women, other religions, homosexuals, ... you name it, and given that Islamic voters seem likely to vote for officials and policies that would overthrow or at least cripple the culture of tolerance, doesn't it concern some of you that today's culture of tolerance will likely bring about a culture of intolerance? Specifically, a culture that is most intolerant of the most outspoken supporters of tolerance, meaning those who support women's rights, abortion rights, sexual orientation rights. (Ironically, abortion rights play a large role in the low birthrate of historical Europeans, which could lead to eventual elimination or at least curtailment of abortion rights.) I don't think it's realistic to believe that over the next few generatons multiculturalistic ideas are somehow going to infiltrate Europe's Islamic populations enough to ward off such a shift in voting patterns and resultant social policies. However, I do admit that it is quite possible that these trends will not continue to the extent I fear, but only because conflct, perhaps horrific conflict, may intervene before that can happen.
I know some of you will be tempted to dismiss such talk as simple racist rubbish, which to my mind points to a signficant cause of the very troubles I am suggesting to be likely, or at least worthy of concern: that the culture of tolerance is itself guilty of censuring open discussion of ideas that threaten what it takes to be its hegemony. Though I don’t expect you to believe me, I would love to be completely wrong about these concerns. Neither do I expect my posts to result in particularly rational discussion, but I would hope that some here might be open to at least a little adjustment to your patterns of thought.
Please don’t delete this thread because these ideas are hurtful or deemed to be inappropriate to a forum devoted to rock music. Given the dominance of rock music culture across the web by decidedly open left of center political sentiment, to my mind such discussion could hardly be more appropriate. Please note that I have tried to present my concerns in a manner that I hope will make them as palatable as possible.
|
Edited by - Erebus on 05/23/2006 11:38:55 |
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11690 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2006 : 12:26:07
|
You see that it's a paradox, surely? Either you repress the rights of people who would vote in a way that, probably, most of us don't see fit (I'm not suggesting this is Islamic or otherwise, just a general case), or you have repressed rights of others. In order, assumedly, to protect from repression.
The third option, and I think what western society has been going with, is to attempt to be fair in the hope that others will see and follow the example; to be convinced that restricting others' rights because of your own personal beliefs is not right, in other words.
I don't think there's any other way to do it.
That said, under no circumstances should someone's personal views be imposed on a larger group. The emphasis being on personal, meaning it affects nobody else negatively. And "I don't want to have hear that" does not qualify. I cannot believe we have supposedly rational people fighting that The DaVinci Code, regardless of whether it were a work of fiction (d'uh) or fact (and it has to be one or the other) should not be shown. If it's a work of fiction, what the hell is your problem? It's a made up story. If it's fact, what the hell's your problem? It's the truth. Now I know there's no question that it's fiction, but some people, it seems, would disagree and it really burns my butter.
Now, I agree to a certain extent that multicultualism like most things, could be bad unchecked. If everyone can claim any right under their culture/background/beliefs/etc, then the society itself does not exist. Society is by definition a group of people with similar values and beliefs and culture and all living within that society are expected to follow that society's rules. However, in many cases, the values and beliefs ARE similar, at least enough to live in harmony and as a society. So long as we all agree that the rules apply to all, at least. I think North America has some good examples of this, and also the converse. Chinatowns, Greektowns, Little Italys, and so on, are probably the result of people coming into a society and deliberately living outside of it or within a small subset. I understand the reasoning of wanting to meet familiar people with a similar background and live among them, but there is a social cost in their self-exclusion in that it does not breed familiarity with the other cultures and society at large. I think that perhaps this has, in part, led to the growth of gangs in North America.
But what are the answers?
 "If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate." |
|
|
|
Newo
~ Abstract Brain ~
Spain
2674 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2006 : 15:03:44
|
quote:
I don't think it's realistic to believe that over the next few generatons multiculturalistic ideas are somehow going to infiltrate Europe's Islamic populations enough to ward off such a shift in voting patterns and resultant social policies.
depends on whether you feel voting actually influences social policies. I would need to see more politicians who are smarter than their scriptwriters before subscribing to that one.
and while I feel organised religion is harmful to independent in its own right, I don't feel the orchestrators of the attacks are doing it for any religious purpose, rather they seem to be hiding behind religious motives (unless you count the fervour of those on the tube proselytising for antiterrorist legislation that usually takes months to draft but is always there with wet ink right after an attack). I spent part of my childhood in Northern Ireland, and there it became obvious that the official source of the strife, i.e., Catholic-Protestant faultline, was only so much horseshit when it came to light MI5 were murdering folk of both persuasion.
--
Gravy boat! Stay in the now! |
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11690 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2006 : 15:07:31
|
Yes, very true on that second half, Owen.
"If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate." |
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2006 : 15:19:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cult_Of_Frank
But what are the answers?
So, hot potato back at me, huh? Answers? Answers?
Yes, I see the paradox, but thank you for putting that handle on it. As I mentioned above, I lack faith in the third option, at least that it will help us soon enough, but that’s not to say that nothing can be done.
I assume the “answers” will take their usual, inconvenient form, inconvenient in that they won’t be so cut ‘n’ dry that we can easily wrap our minds around them. In coming years as people become more fearful and less hopeful, they will gradually accept measures that previously would have been unthinkable. Already more is being done to restrict immigration. More difficult will be modifying some European socioeconomic policies that have had the effect of ghettoizing immigrants. If immigrants are to be more integrated and therefore more open to the example of tolerance, jobs policies will have to change. What amount to lifelong employment guarantees will have to go, replaced by greater meritocracy. Certainly immigrant insistance that Sharia Law should prevail within immigrant communities must be rejected. Similarly, there should have been no capitulation to censorship of the Muhommed cartoons, just as the DaVinci Code cannot be censored. (I am reminded that just this week a story broke that the German, French, and Italian governments have recently paid out $25 millionUS to gain the release of hostages, so I am not hopeful that we can expect greater governmental backbone anytime soon.) Of course I believe that journalists worldwide need to do a much better job of reporting the truth on the involvement of the US and Bush in the Middle East, because the true nature of many Islamic regimes must be discussed openly if we are to see the attitude adjustment that will be required for the kinds of transformation Europe and the greater West face if they are to avoid social disaster. But I don’t expect to find much agreement here on that last sentence.
I’m sure I should be able to write another fifty sentences similar to those above that hold out hope for peaceful social transition. As I have frequently made clear, I’m not an optimist about such things, but I also know I need to remind myself that things are never (or is that “rarely”?) as black and white as they appear. (Iran may turn out to be a case where things are black and white, but we still have time for hope that Iranian moderates will save us from very hard choices.) Already we have seen mob violence, and we have to expect more terrorism in Europe and the US, likely even more terrible that what we have experienced. If we give in to blackmail by violence, we have little hope to avoid much greater violence. Conversely, by failing to do more to address the social causes we increase the likelihood that the populace will demand extreme response to a next wave of violence in our cities. Wish I could say I were more optimistic. Despite so much evidence to the contrary, people really do want peace, but a downside is they want it so much that they frequently wait way too long before addressing true threats and then end up paying a much greater price than they might have had they been able to make tough choices sooner. Democratic societies are particularly prone to postponing action, or taking half-measure in hopes they will suffice. I know most of this is pretty obvious.
Sorry to be such a bummer, but part of my goal in addressing such things is to wake people up to what I think are real issues that so many apparently would prefer not think about. Please don’t think that by emphasizing Europe I mean to exempt the US. We have certain advantages of economic structure and in other respects our situation is not as advanced, but then again as the Great Satan and the best friend of Israel, we do have our own concerns.
I hope people can see that though I do discuss ethnic issues more readily than most, I’m no racist. But I do fear the world is moving toward, not away from, a day when offensively simple solutions could seem more acceptable.
So, no real answers. Do people just have to continue being people, curse them? Or is that “bless them”? Sometimes I think a God or an Allah really would make things much simpler, I think.
|
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5456 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2006 : 15:22:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
[quote]Originally posted by starmekitten
It seems odd to me that those who most strongly support a multicultural Europe seem oblivious to broader demographic trends that will eventually conflict directly with support for tolerance and multiculturalism. Birth rates of the more historical, white Europeans are way down, whereas those of Asian and African immigrants are high, so it would seem that within the next fifty years or so the Islamic populations will become the voting majorities across much of Europe. Given how little practitioners of of Islam support modern ideas of tolerance for women, other religions, homosexuals, ... you name it, and given that Islamic voters seem likely to vote for officials and policies that would overthrow or at least cripple the culture of tolerance, doesn't it concern some of you that today's culture of tolerance will likely bring about a culture of intolerance? Specifically, a culture that is most intolerant of the most outspoken supporters of tolerance, meaning those who support women's rights, abortion rights, sexual orientation rights. (Ironically, abortion rights play a large role in the low birthrate of historical Europeans, which could lead to eventual elimination or at least curtailment of abortion rights.) I don't think it's realistic to believe that over the next few generatons multiculturalistic ideas are somehow going to infiltrate Europe's Islamic populations enough to ward off such a shift in voting patterns and resultant social policies. However, I do admit that it is quite possible that these trends will not continue to the extent I fear, but only because conflct, perhaps horrific conflict, may intervene before that can happen.
I believe birth rates are down in almost all countries (true, more so in Western nations) and I have never seen abortion to be shown to be a major cause of the decline. Contraception I believe is far more significant and family planning.
I partially dismiss these type of birth rate arguments because they have been made repeatedly throughout history (from the Eugenics of the "lower classes" to the Mormons are going to overrun the US), and to my knowledge they never seem to come true.
________________________________________________________________
Working on the T.V. show Emergency! was particularly nice because I was working with a real pro “Randy Mantooth” - Dick Van Patten |
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2006 : 15:29:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Newo
and while I feel organised religion is harmful to independent in its own right, I don't feel the orchestrators of the attacks are doing it for any religious purpose, rather they seem to be hiding behind religious motives (unless you count the fervour of those on the tube proselytising for antiterrorist legislation that usually takes months to draft but is always there with wet ink right after an attack). I spent part of my childhood in Northern Ireland, and there it became obvious that the official source of the strife, i.e., Catholic-Protestant faultline, was only so much horseshit when it came to light MI5 were murdering folk of both persuasion.
Despite what I said way above about the unique motivation of the suicide terrorist who's sure he's going to heaven, I am more sympathetic to what you say here than I have made apparent. Some few of them probably are true religious zealots, but most could easly be bent on revenge, or simply be utilizing the tactic they see as both available and likely to further the strategic goal.
|
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2006 : 15:56:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
[quote]Originally posted by starmekitten
It seems odd to me that those who most strongly support a multicultural Europe seem oblivious to broader demographic trends that will eventually conflict directly with support for tolerance and multiculturalism. Birth rates of the more historical, white Europeans are way down, whereas those of Asian and African immigrants are high, so it would seem that within the next fifty years or so the Islamic populations will become the voting majorities across much of Europe. Given how little practitioners of of Islam support modern ideas of tolerance for women, other religions, homosexuals, ... you name it, and given that Islamic voters seem likely to vote for officials and policies that would overthrow or at least cripple the culture of tolerance, doesn't it concern some of you that today's culture of tolerance will likely bring about a culture of intolerance? Specifically, a culture that is most intolerant of the most outspoken supporters of tolerance, meaning those who support women's rights, abortion rights, sexual orientation rights. (Ironically, abortion rights play a large role in the low birthrate of historical Europeans, which could lead to eventual elimination or at least curtailment of abortion rights.) I don't think it's realistic to believe that over the next few generatons multiculturalistic ideas are somehow going to infiltrate Europe's Islamic populations enough to ward off such a shift in voting patterns and resultant social policies. However, I do admit that it is quite possible that these trends will not continue to the extent I fear, but only because conflct, perhaps horrific conflict, may intervene before that can happen.
I believe birth rates are down in almost all countries (true, more so in Western nations) and I have never seen abortion to be shown to be a major cause of the decline. Contraception I believe is far more significant and family planning.
I partially dismiss these type of birth rate arguments because they have been made repeatedly throughout history (from the Eugenics of the "lower classes" to the Mormons are going to overrun the US), and to my knowledge they never seem to come true.
I should have mentioned contraception. Thank you. And you make a good point on birth rate arguments in general. Long-term social predictions usually end up looking foolish, and I don't mean to claim the trendlines will continue unchanged. I have often read that family size decreases as education is made more widely available to women. Having acknowledged that, the current situation does seem somewhat different due to matters of scale, meaning that in some countries births of historic ethnic groups are running well below replacement rates, while immigrant rates are well above that and unlikely to be much impacted by the education of women, at least within the next two generations, by which time the changes I suggested will largely have occurred. Certainly the situation may not develop to an extreme degree, and maybe the changes will even be slow enough that spread of tolerance will soften the effects, But I do think some who often argue here need to do more to factor such considerations into their political positions, especially as they regard tolerance. It's funny to think that many here will live long enough to see how it turns out, as if much of anything ever really "turns out".
|
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11690 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2006 : 16:12:16
|
A very far side note, and perhaps worthy of its own topic, but have any of you read Freakonomics? The abortion topic was an interesting one in there, though wholly unsurprising, I'm sure it's controversial.
More on topic, I'd hate to think of society moving to a 'head race', if I may coin the term. Though it's less frightening than an arms race, a rush to get head count and encourage population growth where it's not wanted nor desired nor sustainable will doubtless have very grave societal effects. The notable exceptions are probably in the north, Canada and Scandinavia, for example, and especially Scandinavia. The world needs more of those girls around. Though, I suppose, I'll be too old to appreciate them by the time that comes to fruition.
Re: Muhammed cartoons, I agree fully they should not have been censored nor have caused riots. BUT I freely admit that, knowing the offense they would generate, they were in bad taste. There was a cartoon of Jesus screwing a pig in our local university newspaper and while the guy was tossed and there was an overreactive outcry, nothing burned down. Again, poor taste, but not censored.
Finally, answers. As if it were so easy. Fear and lack of understanding are definitely not going to help. I'm not suggesting that you are saying this, just that it seems both of us agree we are heading down this path. I feel a lot of this is perpetrated by the media and also by extremely paranoid/power-grabbing government. Of course, any government, in fact any anything, animal or human, seeks more power than it has. There are variations on what power means to individuals, of course - money, prestige, or simply independence and freedom - but I think that this is true of anyone. And so, we are fed more paranoia to sell advertisements and freedoms to the appropriate parties. This is old news, I know, but consider the results. Instead of promoting cultural understanding, and ultimately integration (to be distinguished clearly from assimilation), the road we walk is to increased secularity, which, as outlined previously, is a big problem.
There was a balance between security and freedom before 9/11, and most of us would probably agree that it was perhaps inappropriately skewed. But we are piling so much on the other side that we are threatening to topple the scale. And whatsmore, I'm not convinced we've gotten much on the positive out of this in the trade.
But I veer from the topic. Again. Regarding socioeconomic policies, I certainly agree that in general merit should trump anything else; not to say people should be fired at random or without thought, but the labour movement has moved things into an us vs. them mentality that promotes "how much can we get away with" thinking. I'm not sure how this applies to having people find a place in society, but perhaps I'm not the only one that strays from the topic at hand.
Personally, I'm in favour of and quite happy to have more immigrants, but I'd like it controlled a little more as well. Initial placement would be one area that I think could improve a lot. If you don't lump them all together in the first place, they may be more inclined to meet others and find things in common.
But I have to run out, so I leave this to others to discuss.
"If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate." |
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2006 : 17:13:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cult_Of_Frank
More on topic, I'd hate to think of society moving to a 'head race', if I may coin the term. Though it's less frightening than an arms race, a rush to get head count and encourage population growth where it's not wanted nor desired nor sustainable will doubtless have very grave societal effects. The notable exceptions are probably in the north, Canada and Scandinavia, for example, and especially Scandinavia. The world needs more of those girls around. Though, I suppose, I'll be too old to appreciate them by the time that comes to fruition.
This reminds me of reading how in countries where parents often use ultrasound to select the gender of the child (India? China?), so many opt for boy children, which makes one think the country is likely to eventually end up with a surplus of young men, which makes me think of an army, but also emmigration. That in turn reminds me of reading how the interval between wars among the city-states of ancient Greece was in part governed by the availability of young males to fight the wars. You know, kill off too many, till then you can't wage war, and restock for the next one.
quote:
But I veer from the topic. Again. Regarding socioeconomic policies, I certainly agree that in general merit should trump anything else; not to say people should be fired at random or without thought, but the labour movement has moved things into an us vs. them mentality that promotes "how much can we get away with" thinking. I'm not sure how this applies to having people find a place in society, but perhaps I'm not the only one that strays from the topic at hand.
I mention socioeconomic policies because I have read more than once, at conservative blog sites, that long-term employment guarantees in France, especially within the civil service and perhaps in other countries as well, make it difficult for the young and immigrant to break into jobs in the broader culture, which retards cultural assimilation and contributes to immigrants remaining their enclaves, thus slowing the spread of broader social values. Don't know how true this is, and I admit that one reason the conservative writers condemn this is that they oppose both massive civil service sectors and government mandated employment guarantees.
|
|
|
|
Holy Fingers
- FB Fan -
USA
149 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2006 : 18:56:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by remig
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Fingers
Atheists believe the "code" and christians do not.
REMEMBER THIS: Nowhere in history has an atheist taken a human life in the name of his cause.
I don't believe the "code". This is full of bullshit. A bad book made by a guy that had read "the 10 rules to make a thriller" and went to the first semester at any random art school.
Sorry. Probably should have said that atheists WANT to believe the code. I know I would like to, but I can't.
REMEMBER THIS: Nowhere in history has an atheist taken a human life in the name of his cause. |
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2006 : 20:56:42
|
Didn't mean to screw up the thread.
|
|
|
|
lonely persuader
= Cult of Ray =
Ireland
488 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2006 : 02:02:51
|
| To be honest this topic has really decended into the politics within different cultures (and not neccessary anything to do with real religion). It may be what some people percieve to be religion (as religion gets blamed for anything) (but not). Suicide bombings has very little to do with religion and alot to do with oppression by the far right in Israel. |
|
|
|
jimmy
= Cult of Ray =
USA
876 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2006 : 18:41:59
|
When I woke up Sunday morning, I really regretted starting this thread...I shouldn't post when I'm high, but then I'd never post at all. I guess I thought I was on a roll after my very funny post ( I have to admit I'm very proud of it ) in the celebrity sex thread I started.
But anyway, it's pointless to talk about religion, and I don't believe that I can change people's opinions, and if I could I wouldn't want to anyway.
I would like to say a couple more things though. I don't feel the need to go crazy and change the laws or anything but:
I don't think "under God" should be in the Pledge, and anyone who defends it being in there is a douche.
and
I don't think "In God We Trust" should be on our money.
and
Lights on trees are fine, but there shouldn't be nativity scenes or menorahs on government property.
I think everyone knows these things are wrong, even the people who defend them- they just want them kept in place because it's their religion that's being represented.
"Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you." JOHN 15:14 |
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2006 : 21:58:25
|
I understand jimmy. I sorta regret getting into some of the things I opened up, and that makes me sad, the regret that is. As a culture the West has gotten truly creepy lately, and I'm not talking about anything to do with anything George Bush has done. This post is about the repression of debate, not about religion. Last night I was reading at http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWE4ZGE0MjhkYTEyZDc1YjUwNjc1NzFmZjVkZmUwYmQ . Michael Rubin arrived in Iceland for a series of lectures only to find himself accused of and investigated for war crimes on the basis opinions he had espoused. As he explains, "My crimes were multifold: Writing an article blaming Saddam Hussein—not United Nations sanctions—for Iraqi deaths, and then advocating for Iraqi liberation. This made me responsible for “war-crimes and violating international law by indirectly causing the invasion of Iraq.” Like thousands of others, I had also worked at the Pentagon and volunteered for duty in Iraq. At each university lecture, protesters worked to disrupt my speech. Some were young students, and others were older retirees, members of a group calling itself, “The Movement for Active Democracy.” I was even accused of complicity in a cover-up of the 9/11 attacks. Among my crimes, the protesters pointed out, “[Rubin] is a Jew and a big supporter of Israel.” Guilty as charged. I do not apologize for my religion, and I am also a big supporter of India, Turkey, Taiwan, Mali, and other democracies. Iceland is a small country. Rather than ignore the incidents, both newspapers and television reported it. I was already in Finland when I got an e-mail informing me that the police commissioner dismissed the lawsuit."
On May 15 the blogger who linked me to Rubin's story, wrote about his own situation at http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1069 that “Today Father Johan Leman, a Catholic priest of the Order of Saint Dominic (the inquisition order) and a professor at the Catholic University of Leuven, has joined the chorus. Father Leman is the previous president of the CEOOR (Center for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism), the inquisition center of the Belgian government. In today’s news broadcast on the national radio he says that the CEOOR has been negligent because it has not already started prosecutions against me.
“According to Father Leman I have incited racial hatred, with the result that extremist or unbalanced people, such as Hans Van Themsche, have decided to take the law into their own hands and shoot immigrants. Father Leman blames the Belgian authorities and the CEOOR for not punishing me.”
Of course these are just examples against pundits on the right, and I know the left can provide credible counterexamples, or at least I think they can. The Dixie Chicks’ confusion over the difference between censorship and capitalism doesn’t count, and remember all that rot about Ashcroft's impending assualt on civil liberties? Oh no, they're going to be able to see what I check out of the library!!! And just whose liberties have been repressed? No, this is not about Bush, Ashcroft, or Rumsfeld.
Just to be clear, I am not bringing this up because of lonely persuader’s most recent post in this thread. The role of Israel is worthy of discussion, and at least he had the courage to say what he thinks. And in no way am I alluding to any shortcomings on the part of our moderators. I do bring this up, however, because there is a chill over these many lands, from Brussels to Reykjavik to San Francisco, and sometimes it extends into this forum. I feel it, and I usually give into it. After all, it is almost always easier to just keep quiet. Which means they’re winning, against all of us regardless of our political or religious stripe. How long is before the thought police reach into little web pockets like this? Don't think it can happen? Did anybody here think they'd live to read of the types of things I link to above? Creepy.
“What a bargain: At a cost of a mere $100,000 or so, a northeastern college can take your child and transform him into a delicate flower incapable of handling opinions at odds with his own.” - Rich Lowry, National Review Online, May 23, 2006 |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5456 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2006 : 22:42:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
remember all that rot about Ashcroft's impending assualt on civil liberties? Oh no, they're going to be able to see what I check out of the library!!! And just whose liberties have been repressed? No, this is not about Bush, Ashcroft, or Rumsfeld.
Oy vey!
darwin: "How do you, a "libertarian", feel about the NSA tracking our phone calls?"
erebus: "I'm glad the adults are keeping us safe"
darwin: "Yes, they are quite a well organized and well planned bunch. Just what we want in a daddy."
________________________________________________________________
Working on the T.V. show Emergency! was particularly nice because I was working with a real pro “Randy Mantooth” - Dick Van Patten |
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11690 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 00:32:44
|
Yeah, I'm not sure there's much of a distinction between the "suspect everybody" regime and the "accuse everybody" regime.
"If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate." |
|
|
|
lonely persuader
= Cult of Ray =
Ireland
488 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 03:22:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
I understand jimmy. I sorta regret getting into some of the things I opened up, and that makes me sad, the regret that is. As a culture the West has gotten truly creepy lately, and I'm not talking about anything to do with anything George Bush has done. This post is about the repression of debate, not about religion. Last night I was reading at http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWE4ZGE0MjhkYTEyZDc1YjUwNjc1NzFmZjVkZmUwYmQ . Michael Rubin arrived in Iceland for a series of lectures only to find himself accused of and investigated for war crimes on the basis opinions he had espoused. As he explains, "My crimes were multifold: Writing an article blaming Saddam Hussein—not United Nations sanctions—for Iraqi deaths, and then advocating for Iraqi liberation. This made me responsible for “war-crimes and violating international law by indirectly causing the invasion of Iraq.” Like thousands of others, I had also worked at the Pentagon and volunteered for duty in Iraq. At each university lecture, protesters worked to disrupt my speech. Some were young students, and others were older retirees, members of a group calling itself, “The Movement for Active Democracy.” I was even accused of complicity in a cover-up of the 9/11 attacks. Among my crimes, the protesters pointed out, “[Rubin] is a Jew and a big supporter of Israel.” Guilty as charged. I do not apologize for my religion, and I am also a big supporter of India, Turkey, Taiwan, Mali, and other democracies. Iceland is a small country. Rather than ignore the incidents, both newspapers and television reported it. I was already in Finland when I got an e-mail informing me that the police commissioner dismissed the lawsuit."
On May 15 the blogger who linked me to Rubin's story, wrote about his own situation at http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1069 that “Today Father Johan Leman, a Catholic priest of the Order of Saint Dominic (the inquisition order) and a professor at the Catholic University of Leuven, has joined the chorus. Father Leman is the previous president of the CEOOR (Center for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism), the inquisition center of the Belgian government. In today’s news broadcast on the national radio he says that the CEOOR has been negligent because it has not already started prosecutions against me.
“According to Father Leman I have incited racial hatred, with the result that extremist or unbalanced people, such as Hans Van Themsche, have decided to take the law into their own hands and shoot immigrants. Father Leman blames the Belgian authorities and the CEOOR for not punishing me.”
Of course these are just examples against pundits on the right, and I know the left can provide credible counterexamples, or at least I think they can. The Dixie Chicks’ confusion over the difference between censorship and capitalism doesn’t count, and remember all that rot about Ashcroft's impending assualt on civil liberties? Oh no, they're going to be able to see what I check out of the library!!! And just whose liberties have been repressed? No, this is not about Bush, Ashcroft, or Rumsfeld.
Just to be clear, I am not bringing this up because of lonely persuader’s most recent post in this thread. The role of Israel is worthy of discussion, and at least he had the courage to say what he thinks. And in no way am I alluding to any shortcomings on the part of our moderators. I do bring this up, however, because there is a chill over these many lands, from Brussels to Reykjavik to San Francisco, and sometimes it extends into this forum. I feel it, and I usually give into it. After all, it is almost always easier to just keep quiet. Which means they’re winning, against all of us regardless of our political or religious stripe. How long is before the thought police reach into little web pockets like this? Don't think it can happen? Did anybody here think they'd live to read of the types of things I link to above? Creepy.
“What a bargain: At a cost of a mere $100,000 or so, a northeastern college can take your child and transform him into a delicate flower incapable of handling opinions at odds with his own.” - Rich Lowry, National Review Online, May 23, 2006
There's a slight sense of paranoia from reading this!! I guess us europeans tend to stick up the palestinian side of things (just to even things up i guess) since Israel has so much sway in the states. I don't obviously advocate blowing people up or violence but I think it is far removed from religion (was my only point). That whole joke about, "im not a passivist by nature, im a passivist by physique", springs to mind with us Irish.
My current gripe is the whole Iran suitation actually. Why can't they develop nuclear power or weapons? (although, i'd be happier if everyone had none).
I think I just hate the way that one adult (yes, lets pretend the US administration are adults) can tell another, "no, you can't have those", we can have any amount of bombs etc we want, but you can't. What nation were the only one's to use an A-bomb or two on civilians? Why has Israel refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? I guess since Israel's nuclear weapons program has never been publically acknowledged.
Oh, yes and WW II was terrible etc. How'd we get talkin about this stuff?
Jimmy what does the H. stand for in Jesus H. Christ? Feck this, Ive a paper to write for a workshop and get submitted today.. |
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11690 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 07:37:47
|
On nuclear weapons in Iran:
1) Openly hostile leader who wants to "wipe Israel off the map".
2) Local sentiment reflects this desire and prejudice.
3) Does not seem to concern itself with the wishes and norms of the international community nor diplomacy.
I don't care that it's Israel. They have no special place in my heart but the point is that if you put ANY country in there, making statements like that, to my mind, declares you unfit to be running a bake sale, nevermind a country. I mean, I do understand your point and even agree to an extent that one or many country/ies with nuclear weapons shouldn't be telling the other they can't have them, but where does that reasoning end? If you are selling uranium, and someone tells you they're going to make a bomb and "nuke Turkey" or something like that, should you sell him the uranium? He may have just as much claim to it as you do, but that doesn't make it right. This case may not be so clear cut, but it's not so far off, is it?
That historically the US has used two bombs is obviously disgusting but awareness of the bombs was not high and the consequences nationally and internationally for a country using a nuclear bomb today would be almost as damaging as the bomb itself. Iran, as pointed out above, would nationally be very much in support of nuking Israel, not just in leadership, but rank-and-file citizenry, and doesn't seem to give a damn about international relations anyway.
The consequence would undoubtedly be war and/or nuclear retaliation from Israel (I still feel that in these circumstances nobody BUT Israel would retaliate with nuclear weapons) assuming they do have weapons, but perhaps Iran could simply say, "We'll bomb you next" and that would keep them protected. Or perhaps they'd be attacked anyway and more nuclear bombs would be exchanged and, well, keep an eye out for four horsemen.
In any case, I have thought along the lines you have, but in the end I see no choice but to disallow an unstable country nuclear anything. Can we all agree that they are certainly after weapons at least, or do people buy the 'nuclear power' thing?
"If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate." |
|
|
|
lonely persuader
= Cult of Ray =
Ireland
488 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 08:30:47
|
>Can we all agree that they are certainly after weapons at least, or do people buy the 'nuclear power' thing?
I think there after nuclear weapons, if im honest. But, as a bargaining chip (security). US will have to take em seriously and try and bring them in outa the cold (definately no invading).
I know some of em dudes are exteme etc. But I'm as suspect about the US as i am IRAN. Iran say extreme things etc but usually keep to themselves (oppress their own citizens). US say lovely things but do extremely terrible things abroad (oppress other citizens).
Difference. US have a good PR man. |
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11690 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 08:49:45
|
Heh, perhaps. Let me ask you another question: could you see the US using nuclear weapons, aside from as a reaction to a nuclear attack?
"If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate." |
|
|
|
speedy_m
= Frankofile =
Canada
3581 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 08:52:18
|
Not to turn this (further) into a discussion strictly about the Middle East, but I think, when comparing "our" (Western) society with their's, we often feel a sense of superiority as we deem ourselves much less violent, fanatical and irrational. I'm not attempting to justify or dismiss the actions of religious zealots and terrorists or imply that "we" (Americans, by default) are all ethnocentric elitists; I think a comparison can be made in terms of cultures. I don't mean culture in terms of arts and language and belief systems, I mean culture in more broad terms. Like the American "culture of fear" that seems to have permeated the country the last few (post 9/11) years. For example, North American society is a "car culture" to the extreme. Our society is essentially organized around the automobile and oil and gas. Despite the warning signs of the lack of sustainablility of this lifestyle and skyrocketing gas prices, we all still drive around and destroy our environment (socially, economically and otherwise). It's like smoking. Everyone knows it's bad, yet millions still smoke. Car culture has existed for aprox. 50 years, and it seems nearly irreversible. In the Middle East, they have had a culture of animosity, acrimony, strife, violence and all the rest for x number of years (fill in the x with the appropriate large number). Try telling a soccer mom to give up her SUV. Try telling the equivalent in the Middle East the equivalent thing to change. Not so easy.
he's back jack smoking crack find him if you want to get found
|
|
|
|
lonely persuader
= Cult of Ray =
Ireland
488 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 10:09:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cult_Of_Frank
Heh, perhaps. Let me ask you another question: could you see the US using nuclear weapons, aside from as a reaction to a nuclear attack?
"If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate."
I'll counter with another question:
could you see the Iran (assuming they get em) using nuclear weapons, aside from as a reaction to a nuclear attack?
I'll answer, I don't think the US would to be honest. But even if they don't, do you think they will invade Iran (or do you think that decision has been made)?
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Jesus H. Christ
