|
|
Post by happyhornet on Mar 5, 2024 11:13:16 GMT
So you agree he hasn't factually refuted what I said? Jeez Einstein, he has already had the last word, your ramblings before or after the fact change nothing. No what hasn't changed is that what I said remains factually unrefuted by Galloway, you or anyone else. Seems like you're just trolling now so I'll leave it there. Have a nice day. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Mar 5, 2024 11:14:34 GMT
Jeez Einstein, he has already had the last word, your ramblings before or after the fact change nothing. No what hasn't changed is that what I said remains factually unrefuted by Galloway, you or anyone else. Seems like you're just trolling now so I'll leave it there. Have a nice day. No, it was a lot of bollox proven so by George Galloway. Have a nice New Labour Day. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 5, 2024 12:41:45 GMT
Of course. Another example might be 'German National socialists' - whether most of them technically 'obey the law' or not, the entry of millions of such people into our territory would pose a threat to our society. Do my local conservative club members pose a threat to society because some of their fellow right wingers are at odds with our core values? You have to use stepping stones to something else (fellow right wingers) to get to any kind threat in your scenario. A society is complicated, organic thing and it includes values inculcated in childhood by families who have learned to live together in that social order - we would not expect our social fabric to rear large numbers of people who whose values were antithetical to this social order. That would be a bit odd. Let's try and patch up your scenario and make it a bit more of a real threat. Lets rewind the uk to the forties and imagine the ingress of millions of KKK members (or supporters) from the United States. Can you sensibly claim there is no problem at all unless (until) these people break the law? - or that - t here is no problem at all because most of then do not break the law? |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Mar 5, 2024 13:53:16 GMT
Do my local conservative club members pose a threat to society because some of their fellow right wingers are at odds with our core values? You have to use stepping stones to something else (fellow right wingers) to get to any kind threat in your scenario. A society is complicated, organic thing and it includes values inculcated in childhood by families who have learned to live together in that social order - we would not expect our social fabric to rear large numbers of people who whose values were antithetical to this social order. That would be a bit odd. Let's try and patch up your scenario and make it a bit more of a real threat. Lets rewind the uk to the forties and imagine the ingress of millions of KKK members (or supporters) from the United States. Can you sensibly claim there is no problem at all unless (until) these people break the law? - or that - t here is no problem at all because most of then do not break the law?"You have to use stepping stones to something else (fellow right wingers) to get to any kind threat in your scenario.' You have to do the same in yours, Muslim to Muslim extremists who are antithetical to our social order. It assumes that every single person who identies as Muslim is incompatible with our way of life. I know from personal experience that that isn't true. "Lets rewind the uk to the forties and imagine the ingress of millions of KKK members (or supporters) from the United States. Can you sensibly claim there is no problem at all unless (until) these people break the law?" The KKK is a violent extremist organisation. I wouldn't begin to compare Muslims I know/have known socially or through work to the KKK. Muslim extremists yes, but nobody here is advocating for Muslim extremists, I'm saying it is unfair to lump all Muslims in with them, just as it would be unfair to lump people with right wing views like you in with the KKK. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 5, 2024 14:54:41 GMT
You have to use stepping stones to something else (fellow right wingers) to get to any kind threat in your scenario. A society is complicated, organic thing and it includes values inculcated in childhood by families who have learned to live together in that social order - we would not expect our social fabric to rear large numbers of people who whose values were antithetical to this social order. That would be a bit odd. Let's try and patch up your scenario and make it a bit more of a real threat. Lets rewind the uk to the forties and imagine the ingress of millions of KKK members (or supporters) from the United States. Can you sensibly claim there is no problem at all unless (until) these people break the law? - or that - t here is no problem at all because most of then do not break the law?"Lets rewind the uk to the forties and imagine the ingress of millions of KKK members (or supporters) from the United States. Can you sensibly claim there is no problem at all unless (until) these people break the law?" The KKK is a violent extremist organisation. I wouldn't begin to compare Muslims I know/have known socially or through work to the KKK. Muslim extremists yes, but nobody here is advocating for Muslim extremists, I'm saying it is unfair to lump all Muslims in with them, just as it would be unfair to lump people with right wing views like you in with the KKK. Despite me being explicit, you still fall into a lazy understanding of what i'm saying. The relative violence of the KKK vs Islam is infinitely arguable and doesn't matter to my argument. In both cases, you would be importing a large number of people with a political agenda that is orthogonal / alien to our social order. You don't see an issue in one the cases because, to some degree, you share aims - ie the weakening of people you see as enemies. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 5, 2024 14:58:59 GMT
So do you only apply this restriction to Muslims? Are Jews to be allowed to put god before Israel? How many non functioning Muslim majority countries are non functioning because of Islam? How many Muslims living in the West sign up to the extreme versions you see in these non functioning countries. How many Christians living in the West sign up to the extreme versions you see in the Lord's Resistance Army? Do you see the problem with branding everyone with the same extreme label. I didn't say that. I asked you, Should Jews be allowed to put god before Israel? (God before country)
Well 113 million people live in the Philippines, mostly Muslim. India has 200 million pretty peaceful and lawful. What you are really asking is why the Arab states which are Muslim are so troublesome, the short answer is oil and gas. Where a country has such large natural assets its much easier for an individual ruler to maintain rule by force of arms and thus you don't get democracy. There are a couple of basket cases such as Iran and Afghanistan, but then on the Christian side we have Russia, Sudan, North Korea, even china. (Though no one pins their troubles on their chosen religion. And I'm asking why? Why should Muslims here put country before religion, but not Jews, Christians or atheists. Fact is countries have to bend to the will of their peoples, not the other way round. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 5, 2024 15:04:00 GMT
Most religions (Islam included) have adapted to non believers, they all say that non believers are to be left for God to deal with. There are always extremists. Would you like the UK to turn towards the sort of intolerance you describe in these other countries? It was not until 1979 the Catholic church formally declared the Inquisition was wrong. Our own bigotry is not that old. I'm talking about the general case - ie to argue against the notion that Christians (or atheists) should be forced to live with Muslims everywhere and (somehow) this is a moral principle. Of course, you, detecting a criticism of Islam, immediately start your wet, hand-wringing act and try to pretend that Islam is really Christianity. Freedom of religion never really took off in the Muslim world and there are pretty obvious reasons why it still hasn't. Major parts of the religion stipulate the death penalty for rejecting the religion and other major parts of the religion insist on a theocracy. These notions are not stably integrate-able into 'freedom of religion' and are central to large parts of islam. Of course, you are attacking the only minority group you ever attack and then claiming my objections are because its Muslims. Strangely you make the same claim when you attack homosexuals or trans gender. Your bigotry blinds you. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Mar 5, 2024 15:07:20 GMT
"Lets rewind the uk to the forties and imagine the ingress of millions of KKK members (or supporters) from the United States. Can you sensibly claim there is no problem at all unless (until) these people break the law?" The KKK is a violent extremist organisation. I wouldn't begin to compare Muslims I know/have known socially or through work to the KKK. Muslim extremists yes, but nobody here is advocating for Muslim extremists, I'm saying it is unfair to lump all Muslims in with them, just as it would be unfair to lump people with right wing views like you in with the KKK. Despite me being explicit, you still fall into a lazy understanding of what i'm saying. The relative violence of the KKK vs Islam is infinitely arguable and doesn't matter to my argument. In both cases, you would be importing a large number of people with a political agenda that is orthogonal / alien to our social order. You don't see an issue in one the cases because, to some degree, you share aims - ie the weakening of people you see as enemies. "In both cases, you would be importing a large number of people with a political agenda that is orthogonal / alien to our social order." Again I know from personal experience that that does not apply to all Muslims. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 5, 2024 15:16:38 GMT
I'm talking about the general case - ie to argue against the notion that Christians (or atheists) should be forced to live with Muslims everywhere and (somehow) this is a moral principle. Of course, you, detecting a criticism of Islam, immediately start your wet, hand-wringing act and try to pretend that Islam is really Christianity. Freedom of religion never really took off in the Muslim world and there are pretty obvious reasons why it still hasn't. Major parts of the religion stipulate the death penalty for rejecting the religion and other major parts of the religion insist on a theocracy. These notions are not stably integrate-able into 'freedom of religion' and are central to large parts of islam. Of course, you are attacking the only minority group you ever attack and then claiming my objections are because its Muslims. Strangely you make the same claim when you attack homosexuals or trans gender. Your bigotry blinds you. I'm not sure what you mean here. We started with the notion of 'religious freedom' and I explained how this notion can't remotely be absolute without being suicidal. I then pointed out how this flawed notion had been extended (over-extended) to argue that Muslims should be moved into our communities in large numbers and that there is something immoral about objecting to this process. I invite you to imagine a similar process involving (say) KKK members being transported into the UK and freedom of belief being used to argue for this. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 5, 2024 15:19:49 GMT
Despite me being explicit, you still fall into a lazy understanding of what i'm saying. The relative violence of the KKK vs Islam is infinitely arguable and doesn't matter to my argument. In both cases, you would be importing a large number of people with a political agenda that is orthogonal / alien to our social order. You don't see an issue in one the cases because, to some degree, you share aims - ie the weakening of people you see as enemies. Again I know from personal experience that that does not apply to all Muslims. It doesn't matter because i am talking about the aggregate effect on society, not the conduct of an individual. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 5, 2024 15:20:38 GMT
Of course, you are attacking the only minority group you ever attack and then claiming my objections are because its Muslims. Strangely you make the same claim when you attack homosexuals or trans gender. Your bigotry blinds you. I'm not sure what you mean here. We started with the notion of 'religious freedom' and I explained how this notion can't remotely be absolute without being suicidal. I then pointed out how this flawed notion had been extended (over-extended) to argue that Muslims should be moved into our communities in large numbers and that there is something immoral about objecting to this process. I invite you to imagine a similar process involving (say) KKK members being transported into the UK and freedom of belief being used to argue for this. I don't care where you started, I addressed the words in your post I quoted. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Mar 5, 2024 16:05:38 GMT
Again I know from personal experience that that does not apply to all Muslims. It doesn't matter because i am talking about the aggregate effect on society, not the conduct of an individual. Yes but that's still based on the notion that all Muslims are people with a political agenda that is orthogonal / alien to our social order. If you're saying that's the case then where is your evidence? If you agree that it's not the case can you then clarify what % you think it applies to? |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Mar 5, 2024 16:13:07 GMT
I didn't say that. I asked you, Should Jews be allowed to put god before Israel? (God before country)
Well 113 million people live in the Philippines, mostly Muslim. India has 200 million pretty peaceful and lawful. What you are really asking is why the Arab states which are Muslim are so troublesome, the short answer is oil and gas. Where a country has such large natural assets its much easier for an individual ruler to maintain rule by force of arms and thus you don't get democracy. There are a couple of basket cases such as Iran and Afghanistan, but then on the Christian side we have Russia, Sudan, North Korea, even china. (Though no one pins their troubles on their chosen religion. And I'm asking why? Why should Muslims here put country before religion, but not Jews, Christians or atheists. Fact is countries have to bend to the will of their peoples, not the other way round. I asked you about democracies in the Muslim world,India is not a Muslim country and North Korea is not Christian,please don’t tell me what I’m asking and 2k of Muslims were killed in sectarian violence in India last year. And if countries have to bend to the will of the people proves the point that they’re not listening to the people are they anyway people can say racist all they like and sayIts hate it is nothing of the kind. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 5, 2024 17:02:49 GMT
I asked you about democracies in the Muslim world,India is not a Muslim country and North Korea is not Christian,please don’t tell me what I’m asking and 2k of Muslims were killed in sectarian violence in India last year. And if countries have to bend to the will of the people proves the point that they’re not listening to the people are they anyway people can say racist all they like and sayIts hate it is nothing of the kind. I gave you the Philippines, and India has 200 million Muslims. North Korea is atheist. And you missed out Russia Orthodox Christian. But do tell what is a Muslim democracy? One is a religion the other a voting system? What is a Christian democracy? Is there any country that has only one religion in it? Where everyone believes there is a god and its the same god. If you can give me an example so I can better answer your question. At the moment it feels like you're asking me to list right footed democracies? The two are non dependant . |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Mar 5, 2024 17:13:51 GMT
I asked you about democracies in the Muslim world,India is not a Muslim country and North Korea is not Christian,please don’t tell me what I’m asking and 2k of Muslims were killed in sectarian violence in India last year. And if countries have to bend to the will of the people proves the point that they’re not listening to the people are they anyway people can say racist all they like and sayIts hate it is nothing of the kind. I gave you the Philippines, and India has 200 million Muslims. North Korea is atheist. And you missed out Russia Orthodox Christian. But do tell what is a Muslim democracy? One is a religion the other a voting system? What is a Christian democracy? Is there any country that has only one religion in it? Where everyone believes there is a god and its the same god. If you can give me an example so I can better answer your question. At the moment it feels like you're asking me to list right footed democracies? The two are non dependant . Oh so now you say N Korea is atheist when originally you said Christian,Muslims only makeup 14% of India’s population and please point out where I said Muslim democracies. FYI most of the western world are nominally Christian and democratic I asked you about functioning democracies in the Muslim world. The Philippines are 90% Christian. |
|
