|
On November 30 2009 08:41 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2009 08:36 JWD wrote:On November 30 2009 08:33 DwmC_Foefen wrote:
Switzerland is just trying to be neutral, even when it comes to religion ^^
neutrality = banning minarets?  Seriously. Banning Muslims from building minarets is pretty much saying "fuck off you're not welcome here".
They aren't in a neutral country. No fundamentalist Muslim country is "neutral" in world affairs.
|
On November 30 2009 08:40 ghostWriter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2009 08:38 JWD wrote:On November 30 2009 08:35 ghostWriter wrote:On November 30 2009 08:17 JWD wrote:
Lawmakers should balance protecting national security/interests with the costs of restricting freedom of speech and expression. Of course eliminating threatening influences might make a country safer, but you're forgetting to consider the value of political/religious/whatever expression. Here we are critiquing the Swiss government and its laws—that could be seen as a threatening influence, why doesn't Switzerland make visiting TL illegal too? We here at TL have little, if any influence on any events that occur in Switzerland. There's nothing more dangerous to a body than internal conflict. Why should I consider any religion to have value when the concept of religion itself has no merit whatsoever? OK I get it, you don't like religion. You still haven't explained how that justifies preventing other people who do like religion from peacefully exercising their religious beliefs. Because they aren't peaceful. Granted, most people go to mosque and pray 5 times a day and don't bother anyone, but there are many people that hold up signs that say death to America or whatever and others that blow themselves up, killing innocent people for no reason other than they believe that they are fighting some sort of holy war. Almost every day, there's a news article about how some ignorant buffoon blew up a train station or something because they were misguided into believing that their actions would give them some sort of reward.
That's a fucking terrible logical fallacy. Under that premise pretty much every single person on this entire goddamned planet are not peaceful because there are always people from any and every culture and subculture that are dipshits.
|
On November 30 2009 08:40 ghostWriter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2009 08:38 JWD wrote:On November 30 2009 08:35 ghostWriter wrote:On November 30 2009 08:17 JWD wrote:
Lawmakers should balance protecting national security/interests with the costs of restricting freedom of speech and expression. Of course eliminating threatening influences might make a country safer, but you're forgetting to consider the value of political/religious/whatever expression. Here we are critiquing the Swiss government and its laws—that could be seen as a threatening influence, why doesn't Switzerland make visiting TL illegal too? We here at TL have little, if any influence on any events that occur in Switzerland. There's nothing more dangerous to a body than internal conflict. Why should I consider any religion to have value when the concept of religion itself has no merit whatsoever? OK I get it, you don't like religion. You still haven't explained how that justifies preventing other people who do like religion from peacefully exercising their religious beliefs. Because they aren't peaceful. Granted, most people go to mosque and pray 5 times a day and don't bother anyone, but there are many people that hold up signs that say death to America or whatever and others that blow themselves up, killing innocent people for no reason other than they believe that they are fighting some sort of holy war. Almost every day, there's a news article about how some ignorant buffoon blew up a train station or something because they were misguided into believing that their actions would give them some sort of reward.
Dude that is a weak argument, there are people like that of all groups even atheists for christs sake. One tiny segment of the population doesn't define the whole group 
|
On November 30 2009 08:42 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2009 08:41 koreasilver wrote:On November 30 2009 08:36 JWD wrote:On November 30 2009 08:33 DwmC_Foefen wrote:
Switzerland is just trying to be neutral, even when it comes to religion ^^
neutrality = banning minarets? Seriously. Banning Muslims from building minarets is pretty much saying "fuck off you're not welcome here". They aren't in a neutral country. No fundamentalist Muslim country is "neutral" in world affairs.
Switzerland... is historically famous for being a neutral country.
What are you on about.
|
On November 30 2009 08:41 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2009 08:40 Slow Motion wrote:On November 30 2009 08:34 Saturnize wrote:On November 30 2009 08:31 Slow Motion wrote:On November 30 2009 08:30 Saturnize wrote:On November 30 2009 08:28 Slow Motion wrote:
OK everyone you've all convinced me. Let's ban all ideas that we don't like or we think is having or can have negative consequences in the world. I think modern science, all religion, and political expression should go first. We can add other categories as we go along. Some of those things require "logic" Islam makes no sense whatsoever -_- Alright, let's make a list of all the ideas that we think are "logical", and ban the others! Religion is destructive...persecution of women, cult mentality, closed mind, do you see nothing wrong with this. BTW im not in favor of the banning of minerets that is but come on. seriously?  There is a difference between banning the mistreatment of women, and banning someone from, for example, writing a book that advocates the mistreatment of women. Western societies believe in liberalism. We believe that there is a marketplace of ideas, and that people should be free to choose which ideas to adopt and which to discard. And the Swiss people chose to discard the idea of minarets. Or is that your point?
No, obviously they didn't all chose to discard that idea. The point of this ban would be to stop a minority in Switzerland from expressing their religion through architecture. If Switzerland had discarded the idea of Islam, then there would be no need for the ban.
|
Just curious, which "groups of dipshits" that apparently exist in every culture control multiple countries and billions of dollars?
|
United States11539 Posts
On November 30 2009 08:42 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2009 08:41 koreasilver wrote:On November 30 2009 08:36 JWD wrote:On November 30 2009 08:33 DwmC_Foefen wrote:
Switzerland is just trying to be neutral, even when it comes to religion ^^
neutrality = banning minarets? Seriously. Banning Muslims from building minarets is pretty much saying "fuck off you're not welcome here". They aren't in a neutral country. No fundamentalist Muslim country is "neutral" in world affairs.
So because fundamentalist Muslim countries aren't neutral, that means nobody else has to be neutral? What kind of fucked up logic is that?
It disturbs me because by making that statement you are automatically associating Muslims with those fundamentalist Muslim countries.
|
On November 30 2009 08:43 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2009 08:42 jalstar wrote:On November 30 2009 08:41 koreasilver wrote:On November 30 2009 08:36 JWD wrote:On November 30 2009 08:33 DwmC_Foefen wrote:
Switzerland is just trying to be neutral, even when it comes to religion ^^
neutrality = banning minarets? Seriously. Banning Muslims from building minarets is pretty much saying "fuck off you're not welcome here". They aren't in a neutral country. No fundamentalist Muslim country is "neutral" in world affairs. Switzerland... is historically famous for being a neutral country. What are you on about.
Aren't welcome in a neutral country.
|
United States12607 Posts
On November 30 2009 08:43 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2009 08:40 ghostWriter wrote:On November 30 2009 08:38 JWD wrote:On November 30 2009 08:35 ghostWriter wrote:On November 30 2009 08:17 JWD wrote:
Lawmakers should balance protecting national security/interests with the costs of restricting freedom of speech and expression. Of course eliminating threatening influences might make a country safer, but you're forgetting to consider the value of political/religious/whatever expression. Here we are critiquing the Swiss government and its laws—that could be seen as a threatening influence, why doesn't Switzerland make visiting TL illegal too? We here at TL have little, if any influence on any events that occur in Switzerland. There's nothing more dangerous to a body than internal conflict. Why should I consider any religion to have value when the concept of religion itself has no merit whatsoever? OK I get it, you don't like religion. You still haven't explained how that justifies preventing other people who do like religion from peacefully exercising their religious beliefs. Because they aren't peaceful. Granted, most people go to mosque and pray 5 times a day and don't bother anyone, but there are many people that hold up signs that say death to America or whatever and others that blow themselves up, killing innocent people for no reason other than they believe that they are fighting some sort of holy war. Almost every day, there's a news article about how some ignorant buffoon blew up a train station or something because they were misguided into believing that their actions would give them some sort of reward. That's a fucking terrible logical fallacy. Under that premise pretty much every single person on this entire goddamned planet are not peaceful because there are always people from any and every culture and subculture that are dipshits.
And even if 100% of muslims were suicide bombers, I still don't see how it would be justifiable to prevent them from erecting minarets.
|
RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
that felt good
god this sucks so much
|
On November 30 2009 08:45 jalstar wrote:
Just curious, which "groups of dipshits" that apparently exist in every culture control multiple countries and billions of dollars?
Western neo-liberal multinationals come to mind.
|
On November 30 2009 08:30 ghostWriter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2009 08:28 Boblion wrote:On November 30 2009 08:14 ghostWriter wrote:
I can see why they would be wary of Islamic influences. Where do you think the Paris riots came from? You cannot be more wrong. The riots had nothing to do with Islam. Yeah I guess the rioters being young Muslim males from Africa and the Middle East means that the riots means that they had nothing to do with Islam.
1- They are all second or third generation immigrants and the influence of "gangsta culture" on them is way more important than Islam.
2- If they were true believers they would not burn cars or rob shops etc ...
Actually the few real radical muslim people leave for Afghanistan or Pakistan. They don't have time to waste with crackheads. You seem to not understand that jihad has nothing to do with juvenile delinquency.
3- I'm gonna quote wiki / Ny Times / RG head of personnel:
The head of the Direction centrale des renseignements généraux found no Islamic factor in the riots, while the New York Times reported on 5 November 2005 that "majority of the youths committing the acts are Muslim, and of African or North African origin" local youths adding that "second-generation Portuguese immigrants and even many children of native French have also taken part.
And i'm pretty much sure that they are better informed than a random US teenager from a video game forum.
|
On November 30 2009 08:45 JWD wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2009 08:43 koreasilver wrote:On November 30 2009 08:40 ghostWriter wrote:On November 30 2009 08:38 JWD wrote:On November 30 2009 08:35 ghostWriter wrote:On November 30 2009 08:17 JWD wrote:
Lawmakers should balance protecting national security/interests with the costs of restricting freedom of speech and expression. Of course eliminating threatening influences might make a country safer, but you're forgetting to consider the value of political/religious/whatever expression. Here we are critiquing the Swiss government and its laws—that could be seen as a threatening influence, why doesn't Switzerland make visiting TL illegal too? We here at TL have little, if any influence on any events that occur in Switzerland. There's nothing more dangerous to a body than internal conflict. Why should I consider any religion to have value when the concept of religion itself has no merit whatsoever? OK I get it, you don't like religion. You still haven't explained how that justifies preventing other people who do like religion from peacefully exercising their religious beliefs. Because they aren't peaceful. Granted, most people go to mosque and pray 5 times a day and don't bother anyone, but there are many people that hold up signs that say death to America or whatever and others that blow themselves up, killing innocent people for no reason other than they believe that they are fighting some sort of holy war. Almost every day, there's a news article about how some ignorant buffoon blew up a train station or something because they were misguided into believing that their actions would give them some sort of reward. That's a fucking terrible logical fallacy. Under that premise pretty much every single person on this entire goddamned planet are not peaceful because there are always people from any and every culture and subculture that are dipshits. And even if 100% of muslims were suicide bombers, I still don't see how it would be justifiable to prevent them from erecting minarets.
This. I can't believe how many people here can't seem to understand this point.
|
On November 30 2009 08:45 JWD wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2009 08:43 koreasilver wrote:On November 30 2009 08:40 ghostWriter wrote:On November 30 2009 08:38 JWD wrote:On November 30 2009 08:35 ghostWriter wrote:On November 30 2009 08:17 JWD wrote:
Lawmakers should balance protecting national security/interests with the costs of restricting freedom of speech and expression. Of course eliminating threatening influences might make a country safer, but you're forgetting to consider the value of political/religious/whatever expression. Here we are critiquing the Swiss government and its laws—that could be seen as a threatening influence, why doesn't Switzerland make visiting TL illegal too? We here at TL have little, if any influence on any events that occur in Switzerland. There's nothing more dangerous to a body than internal conflict. Why should I consider any religion to have value when the concept of religion itself has no merit whatsoever? OK I get it, you don't like religion. You still haven't explained how that justifies preventing other people who do like religion from peacefully exercising their religious beliefs. Because they aren't peaceful. Granted, most people go to mosque and pray 5 times a day and don't bother anyone, but there are many people that hold up signs that say death to America or whatever and others that blow themselves up, killing innocent people for no reason other than they believe that they are fighting some sort of holy war. Almost every day, there's a news article about how some ignorant buffoon blew up a train station or something because they were misguided into believing that their actions would give them some sort of reward. That's a fucking terrible logical fallacy. Under that premise pretty much every single person on this entire goddamned planet are not peaceful because there are always people from any and every culture and subculture that are dipshits. And even if 100% of muslims were suicide bombers, I still don't see how it would be justifiable to prevent them from erecting minarets.
Really? Because it would for me LOL
|
On November 30 2009 08:45 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2009 08:43 koreasilver wrote:On November 30 2009 08:42 jalstar wrote:On November 30 2009 08:41 koreasilver wrote:On November 30 2009 08:36 JWD wrote:On November 30 2009 08:33 DwmC_Foefen wrote:
Switzerland is just trying to be neutral, even when it comes to religion ^^
neutrality = banning minarets? Seriously. Banning Muslims from building minarets is pretty much saying "fuck off you're not welcome here". They aren't in a neutral country. No fundamentalist Muslim country is "neutral" in world affairs. Switzerland... is historically famous for being a neutral country. What are you on about. Aren't welcome in a neutral country.
Do you even know how to write full sentences? You're making 0 sense and I'm not even trying to be a grammar Nazi or anything. This post just made no sense at all.
|
On November 30 2009 08:46 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2009 08:45 jalstar wrote:
Just curious, which "groups of dipshits" that apparently exist in every culture control multiple countries and billions of dollars? Western neo-liberal multinationals come to mind.
Really? So fundamentalist Christians, or fundamentalist atheists who support killing innocent people control multiple countries and billions of dollars.
|
On November 30 2009 08:42 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2009 08:41 koreasilver wrote:On November 30 2009 08:36 JWD wrote:On November 30 2009 08:33 DwmC_Foefen wrote:
Switzerland is just trying to be neutral, even when it comes to religion ^^
neutrality = banning minarets? Seriously. Banning Muslims from building minarets is pretty much saying "fuck off you're not welcome here". They aren't in a neutral country. No fundamentalist Muslim country is "neutral" in world affairs.
Sjeesh, I said it in a joking way ...
And something to ponder over :
What would happen if christians tried to build churches and crosses and shit in Marocco or Turkey or whereever?
|
United States12607 Posts
On November 30 2009 08:47 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2009 08:45 jalstar wrote:On November 30 2009 08:43 koreasilver wrote:On November 30 2009 08:42 jalstar wrote:On November 30 2009 08:41 koreasilver wrote:On November 30 2009 08:36 JWD wrote:On November 30 2009 08:33 DwmC_Foefen wrote:
Switzerland is just trying to be neutral, even when it comes to religion ^^
neutrality = banning minarets? Seriously. Banning Muslims from building minarets is pretty much saying "fuck off you're not welcome here". They aren't in a neutral country. No fundamentalist Muslim country is "neutral" in world affairs. Switzerland... is historically famous for being a neutral country. What are you on about. Aren't welcome in a neutral country. Do you even know how to write full sentences? You're making 0 sense and I'm not even trying to be a grammar Nazi or anything. This post just made no sense at all.
haha seriously, but I think it's probably for the best because I have this sinking feeling that the point he is trying to articulate is really stupid
|
On November 30 2009 08:47 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2009 08:45 jalstar wrote:On November 30 2009 08:43 koreasilver wrote:On November 30 2009 08:42 jalstar wrote:On November 30 2009 08:41 koreasilver wrote:On November 30 2009 08:36 JWD wrote:On November 30 2009 08:33 DwmC_Foefen wrote:
Switzerland is just trying to be neutral, even when it comes to religion ^^
neutrality = banning minarets? Seriously. Banning Muslims from building minarets is pretty much saying "fuck off you're not welcome here". They aren't in a neutral country. No fundamentalist Muslim country is "neutral" in world affairs. Switzerland... is historically famous for being a neutral country. What are you on about. Aren't welcome in a neutral country. Do you even know how to write full sentences? You're making 0 sense and I'm not even trying to be a grammar Nazi or anything. This post just made no sense at all.
Seriously, just open the spoiler of quotes, I'm not going to repeat everything I say to accommodate your laziness.
|
On November 30 2009 08:45 JWD wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2009 08:43 koreasilver wrote:On November 30 2009 08:40 ghostWriter wrote:On November 30 2009 08:38 JWD wrote:On November 30 2009 08:35 ghostWriter wrote:On November 30 2009 08:17 JWD wrote:
Lawmakers should balance protecting national security/interests with the costs of restricting freedom of speech and expression. Of course eliminating threatening influences might make a country safer, but you're forgetting to consider the value of political/religious/whatever expression. Here we are critiquing the Swiss government and its laws—that could be seen as a threatening influence, why doesn't Switzerland make visiting TL illegal too? We here at TL have little, if any influence on any events that occur in Switzerland. There's nothing more dangerous to a body than internal conflict. Why should I consider any religion to have value when the concept of religion itself has no merit whatsoever? OK I get it, you don't like religion. You still haven't explained how that justifies preventing other people who do like religion from peacefully exercising their religious beliefs. Because they aren't peaceful. Granted, most people go to mosque and pray 5 times a day and don't bother anyone, but there are many people that hold up signs that say death to America or whatever and others that blow themselves up, killing innocent people for no reason other than they believe that they are fighting some sort of holy war. Almost every day, there's a news article about how some ignorant buffoon blew up a train station or something because they were misguided into believing that their actions would give them some sort of reward. That's a fucking terrible logical fallacy. Under that premise pretty much every single person on this entire goddamned planet are not peaceful because there are always people from any and every culture and subculture that are dipshits. And even if 100% of muslims were suicide bombers, I still don't see how it would be justifiable to prevent them from erecting minarets.
Erecting minarets is a sign that says that they are forming their own communities within a community. A country cannot exist with internal divisions, look at Yugoslavia or Rwanda, although those were different groups put together on purpose by greater powers, it's the same sort of concept. It's a sign that instead of assimilating, they are promoting their own religion that they brought along. It's not a logical fallacy, religion promotes a lack of understanding and puts up blind faith in ridiculous notions dreamt up by 'prophets' that claimed to be the mouthpieces of a god thousands of years ago, which allows people to accept other things just as blindly, just because they were told that this was so by an authority figure. Scientific progress has always been stifled by religion, as has freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
