|
On December 01 2009 00:37 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:
How is banning minarets anti-liberal?
To me minarets are a symbol for islam and islam is threatening the freedom of half of the population of the country(females?). I would rather see islam banned as a whole but that would result in instant riots so banning symbols of oppression is a good thing in my oppinion.
It's anti-liberal because a lot of liberals think western culture is inherently evil.
|
On December 01 2009 03:59 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2009 02:20 Boblion wrote:On November 30 2009 23:21 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On November 30 2009 22:31 Boblion wrote:
Hitler was democratically elected too. And? If not democratic vote, how do you determine your leaders? Just whoever is strongest? And if you place a constitution on what your leaders can and can't do, what makes that constitution a "good" thing if not the consent of the governed -- that is, a democratic mandate? My point is that democracy doesn't always mean moral superiority. If a majority of idiots vote for the legalization of racial laws does it makes it something good ? So arguing that this ban on the Minarets is "good" because of the democratic vote is irrevelant. You have only proven that the ban is legal and this is not what we are discussing in this thread. Right. My point is how do you know what -is- morally superior if not through a democratic vote? Some of the historical options are: Divine Command Intrinsic value Intuitionism Natural Moral Law Rationalism (Kant)
Each people has its own conception of what is morally superior. Being the majority doesn't make your own conception morally better. That's also why we are discussing this issue in this topic and not making a yes/no poll to know with the results who is morally right.
I can't believe that in 2009 people still think that the majority is always right.
|
On December 01 2009 04:12 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2009 03:59 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On December 01 2009 02:20 Boblion wrote:On November 30 2009 23:21 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On November 30 2009 22:31 Boblion wrote:
Hitler was democratically elected too. And? If not democratic vote, how do you determine your leaders? Just whoever is strongest? And if you place a constitution on what your leaders can and can't do, what makes that constitution a "good" thing if not the consent of the governed -- that is, a democratic mandate? My point is that democracy doesn't always mean moral superiority. If a majority of idiots vote for the legalization of racial laws does it makes it something good ? So arguing that this ban on the Minarets is "good" because of the democratic vote is irrevelant. You have only proven that the ban is legal and this is not what we are discussing in this thread. Right. My point is how do you know what -is- morally superior if not through a democratic vote? Some of the historical options are: Divine Command Intrinsic value Intuitionism Natural Moral Law Rationalism (Kant) Each people has its own conception of what is morally superior. Being the majority doesn't make your own conception morally better. That's also why we are discussing this issue in this topic and not making a yes/no poll to know with the results who is morally right. I can't believe that in 2009 people still think that the majority is always right.
Agreed the 2008 presidential election proves this
|
On December 01 2009 04:14 Undisputed- wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2009 04:12 Boblion wrote:On December 01 2009 03:59 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On December 01 2009 02:20 Boblion wrote:On November 30 2009 23:21 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On November 30 2009 22:31 Boblion wrote:
Hitler was democratically elected too. And? If not democratic vote, how do you determine your leaders? Just whoever is strongest? And if you place a constitution on what your leaders can and can't do, what makes that constitution a "good" thing if not the consent of the governed -- that is, a democratic mandate? My point is that democracy doesn't always mean moral superiority. If a majority of idiots vote for the legalization of racial laws does it makes it something good ? So arguing that this ban on the Minarets is "good" because of the democratic vote is irrevelant. You have only proven that the ban is legal and this is not what we are discussing in this thread. Right. My point is how do you know what -is- morally superior if not through a democratic vote? Some of the historical options are: Divine Command Intrinsic value Intuitionism Natural Moral Law Rationalism (Kant) Each people has its own conception of what is morally superior. Being the majority doesn't make your own conception morally better. That's also why we are discussing this issue in this topic and not making a yes/no poll to know with the results who is morally right. I can't believe that in 2009 people still think that the majority is always right. Agreed the 2008 presidential election proves this
Eh even if i disagree that's your right 
|
On December 01 2009 04:08 Foucault wrote:
Boonbag:
it's what their buildings and Islam symbolizes. There are so many practical issues with Islam in western countries which have been adressed. The way they treat women is constantly overlooked by politically correct opinion which is a huge FAIL. Islam is not cool at all, it's oppressive and retarded. Arabs aren't, but Islam is. Big difference
Yeah yeah muslims are all nice and cozy lets all hug and dance and invite them here in masses.
Whoever said Islam was cool ? I despise all religions. They're all like a sickness.
Your last sentence is so rude I don't even know where to begin. You're prolly still a kid tho.
|
On December 01 2009 04:24 Boonbag wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2009 04:08 Foucault wrote:
Boonbag:
it's what their buildings and Islam symbolizes. There are so many practical issues with Islam in western countries which have been adressed. The way they treat women is constantly overlooked by politically correct opinion which is a huge FAIL. Islam is not cool at all, it's oppressive and retarded. Arabs aren't, but Islam is. Big difference
Yeah yeah muslims are all nice and cozy lets all hug and dance and invite them here in masses. Whoever said Islam was cool ? I despise all religions. They're all like a sickness. Your last sentence is so rude I don't even know where to begin. You're prolly still a kid tho.
No I'm not a kid. And I seriously think Islam is retarded and that it should not be accepted because of reasons I have listed previously in this thread. I also don't want to promote christianity, especially the fundamentalist kind which fortunately we don't have that much of in Sweden.
I'm older than you btw
|
|
|
On December 01 2009 04:12 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2009 03:59 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On December 01 2009 02:20 Boblion wrote:On November 30 2009 23:21 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On November 30 2009 22:31 Boblion wrote:
Hitler was democratically elected too. And? If not democratic vote, how do you determine your leaders? Just whoever is strongest? And if you place a constitution on what your leaders can and can't do, what makes that constitution a "good" thing if not the consent of the governed -- that is, a democratic mandate? My point is that democracy doesn't always mean moral superiority. If a majority of idiots vote for the legalization of racial laws does it makes it something good ? So arguing that this ban on the Minarets is "good" because of the democratic vote is irrevelant. You have only proven that the ban is legal and this is not what we are discussing in this thread. Right. My point is how do you know what -is- morally superior if not through a democratic vote? Some of the historical options are: Divine Command Intrinsic value Intuitionism Natural Moral Law Rationalism (Kant) Each people has its own conception of what is morally superior. Being the majority doesn't make your own conception morally better. That's also why we are discussing this issue in this topic and not making a yes/no poll to know with the results who is morally right. I can't believe that in 2009 people still think that the majority is always right.
So you are saying there is no "right" answer to what is morally correct. That is all well and good. But if that is so, when is it ever ok to force someone to do something they don't want to?
|
On December 01 2009 04:29 Boonbag wrote:
sad
I don't know what bubble you live in but I guess you haven't seen that much of Islam first hand.
|
The comparisons to Christianity in this topic are meaningless. I'm an agnostic atheist, so I'd like to consider myself unbiased when comparing the two, and there IS NO comparison.
Yes, the Bible and the Koran both have some pretty terrible, immoral, stone-age stuff in them. The difference is that most Christians these days ignore 90% of the Bible (especially the Old Testament). The same cannot be said of Muslims.
I understand the liberal desire to be tolerant (I'm a strong liberal myself), but reality rears its ugly head in this case. I can be an atheist without any major problems besides an occasional sneer or dirty look in a country that is 90% Christian. In a 90% Muslim country, I would be worried about having my throat slit for being atheist.
Islam demands respect from everyone else, it demands tolerance from everyone else, but OFFERS NONE itself. It doesn't belong in the civilized world until it stops causing women to be lashed or executed for the crime of being raped ("honor killings"), until a cartoonist who draws a picture of Mohammad doesn't have to fear for his LIFE for making the drawing.
By the way, one of my best friends is an arab who quit being a Muslim. He gets regular death threats for being an 'apostate'. If he lived in a majority Muslim nation, he'd probably be dead by now. Even though he's in the U.S., I still worry about his safety.
|
I can't believe there's not a single muslim who is reading this and is not giving his opinion.
|
On December 01 2009 04:56 iG.ClouD wrote:
I can't believe there's not a single muslim who is reading this and is not giving his opinion.
Yeah I was just wondering the same thing. There has to be muslims on TL
|
On December 01 2009 04:39 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
So you are saying there is no "right" answer to what is morally correct.
The only right answer is the one you believe is right. That's why an idiot will always think he is right and you will disagree with him because you have a different opinion about morality.
Does it means that i'm an advocate of cultural relativism ? No. I just want to say that using a "morality argument" on this kind of topic is completly retarded. This is a referendum about a law and people are still allowed to say why they think the law is good/bad/inefficient/...
So drop this holier than thou attitude. That's not because a majority of Swiss people have voted to ban Minarets that it is morally good to ban it.
On December 01 2009 04:39 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
That is all well and good. But if that is so, when is it ever ok to force someone to do something they don't want to?
You can legally force people to do a lot of things but the point is law =/= morality
It is that hard to understand ?
|
On December 01 2009 04:59 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2009 04:39 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
So you are saying there is no "right" answer to what is morally correct.
The only right answer is the one you believe is right. That's why an idiot will always think he is right and you will disagree with him because you have a different opinion about morality. Does it means that i'm an advocate of cultural relativism ? No. I just want to say that using a "morality argument" on this kind of topic is completly retarded. This is a referendum about a law and people are still allowed to say why they think the law is good/bad/inefficient/... So drop this holier than thou attitude. That's not because a majority of Swiss people have voted to ban Minarets that it is morally good to ban it. Show nested quote +On December 01 2009 04:39 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
That is all well and good. But if that is so, when is it ever ok to force someone to do something they don't want to?
You can legally force people to do a lot of things but the point is law =/= morality It is that hard to understand ?
To me, the only thing that you have demonstrated is that when you say "Banning Minarets is bad" what you are actually saying is "Boo!!! To banning minarets."
I say banning good and you say banning bad, if there is no foundation for moral claims, then we can both be right.
The reason I'm asking about morality is because democratic political theory is based on a particular view of morality (as is all politics), so if you don't agree that the "majority is always right" I am wondering what your alternative is?
|
Title should read "Switzerland assaults property rights."
|
Just to not let some bullshit said here stand undisputed; Yea Sweden has problems most of which are caused by young lazy fucks who spend 4 years after high school “finding themselves” Then they study archaeology or literature for 3 years part time before they take a break to “go see the world”.
(The state gives them money for this btw, and they can borrow even more to a nice interest) When they can’t borrow anymore they start crying because “they can’t find a nice job” The average moving out from home age in larger Swedish cities is 25-26.
Yeah, it’s so strange that this country has money problems -.-
People are egoistical cowardly idiots who only ever care about themselves or possibly their children. Children beat up their teachers who are too afraid to scream back at them because the parents will take them to court (and win). Yeah guys like that will grow up to be nice productive citizens -.-
Single individuals are allowed to disrupt the education for an entire class throughout all of middle school, eagerly backed up by their parents, because the education isn’t “entertaining” (!!!) enough.
Sweden’s problem isn’t Islam, Sweden’s problem is the fact that the young Arabs who sit around all day doing nothing and then blame some state organization for not finding them a job ARE fully assimilated Swedes (even if they wouldn’t admit it)
More on topic, I think it is quite scary when people in times of difficulties band together to bash on some subset of the population. The ones that don’t belong here, the ones that threaten our true culture. It reminds me of something.
Also, trying to ban religious symbols is not the way to make religion go away, not to mention how it violates the very core values of modern western civilization. We were supposed to have past this stage ages ago.
|
On December 01 2009 05:14 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
To me, the only thing that you have demonstrated is that when you say "Banning Minarets is bad" what you are actually saying is "Boo!!! To banning minarets."
I say banning good and you say banning bad, if there is no foundation for moral claims, then we can both be right.
Where i have said it is good or bad to ban Minarets ?
I have not mentioned my personal opinion on the issue.
I also find your binary reasoning quite interesting, a good, a bad and nothing between it 
On December 01 2009 05:14 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
The reason I'm asking about morality is because democratic political theory is based on a particular view of morality (as is all politics), so if you don't agree that the "majority is always right" I am wondering what your alternative is?
In democracies the majority is legally right but the definition of what is morally right is up to you.
|
Klackon, I'm not sure what you're ranting about but most of your post strays away from the subject quite alot. Also some things are just wrong. For instance the student loans (CSN) in Sweden do not have good interest, actually it's more like a rip-off that you ALSO have to pay back every dime of including said interest. The problem with Sweden is that we rely too heavily on a socialized society where people are heavily bound down by taxes. Essentially people who work hard pay alot of money for lazy bums smoking weed in the projects. While some social security and welfare is a good thing, too much isn't.
Also you really throw words around quite carelessly. You talk about young arabs and Islam as if they were two different things which they are not. Many of these young arabas are very much muslims and not assimilated at all in the Swedish society. They are harassing their sisters, and having a fucked up attitude towards the swedish society.
Your discourse about people bashing on outsiders in hard times is of course a way to understand and justify some opinions for PC people. There are also reasons, the fact that Islam is a oppressive and medieval religion, that aren't about alienating outsiders because of the economy but about the fact that Islam and their values and teachings spreads. Yeah Islam is very much a threat to our culture if that threat is about their fucked up view of women, homosexuality and disobediance towards Allah. I don't understand how you justify this?
We were supposed to be long past religions like Islam and Christianity, a long time ago.
Also, do yourself a favor if you respond and don't construct me as a racist or nationalist because I'm not. I'm attacking Islams teachings because they strike me as oppressive and wrong.
|
On December 01 2009 02:24 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2009 01:56 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2009 01:40 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Agreed with blackjack
This law is the greatest so-far example of the tyranny of the majority, where people due to fear of something they do not understand give up one of the most obvious rights western society has (freedom of expression more so than religion) in a fight against a religion supposedly because this religion oppresses freedom of expression.
It's hilariously hypocritical, but devastatingly sad. This is what I'd have said if I wasn't so busy trolling this topic. Zionist plot imo.
hahahahahaha
Anyway, you can put it the other way around as well. The people practicing the religion want the freedom of expression when where they come from, other religions and cultures are not even allowed, forget tolerated. The entire conflict between Islam and the West is because of mutual misunderstanding. I can't speak for the Muslim world or for Europe, but in America, there's a dichotomy between a "them" and an "us". When Bush was president, the argument was made that if you don't support the president, then you are supporting the terrorists. This kind of argument was made again and again and people forgot that on the other side, there are plenty of people living their daily lives without taking any active part in the supposed conflict. This is just conjecture, from what I read, but for the Muslim world, I think that they are trying to get back to their Islamic roots and opposing the continual advance of western culture, symbolized by McDonalds or Coca-Cola, which they see as a threat to their way of life. I assume that the dichotomy exists in Europe as well; when you get to see another entire group of people as the 'enemy', it's hard to break out of that mindset and see them as individuals. Are you really unable to understand the mindset where the people of Switzerland wouldn't want a foreign and possibly adversarial group within your borders, made up of a group of people that you always read about in newspapers and online resources as blowing up trains or pipelines or even blowing themselves up in a crowded marketplace? It's a problem of ignorance, but it's not really their faults.
Even America, which was built on a presupposed foundation of equality, did not have equality in practice for centuries. Even now, long after the American Civil War ended, we still struggle with the race issue, despite hundreds of years having passed since people of different races existed side by side. Just 50 years ago, innocent Japanese people were taken to internment camps after the attack on Pearl Harbor. How long has it been in AMERICA, supposed bastion of freedom and equality, since there were signs that said "No dogs or Jews" or "No Negros" on storefronts? It's very easy to sit behind your computer screens and deride the Swiss for their choice, but it's a statistical fact that most terrorist attacks have been by Muslim fundamentalists. There have been cases of normal youth being seduced into martyring themselves for the cause. Granted, most attacks take places in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, but it's not like a terrorist attack is a remote possibility in Europe. Also, Muslim ideals are not exactly conducive to Western patterns of thought, many conflict and if there's a sizable population, it definitely will have an impact.
On December 01 2009 03:59 Foucault wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2009 03:53 Breavman wrote:On December 01 2009 03:34 Foucault wrote:On December 01 2009 03:27 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:On December 01 2009 01:32 BlackJack wrote:
It's okay to oppress muslims because they threaten the freedom of women?
Yes. As a citizen of a liberal country I feel like I should protect the values that my country is made of and fight ideas/organizations that treaten my personal freedom and liberty. Honestly if this forum wasn't full of male nerds I think you would get different oppinions. To me at least it seems like self-destructive behavior if a woman doesn't act against the speading of an religion that leads to their oppression. Agreed. Guys will have to fight for womens rights too, because we can't expect all women who have learned to want and long for patriarchal approval to fight for increased personal worth and freedom. It's not a women's cause, it's a cause for mankind. Equal rights. I long for the day where we are seen as individuals and not just male/female. Anyways, that was a side rant. Hey, you seem pretty politically correct on the gender equality issue. Partly, which is not because I want to be. I just happen to think it's a super important issue. The difference is that I'm more hardcore about it than most people who talk about "equality" but have no idea what that is or how it should be accomplished irl regarding men and women. Just because an opinion of mine overlaps with views that are politically correct doesn't make it based on popular belief. Ideas that aren't PC aren't good or bad by nature, same goes for ideas that fall into the PC category. It just shows which ideas are more accepted in general by our society.
Political correctness tends to be used when you want to limit offense, but by being politically correct, you imply that something is offensive to you. It also represses free thought and ideas, just because you don't call someone a derogatory term doesn't mean that you don't think badly about them or whatever group you think they are associated with. And it gets extended to unrelated issues, like a school changed Baa Baa Black Sheep to Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep, like the term black sheep was made to be derogatory towards black people. Diversity is overrated in the first place, why would you even consider race when choosing students for a college or workers for a job instead of their qualifications? People take it too far and get sensitive about the stupidest things. Also, using he or she instead of just saying "he" to be politically correct is stupid and unnecessary.
|
On December 01 2009 04:46 Foucault wrote:I don't know what bubble you live in but I guess you haven't seen that much of Islam first hand.
Maybe I actually did ? And lived for a while with muslims ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
