EPTI bet most of you are ignorant American "liberals" who has not seen or experienced the result of mass muslim immigration. Its ironic that you despise christianity so much, yet you kiss the ass of every other religion.
Switzerland bans Minarets - Page 33
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
modesT
23 Posts
I bet most of you are ignorant American "liberals" who has not seen or experienced the result of mass muslim immigration. Its ironic that you despise christianity so much, yet you kiss the ass of every other religion. | ||
|
modesT
23 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7888 Posts
On December 03 2009 02:48 modesT wrote: Btw none of this really matters. Europe will be muslim in the soon future and there will be minarets. Wtf, why are people so scared of otherness for fuck sake? My district in Paris is 70% immigrants, they are very nice, lot of them are muslim and what? They have their mosquee. Why do we need to give in this fascist rethoric "us against others". You are extremist, and your discourse produces this fucked up world, this hate of each other and the fundamentalism. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
No the message was NOT "we don't like muslims". This is the message YOU take out of it Wrong. That's exactly the message which was pushed by the SVP. Feel free to actually look at this thread and the multiple posts going "you don't understand! the turks are fucking up europe!" | ||
|
modesT
23 Posts
On December 03 2009 02:59 Biff The Understudy wrote: Wtf, why are people so scared of otherness for fuck sake? My district in Paris is 70% immigrants, they are very nice, lot of them are muslim and what? They have their mosquee. Why do we need to give in this fascist rethoric "us against others". You are extremist, and your discourse produces this fucked up world, this hate of each other and the fundamentalism. Im an extremist for simply saying that europe will be muslim and ruled by sharia law? Have I ever said anything bad about moderate muslims? You are delusional. | ||
|
keepITup
251 Posts
On December 03 2009 02:59 Biff The Understudy wrote: Wtf, why are people so scared of otherness for fuck sake? My district in Paris is 70% immigrants, they are very nice, lot of them are muslim and what? They have their mosquee. Why do we need to give in this fascist rethoric "us against others". You are extremist, and your discourse produces this fucked up world, this hate of each other and the fundamentalism. i dont hate muslims =/ i just find minarets unattractive | ||
|
modesT
23 Posts
On December 03 2009 03:00 L wrote: Wrong. That's exactly the message which was pushed by the SVP. Feel free to actually look at this thread and the multiple posts going "you don't understand! the turks are fucking up europe!" Yes, im sure a few messages on teamliquid make up the opinion for the whole swiss people. Way to be ignorant. This is just the swiss people saying that they've had enough of the islamification. They want switzerland to be swiss, not saudi arabia. | ||
|
modesT
23 Posts
On December 01 2009 08:11 DreaM)XeRO wrote: im sorry. but what is a minaret? A muslim praying towers with speakers broadcasting muslim prayers and such loudly. | ||
|
keepITup
251 Posts
On December 03 2009 03:26 modesT wrote: A muslim praying towers with speakers broadcasting muslim prayers and such loudly. oh i thought they were just towers 0_o the speakers change everything -- i'd knock the existing ones down as well. | ||
|
aTnClouD
Italy2428 Posts
| ||
|
starcraft911
Korea (South)1263 Posts
| ||
|
modesT
23 Posts
On December 03 2009 03:29 keepITup wrote: Well im guessing that the people who oppose this ban either have no problem to have this outside their house or are just ignorant and dont know what it is. Or a hypocrite who thinks "do as i say, not as i do".oh i thought they were just towers 0_o the speakers change everything -- i'd knock the existing ones down as well. | ||
|
LostWraithSC
United States111 Posts
Please stop saying things like "OMG do u actually know what a minaret is do sum rezearch b4 posting plz" and make yourself look like a fool to people who actually knows these things. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On December 03 2009 03:38 modesT wrote: Well im guessing that the people who oppose this ban either have no problem to have this outside their house or are just ignorant and dont know what it is. Or a hypocrite who thinks "do as i say, not as i do". Or you haven't read the thread considering how there were multiple posts that said that the preexisting minarets in Switzerland do not do prayer calls. | ||
|
ghostWriter
United States3302 Posts
On December 02 2009 18:44 QibingZero wrote: There is indeed a creator. I know it's true because I just said it. I will offer up no other explanation or evidence for this self-evident fact, which has been ingrained in me from a young age. Not believing in a god is very very strange and disturbing. You should believe in god like me because I know about these things better than you. I am also smarter than everyone else who has ever tried to interpret religion, which proves my point that there is a god. On December 02 2009 19:06 intruding wrote: Johanes is confused between atheism and agnostism. He calls himself an atheist but his description his religious stance falls into agnostism. Which i consider the second best option option. QibingZero is incoherent. @WhuazGoodJaggah; Deism for me would be very large...very general... i meant creator or creators. But no god at all is just illogical to me...The universe had to be created somehow from something or someone greater or deeper. The universe must have been created somehow. It MUST have been god! Oh what? Your child got sick? It must have been a witch! There's no other possible explanation, so you must accept mine because it's obviously right. Wait, what? Wtf is a virus? Oh you can do experiments and find empirical evidence for your theory? Well, I still believe in witches and I still believe in god, no matter what you say. On December 02 2009 19:07 InsideTheBox wrote: You're right in criticizing his attack on atheism, but choosing not to believe in a god is not a logical progression from being a "man of science." You have proof for neither the existence or absence of a god, and as a man of science should not be able to reach any conclusion. You may choose to pursue a life where the absence of proof implies falsity, but it's generally a poor principle. Anything labeled a theory (evolution, big bang, etc) has yet to be proven and if you apply the aforementioned principle generally then you'd end up not with the falsity of many accepted scientific ideas. I understand that on intuition or some other reason you may not believe in the existence of a god, but it's certainly not for a scientific reason so don't claim it to be as such. As for this entire thread, I find the number of people lingering on the idea of a fundamentalist threat as a basis for bans on how people express their religious views extremely disturbing. Absence of evidence does imply falsity. Take this example: "I believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists and created the entire universe, RAmen. I have no evidence besides the fact that I KNOW that he exists and that he DEFINITELY created the universe. You are an ignorant buffoon for even attempting to deny His existence." It's the same thing as Christianity, except you replace "god" with "the Flying Spaghetti Monster." Does that not sound ridiculous? The thing about science is that everything is labeled a theory because nothing is concrete. You make a hypothesis and test it and if even the smallest piece evidence shows you that you are wrong, you throw out your hypothesis immediately and make a new one. A theory is built on this foundation and is only kept as long as it is useful and is consistent with all of the evidence. In religion, some random asshole makes a claim and tries to get people to believe in the same shit he does. After a millennium or so and dozens of generations, if enough people have accepted it, it becomes part of the establishment, otherwise, it's labeled a cult and the people who do believe it are ostracized. It's not up to science to disprove the existence of any gods, it's up to religion to prove it. I can just choose to believe whatever I want and challenge you to prove me wrong. I believe that there are 10^10000000000 50 feet tall naked men dancing right outside the periphery of our universe. Prove me wrong. See how illogical that kind of argument is? Obviously there could be a possibility of that, but is it probable? Absolutely not. And so far, I have not seen one single shred of evidence in the favor of the existence of a god, which is surprising, considering how he is supposedly powerful and created everything and listens to all your dull prayers and requests. On December 02 2009 19:44 The Storyteller wrote: utopian? who's being utopian? you have, let's say, 4 billion people on earth. you make 1 billion of them feel unwelcome, not because of talent but because they're different. don't you think you're going to be at a disadvantage compared to a country that welcomes them all? that is america's competitive advantage - it welcomes everyone with talent. scientists, economists, professionals from all over the world work there and help the economy. on a smaller scale, how long do you think a compan would last if it made women feel unwelcome? half its talent pool would vanish. Nice argument. Except, throughout history, America has done its best to keep the number of immigrants low. When the Chinese were building the railroads, America put quotas on the number of people that can enter the country. It was called the Chinese Exclusion Act, and yes it means exactly what it says, unlike the Patriot Act. You act like countries don't have their own populations and that immigrants are necessary for a country to obtain talent. The thing is, people don't go to the most accepting country. They go where there are the best economic opportunities and possibilities for them to obtain work and maintain their families. America's competitive advantage is that it's rich. It has many natural resources, a strong economy, a stable government and a decent educational system (more or less). And it's not just the talented who are attracted, but the poor and ignorant as well, like many Mexicans who cross the border for jobs in construction or housekeeping because they know that they will earn more, despite an inability to speak English. Your exaggerated statements and blanket assumptions on huge scales are not only ridiculous, but have no basis in the real world. You aren't going to make a good point, nor are you going to impress others, just by saying billions of people if you just make huge assumptions in your hypothetical situations. On December 02 2009 20:52 johanes wrote: Ofcourse, you are right. Atheism isn't logical, it is basically belief too, just belivenig into the opposite. I was trying to argue wit his rank 1. deism 2. agnostism 3. atheism as it is clearly bad from logical point of view. Correctly it would be : 1 agnostism 2.+3. (on the same level) deism and atheism No he's not. How is atheism not logical? It's the dismissal of religious beliefs simply by using logic. Atheism is not belief, it's the absence of belief, hence the "a" at the beginning of the world. An asexual person is not someone who basically has a different kind of sex. It's someone who is free or unaffected by sexuality. On December 02 2009 23:08 The Storyteller wrote: I didn't say they were allowing everyone to migrate, I said the migration policy is based on talent and not race or religion. The US doesn't say we don't want Muslims here, they say we don't need more unskilled labour because we have enough of that. But we'd like a shitload of bright people, thank you very much, and we don't care what their religion is. You can't base your limited experience and assume that it applies it to other countries. The social situations are different and so is the culture in various countries. And migration isn't about talent, it's about all kinds of people in all different strata looking for opportunities. You're assuming that being open draws in talented and intelligent people, but this is a false, unsubstantiated assumption, especially since there are plenty of opportunities in companies based in other countries as well, which can be just as good, if not better, than opportunities provided in America or whatever country you want to argue in favor of. "who's being Utopian" indeed. | ||
|
ggrrg
Bulgaria2716 Posts
On December 03 2009 01:18 Stratos_speAr wrote: Shall we go back throughout history and count? I'm pretty damn confident in saying Christianity has ruined more lives than Islam throughout history, but we don't just completely ban it, do we? No, we just don't let the extreme radicals take over and do crazy shit. I take the challenge! Let's go back throughout history: Christians did a great job in killing and causing suffering: - Crusades (9 go's in ~300 years) - Inquisitions (like 750 years) - Wars between Catholics and Protestants - Jew bashing (not Hitler though, he had other motives) - probably some more stuff Not let's see how our Muslim friends did: - Muslim Conquests (almost 1200 years!) - Ottoman Wars in Europe (600 out of the 1200 - constant Christian bashing) - Blood Toll (250 years of taking young boys from their parents) - Janissaries (take 'em, make 'em killing machines and send 'em kill their parents) - and probably some more stuff It is absolutely impossible to quantatively say, which religion caused more suffering, but as you can see Islam has been keeping up with Christianity pretty well. However, it should also be noted that Islam is far ahead of Christianity in this statisic considering the recent decades. While Christianity has to offer only a few mentally retarded extremists in this time frame, Islam countries have been executing some great laws of theirs like stoning cheating wives, torturing people for every possible reason, killing Muslims that convert to other religions and so on. And while this has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion about minarets in Switzerland, it kind of contradicts your statement of how much worse Christianity is than Islam. On December 03 2009 01:30 Stratos_speAr wrote: So the Muslims should just roll over and take injustices like this? Yes, obviously the banning of Minarets isn't the most drastic thing that could've happened, but the point is that it starts a slope that gets very slippery. What exactly are minarets used for? How do they help Muslim practice their religion? They are just symbols for the greatness of their mosques. And they are kind of a way to shove their own culture in the face of everybody else. (This has also basically nothing to do with the discussion on minarets) Oh, and about injustices... You do understand that many Muslim beliefs and values clash with Western values and often laws? Without wanting to stereotype anybody; you do understand that there are enough Muslims in Europe that practice at least some things that clash with laws or human rights as perceived by Western civilization? | ||
|
bellweather
United States404 Posts
On December 03 2009 04:50 ggrrg wrote: What exactly are minarets used for? How do they help Muslim practice their religion? They are just symbols for the greatness of their mosques. And they are kind of a way to shove their own culture in the face of everybody else. (This has also basically nothing to do with the discussion on minarets) Oh, and about injustices... You do understand that many Muslim beliefs and values clash with Western values and often laws? Without wanting to stereotype anybody; you do understand that there are enough Muslims in Europe that practice at least some things that clash with laws or human rights as perceived by Western civilization? So you would be okay with the ban of anything non-essential to key aspects of our lives... I don't buy that for a second. Your understanding of minarets is either juvenile or you're employing reductio ad absurdum to its fullest. Freedom of expression is as much a right as freedom to choose one's religion. Even if you as a person don't agree with that, I would be incredibly surprised if the government of Switzerland didn't. Furthermore I bet you'd be extremely outraged if you weren't allowed to buy/wear the kinds of clothes you wanted because your government told all of its citizens that they had to wear orange jumpsuits. | ||
|
QibingZero
2611 Posts
On December 03 2009 04:50 ggrrg wrote: (This has also basically nothing to do with the discussion on minarets) Oh, and about injustices... You do understand that many Muslim beliefs and values clash with Western values and often laws? Without wanting to stereotype anybody; you do understand that there are enough Muslims in Europe that practice at least some things that clash with laws or human rights as perceived by Western civilization? Well, this is somewhat true. Islam has not had the years of conformity to the ideals of the west that Christianity has. We would be discussing the same issues with Christians if they still widely believed the things that they did hundreds of years ago. In fact, we do still have clashes with the religion over issues like gay rights and abortion. On December 03 2009 05:13 InsideTheBox wrote: So you would be okay with the ban of anything non-essential to key aspects of our lives... I don't buy that for a second. Your understanding of minarets is either juvenile or you're employing reductio ad absurdum to its fullest. Freedom of expression is as much a right as freedom to choose one's religion. Even if you as a person don't agree with that, I would be incredibly surprised if the government of Switzerland didn't. Furthermore I bet you'd be extremely outraged if you weren't allowed to buy/wear the kinds of clothes you wanted because your government told all of its citizens that they had to wear orange jumpsuits. Man, that's troublesome. I mean, the fact I can't build my own personal tower with 'Fuck You' etched into the side in huge letters limits my freedom of expression. I should complain! You see, that's just as crazy an idea as your slippery slope argument is. Governments have been limiting what and where we can build for years. Some of it might have gone too far, but to compare it to making all citizens wear orange jumpsuits is just ridiculous. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
| ||
|
ggrrg
Bulgaria2716 Posts
On December 03 2009 04:47 ghostWriter wrote: + Show Spoiler + On December 02 2009 18:44 QibingZero wrote: There is indeed a creator. I know it's true because I just said it. I will offer up no other explanation or evidence for this self-evident fact, which has been ingrained in me from a young age. Not believing in a god is very very strange and disturbing. You should believe in god like me because I know about these things better than you. I am also smarter than everyone else who has ever tried to interpret religion, which proves my point that there is a god. On December 02 2009 19:06 intruding wrote: Johanes is confused between atheism and agnostism. He calls himself an atheist but his description his religious stance falls into agnostism. Which i consider the second best option option. QibingZero is incoherent. @WhuazGoodJaggah; Deism for me would be very large...very general... i meant creator or creators. But no god at all is just illogical to me...The universe had to be created somehow from something or someone greater or deeper. The universe must have been created somehow. It MUST have been god! Oh what? Your child got sick? It must have been a witch! There's no other possible explanation, so you must accept mine because it's obviously right. Wait, what? Wtf is a virus? Oh you can do experiments and find empirical evidence for your theory? Well, I still believe in witches and I still believe in god, no matter what you say. On December 02 2009 19:07 InsideTheBox wrote: You're right in criticizing his attack on atheism, but choosing not to believe in a god is not a logical progression from being a "man of science." You have proof for neither the existence or absence of a god, and as a man of science should not be able to reach any conclusion. You may choose to pursue a life where the absence of proof implies falsity, but it's generally a poor principle. Anything labeled a theory (evolution, big bang, etc) has yet to be proven and if you apply the aforementioned principle generally then you'd end up not with the falsity of many accepted scientific ideas. I understand that on intuition or some other reason you may not believe in the existence of a god, but it's certainly not for a scientific reason so don't claim it to be as such. As for this entire thread, I find the number of people lingering on the idea of a fundamentalist threat as a basis for bans on how people express their religious views extremely disturbing. Absense of evidence does imply falsity. Take this example: "I believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists and created the entire universe, RAmen. I have no evidence besides the fact that I KNOW that he exists and that he DEFINITELY created the universe. You are an ignorant buffoon for even attempting to deny His existence." It's the same thing as Christianity, except you replace "god" with "the Flying Spaghetti Monster." Does that not sound ridiculous? The thing about science is that everything is labeled a theory because nothing is concrete. You make a hypothesis and test it and if even the smallest piece evidence shows you that you are wrong, you throw out your hypothesis immediately and make a new one. A theory is built on this foundation and is only kept as long as it is useful and is consistent with all of the evidence. In religion, some random asshole makes a claim and tries to get people to believe in the same shit he does. After a millenia or so and dozens of generations, if enough people have accepted it, it becomes part of the establishment, otherwise, it's labeled a cult and the people who do believe it are ostracized. It's not up to science to disprove the existence of any gods, it's up to religion to prove it. I can just choose to believe whatever I want and challenge you to prove me wrong. I believe that there are 10^10000000000 50 feet tall naked men dancing right outside the periphery of our universe. Prove me wrong. See how illogical that kind of argument is? Obviously there could be a possibility of that, but is it probable? Absolutely not. And so far, I have not seen one single shred of evidence in the favor of the existence of a god, which is surprising, considering how he is supposedly powerful and created everything and listens to all your dull prayers and requests. On December 02 2009 19:44 The Storyteller wrote: utopian? who's being utopian? you have, let's say, 4 billion people on earth. you make 1 billion of them feel unwelcome, not because of talent but because they're different. don't you think you're going to be at a disadvantage compared to a country that welcomes them all? that is america's competitive advantage - it welcomes everyone with talent. scientists, economists, professionals from all over the world work there and help the economy. on a smaller scale, how long do you think a compan would last if it made women feel unwelcome? half its talent pool would vanish. Nice argument. Except, throughout history, America has done its best to keep the number of immigrants low. When the Chinese were building the railroads, America put quotas on the number of people that can enter the country. It was called the Chinese Exclusion Act, and yes it means exactly what it says, unlike the Patriot Act. You act like countries don't have their own populations and that immigrants are necessary for a country to obtain talent. The thing is, people don't go to the most accepting country. They go where there are the best economic opportunities and possibilities for them to obtain work and maintain their families. America's competitive advantage is that it's rich. It has many natural resources, a strong economy, a stable government and a decent educational system (more or less). And it's not just the talented who are attracted, but the poor and ignorant as well, like many Mexicans who cross the border for jobs in construction or housekeeping because they know that they will earn more, despite an inability to speak English. Your exaggerated statements and blanket assumptions on huge scales are not only ridiculous, but have no basis in the real world. You aren't going to make a good point, nor are you going to impress others, just by saying billions of people if you just make huge assumptions in your hypothetical situations. On December 02 2009 20:52 johanes wrote: Ofcourse, you are right. Atheism isn't logical, it is basically belief too, just belivenig into the opposite. I was trying to argue wit his rank 1. deism 2. agnostism 3. atheism as it is clearly bad from logical point of view. Correctly it would be : 1 agnostism 2.+3. (on the same level) deism and atheism No he's not. How is atheism not logical? It's the dismissal of religious beliefs simply by using logic. Atheism is not belief, it's the absence of belief, hence the "a" at the beginning of the world. An asexual person is not someone who basically has a different kind of sex. It's someone who is free or unaffected by sexuality. On December 02 2009 23:08 The Storyteller wrote: I didn't say they were allowing everyone to migrate, I said the migration policy is based on talent and not race or religion. The US doesn't say we don't want Muslims here, they say we don't need more unskilled labour because we have enough of that. But we'd like a shitload of bright people, thank you very much, and we don't care what their religion is. You can't base your limited experience and assume that it applies it to other countries. The social situations are different and so is the culture in various countries. And migration isn't about talent, it's about all kinds of people in all different strata looking for opportunities. You're assuming that being open draws in talented and intelligent people, but this is a false, unsubstantiated assumption, especially since there are plenty of opportunities in companies based in other countries as well, which can be just as good, if not better, than opportunities provided in America or whatever country you want to argue in favor of. "who's being utopian" indeed. Off Topic: i enjoyed that post On December 03 2009 05:13 InsideTheBox wrote: + Show Spoiler + On December 03 2009 04:50 ggrrg wrote: What exactly are minarets used for? How do they help Muslim practice their religion? They are just symbols for the greatness of their mosques. And they are kind of a way to shove their own culture in the face of everybody else. (This has also basically nothing to do with the discussion on minarets) Oh, and about injustices... You do understand that many Muslim beliefs and values clash with Western values and often laws? Without wanting to stereotype anybody; you do understand that there are enough Muslims in Europe that practice at least some things that clash with laws or human rights as perceived by Western civilization? So you would be okay with the ban of anything non-essential to key aspects of our lives... I don't buy that for a second. Your understanding of minarets is either juvenile or you're employing reductio ad absurdum to its fullest. Freedom of expression is as much a right as freedom to choose one's religion. Even if you as a person don't agree with that, I would be incredibly surprised if the government of Switzerland didn't. Furthermore I bet you'd be extremely outraged if you weren't allowed to buy/wear the kinds of clothes you wanted because your government told all of its citizens that they had to wear orange jumpsuits. Normally, I wouldn't bother to make a response to your comment since QibingZero already has. But I just wanted to ask you if you feel more important, more intelligent or just overly great in general when using latin expressions that have no relation to whatsoever that has been written so far? Can you please show me what proposition I am trying to refute and what logically absurd consequence I have reached??? Or at least explain to me how someone can prove a personal perception? If you cannot answer to any of the last two questions please take a look at the following Reductio ad absurdum and then give it another try to answer my questions... And concerning my "juvenile understanding". I would also ask you to review my comments so far (starting on page 24). So you could see what I dislike about minarets... | ||
| ||
