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.
Holy hell did you even read the post correctly? READ.
On November 30 2009 08:58 koreasilver wrote: 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.
The Western world is not run by religious extremists.
On November 30 2009 08:58 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: 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?
LOL this takes the cake
"some gay as propagandashit"—it's hard to reject an argument so articulate!
On November 30 2009 08:58 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: 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.
Well to be fair they should ban church belfries too.
On November 30 2009 08:58 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: 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?
LOL this takes the cake
"some gay as propagandashit"—it's hard to reject an argument so articulate!
oh, if you would know the initiators of this "law" as well as I do you would know what I'm talking about
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.
Exactly... So why can't christians build shit over on Islamic ground?
Seriously, these days we all have to be sooooo politically correct and if we even take a wrong look at a non-caucasian/non-christian dude, we're immediately put in the category of "OMF EFFING RASCIST"...
On November 30 2009 08:58 koreasilver wrote: 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.
The Western world is not run by religious extremists.
And that is why banning minarets in the United States would be unconstitutional.
On November 30 2009 08:58 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: 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.
Well to be fair they should ban church belfries too.
No because they have been part of our culture for hunderds of years. The ppl said they dont want fucking minaretts, isn't a democracy a nice place to live in?
60% in my shit country said that I may not smoke weed. wtf, why dont you rant about that? where is my right to live me religion (rasta) ????
On November 30 2009 08:58 koreasilver wrote: 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.
The Western world is not run by religious extremists.
That has nothing to do with what my post was about.
You could have said, "but Muslims don't eat pork," and it would have made about the same amount of sense.
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!
It is true, religion is the hugest obstacle for freedom of religion.
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.
Exactly... So why can't christians build shit over on Islamic ground?
Seriously, these days we all have to be sooooo politically correct and if we even take a wrong look at a non-caucasian/non-christian dude, we're immediately put in the category of "OMF EFFING RASCIST"...
Because we in the West have more freedoms than those in Islamic countries. But I see that you clearly prefer their way over our own.
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.
Exactly... So why can't christians build shit over on Islamic ground?
Seriously, these days we all have to be sooooo politically correct and if we even take a wrong look at a non-caucasian/non-christian dude, we're immediately put in the category of "OMF EFFING RASCIST"...
On November 30 2009 08:58 koreasilver wrote: 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.
The Western world is not run by religious extremists.
That has nothing to do with what my post was about.
You could have said, "but Muslims don't eat pork," and it would have made about the same amount of sense.
You were attempting to change the subject. We were talking about extremists.
No extremists have as much power as Muslim extremists, and therefore none are as dangerous.
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.
Exactly... So why can't christians build shit over on Islamic ground?
Seriously, these days we all have to be sooooo politically correct and if we even take a wrong look at a non-caucasian/non-christian dude, we're immediately put in the category of "OMF EFFING RASCIST"...
I think your example is a little extreme, as there are plenty of ethnically French and Spanish Christians who still reside in Morocco/Algeria/Tunisia and openly practice their religions and go to church and all that sort of thing. You're right in that they are very restricted (for example, some missionaries were expelled from Morocco for trying to convert a few Muslims), but still, they're there. I think a more interesting example of how the Muslim world isn't exactly the most tolerant place on the planet is the Saudi Arabian government's website. It states very clearly "No Jews allowed".
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!
Also, many of these internal divisions are artificial. It's easy to associate yourself with a group or a view. But do you really know and understand what you are supporting? For example, some people went out to a Palin book signing and got interviews with supporters. They probably edited out all the people who were able to articulate themselves clearly, but take a look at what happens. Many of these people who claim to support Palin and waited on a line for hours to exchange a few words with her and get a signature don't have the slightest clue about her positions on anything (not that her opinion is worth that much anyway). Many of their statements can be attributed to a claim made by Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly, etc. It's not just conservatives though, I'm sure this kind of thing can be done for any group.
On November 30 2009 08:58 koreasilver wrote: 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.
The Western world is not run by religious extremists.
That has nothing to do with what my post was about.
You could have said, "but Muslims don't eat pork," and it would have made about the same amount of sense.
You were attempting to change the subject. We were talking about extremists.
No extremists have as much power as Muslim extremists, and therefore none are as dangerous.
I was never talking specifically about extremists, and even under the idea of extremists, neo-liberal extremists have done much worse over the world than the Muslim extremists.
On November 30 2009 08:58 koreasilver wrote: 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.
The Western world is not run by religious extremists.
That has nothing to do with what my post was about.
You could have said, "but Muslims don't eat pork," and it would have made about the same amount of sense.
You were attempting to change the subject. We were talking about extremists.
No extremists have as much power as Muslim extremists, and therefore none are as dangerous.
I was never talking specifically about extremists, and even under the idea of extremists, neo-liberal extremists have done much worse over the world than the Muslim extremists.
i think its good. would muslime ever let us build churches in their countries? lol If they dont accept other religions in countries where other religions are the majority then they dont deserver their religion too.
3362
661
92
264
108
EPT
