|
On November 30 2009 08:47 DwmC_Foefen 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. 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?
If they were REALLY quick they could have their own burial ceremony in that very church before it gets destroyed.
|
On November 30 2009 08:47 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2009 08:46 koreasilver wrote: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.
You're... still making very little sense with your sentences, regardless of what the actual point you're trying to make is.
I'll direct you to writing and reading 101 and a list of logical fallacies for you to read over so you can at least make some kind of sense with your subsequent posts.
|
On November 30 2009 08:40 Hithran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2009 08:37 .risingdragoon wrote:On November 30 2009 08:35 ghostWriter wrote:On November 30 2009 08:31 .risingdragoon wrote:On November 30 2009 08:14 ghostWriter wrote:
Where do you think the Paris riots came from? Ungrateful youth that should expend their time and energy on their education or a career, wasting their lives being mad at the establishment, which allows them to have protection, a home, etc.
If you immigrate to a different country, it's your job to assimilate into the existing culture.
Complete garbage. Thank you, I'll take your well-thought out and wonderfully articulated criticism into account. It's like plain ass wrong. What do you want me to say to 2+2=5? unless you give an argument to why its wrong you just have a useless opinion.
Oh yeah?
How about I give an analogy?
"man look at those ungrateful blacks, they rioting!!!"
Where's your background facts? Ungrateful for what exactly? The cheap labor France brought in to do the work frenchies don't want to do? Or the racism the children of these laborers faced trying to find work in the city? It's kinda hard to "assimilate" when the society at large, the only one you've known, not only doesn't value you but considers you a foreign organism and something to be kept out of mind?
France created the situation and doesn't want to live with the consequences. People are not cattles that you can take for all they're worth and then throw away the bones.
|
On November 30 2009 08:49 ghostWriter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2009 08:45 JWD wrote: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. Scientific progress has always been stifled by religion, as has freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.
Yes friends, let's promote freedom of speech and religion by banning the expression of religion!
|
United States12607 Posts
On November 30 2009 08:49 ghostWriter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2009 08:45 JWD wrote: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
What? I'd argue a country can only exist with internal divisions. Political parties, different news sources, schools of philosophical thought…these are all internal divisions essential to a healthy nation. Are you saying that states should aspire to stamp out individualism and reduce themselves to a homogenous population governed by a monolithic, all-controlling government?
LOL sorry dude, rereading your post I don't think I can take you seriously anymore
say, TL is a pretty serious "community within a community" too…watch out guys!
|
On November 30 2009 08:48 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2009 08:47 koreasilver wrote: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.
Lol at the post about grammar nazi.
|
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.
Heh, he was correcting an error that led to some argument. =P
|
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.
Do you forget your own posts that quickly? No "dipshits" as you call them have as much power and influence as extremist Muslims.
|
I only wrote that to show the ironies that are associated with religion.
|
On November 30 2009 08:52 JWD wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2009 08:49 ghostWriter wrote:On November 30 2009 08:45 JWD wrote: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 What? I'd argue a country can only exist with internal divisions. Political parties, different news sources, schools of philosophical thought…these are all internal divisions essential to a healthy nation. Are you saying that states should aspire to stamp out individualism and reduce themselves to a homogenous population governed by a monolithic, all-controlling government?
Suicide bombing is now "individualism"? Remember that this is still your hypothetical example where all Muslims are suicide bombers.
|
On November 30 2009 08:49 ghostWriter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2009 08:45 JWD wrote: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.
No internal divisions. Right. That's why there's varying political groups, division of the classes, counter-cultures, sub-cultures, etc. etc. etc.
|
On November 30 2009 08:52 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +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. Do you forget your own posts that quickly? No "dipshits" as you call them have as much power and influence as extremist Muslims.
ROFL are you seriously that ignorant of world economics and politics?
|
United States12607 Posts
On November 30 2009 08:52 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +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. Do you forget your own posts that quickly? No "dipshits" as you call them have as much power and influence as extremist Muslims.
I dunno man, do you realize how much airtime dumb celebrities get??
|
On November 30 2009 08:55 JWD wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2009 08:52 jalstar wrote: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. Do you forget your own posts that quickly? No "dipshits" as you call them have as much power and influence as extremist Muslims. I dunno man, do you realize how much airtime dumb celebrities get??
Dumb celebrities kill innocent people all the time, that's true. koreasilver used "dipshits" to describe extremists.
|
On November 30 2009 08:52 JWD wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2009 08:49 ghostWriter wrote:On November 30 2009 08:45 JWD wrote: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 What? I'd argue a country can only exist with internal divisions. Political parties, different news sources, schools of philosophical thought…these are all internal divisions essential to a healthy nation. Are you saying that states should aspire to stamp out individualism and reduce themselves to a homogenous population governed by a monolithic, all-controlling government? LOL sorry dude, rereading your post I don't think I can take you seriously anymore say, TL is a pretty serious "community within a community" too…watch out guys!
I meant internal divisions that promote and provoke violence.
There's a difference between divisions that promote a myriad of styles of thinking and analyzing and a division that espouse blind belief and subservience to authorities while also promoting violence and ignorance.
|
On November 30 2009 08:55 JWD wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2009 08:52 jalstar wrote: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. Do you forget your own posts that quickly? No "dipshits" as you call them have as much power and influence as extremist Muslims. I dunno man, do you realize how much airtime dumb celebrities get??
We prefer the term 'Mavericks'. =P
Hmm, I wonder how much longer until this thread hits Godwin's Law.
Or did it already?
|
United States12607 Posts
On November 30 2009 08:53 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2009 08:52 JWD wrote:On November 30 2009 08:49 ghostWriter wrote:On November 30 2009 08:45 JWD wrote: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 What? I'd argue a country can only exist with internal divisions. Political parties, different news sources, schools of philosophical thought…these are all internal divisions essential to a healthy nation. Are you saying that states should aspire to stamp out individualism and reduce themselves to a homogenous population governed by a monolithic, all-controlling government? Suicide bombing is now "individualism"? Remember that this is still your hypothetical example where all Muslims are suicide bombers.
Get a grip, I was responding to ghostWriter's argument that minarets should be banned because they are a sign of internal division.
|
I really don't get it why so many people are pissed because of that. It's not like Islam is banned, or moschees. Muslims in Switzerland can live their religious live just like before, it's some gay as propagandashit from both sides. Seriously, wtf do you need those gay minaretts for? Nothing but claiming teritory as yours and using it (secondly) as a good point to spread the time for pray.
If you want to build a churchtower in Switzerland you will have very little chance. It's just not done anymore, so why need muslims to do it anyway?
In Austria near Switzerland (Voralberg if im right), you can't see any minaretts either. Did they ban them? No, they didn't but they just dont give any authorizations to build them on a muncipal level.
Frankly I didn't vote at all, because for me it is exactly that, a muncipal level decission. It's ridiculous to make it an affair of state.
|
How could anyone possibly think Muslim extremists have more power and influence than the Western world? Even if the Western powers are starting to lose grip of their absolute power over the world slowly, they still are, with no doubt, the greatest powers in the world still.
I mean, if these Muslim extremists had more power and influence than anyone else in the world, why would they have split and ran when America started the war? Guerrilla warfare and terrorism is practiced by the weaker side in asymmetrical warfare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
