The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Saddam Hussein on January 08, 2015, 03:29:41 AM
-
We haven't had a thread on this yet, so:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30710883
Fuck Islam.
-
Fuck Islam.
Yep, not much more to say about it. The footage of the police officers execution was particularly enraging.
-
We haven't had a thread on this yet, so:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30710883
Fuck Islam.
Fuck Islamists too.
-
If media outlets would stop proving that these sort of attacks are extremely effective, then the attacks probably wouldn't happen often if at all. Newspapers don't want to publish pictures of Muhammad because they'll get bombed or criticize Islam in any way just because they might get attacked. Perhaps we have to admit these people obviously know exactly how to beat entire countries into submission.
-
Fuck religion.
-
My colleague's friend's partner was a victim of this attack, and is now in a coma (http://www.smh.com.au/world/paris-attacks-sydney-womans-partner-in-coma-after-charlie-hebdo-shooting-20150108-12k4av.html). Small world.
Shit sucks.
-
My father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate was a victim of this attack too, and is now dead.
Muslims sucks.
-
Islamic terrorists killing people is bad, but they were French cartoonists. I'm not sure how I feel about this. :-\
-
Fuck crazy people who have no consideration for other people's lives.
-
Islamic terrorists killing people is bad, but they were French cartoonists. I'm not sure how I feel about this. :-\
What they did was an affront to great Muhammad (peace be upon him) and our lord Allah and they had to be punished for their henious crimes!
Anyone who offends Islam, the religion of peace, must be killed! Death to the infidels! ALLAHU AKBAR!
-
Islamic terrorists killing people is bad, but they were French cartoonists. I'm not sure how I feel about this. :-\
What they did was an affront to great Muhammad (peace be upon him) and our lord Allah and they had to be punished for their henious crimes!
Anyone who offends Islam, the religion of peace, must be killed! Death to the infidels! ALLAHU AKBAR!
Has a beard. Check.
Is a reclusive loner. Check.
Hates society and people. Check.
Harbours extremist views. Check.
What are you planning Beardo? May the NSA and FBI swoop upon your Al-Qaida cell and attach a car battery to your nuts with enormous crocodile clips. >:(
-
;)
-
If media outlets would stop proving that these sort of attacks are extremely effective, then the attacks probably wouldn't happen often if at all. Newspapers don't want to publish pictures of Muhammad because they'll get bombed or criticize Islam in any way just because they might get attacked. Perhaps we have to admit these people obviously know exactly how to beat entire countries into submission.
Sadly, this is true. And then they act like it's really because they don't want to offend Muslims or whatever:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/news-organizations-wrestle-with-whether-to-publish-charlie-hebdo-cartoons-after-attack/2015/01/07/841e9c8c-96bc-11e4-8005-1924ede3e54a_story.html
-
America doesn't negotiate with terrorists... we just try not to offend them.
-
The more I look into this the more it starts looking like a false flag operation.
Let's look at the facts.
The 'terrorists' spoke perfect French and had cameras set up well before the attacks were executed. They killed with military-like precision while dressed in military garb. There were multiple shooters who killed from a specific list (typical with false flags), and they got away without any punishment.
I don't think I could paint a more obvious picture. This was probably executed by the Israeli government because of France's pro-Palestine agenda.
-
The more I look into this the more it starts looking like a false flag operation.
Let's look at the facts.
The 'terrorists' spoke perfect French and had cameras set up well before the attacks were executed. They killed with military-like precision while dressed in military garb. There were multiple shooters who killed from a specific list (typical with false flags), and they got away without any punishment.
I don't think I could paint a more obvious picture. This was probably executed by the Israeli government because of France's pro-Palestine agenda.
AK-47 is weird choice for an Israeli funded operation. Tavor or Uzi and it would be another story.
-
The more I look into this the more it starts looking like a false flag operation.
Let's look at the facts.
The 'terrorists' spoke perfect French and had cameras set up well before the attacks were executed. They killed with military-like precision while dressed in military garb. There were multiple shooters who killed from a specific list (typical with false flags), and they got away without any punishment.
I don't think I could paint a more obvious picture. This was probably executed by the Israeli government because of France's pro-Palestine agenda.
AK-47 is weird choice for an Israeli funded operation. Tavor or Uzi and it would be another story.
Good point, but it could be a ruse to deflect accusations.
-
Fuck Islam.
Fuck anyone who can't take a joke.
-
Fuck Islam.
Fuck anyone who can't take a joke.
Fuck you?
-
America doesn't negotiate with terrorists... we just try not to offend them.
And occasionally arm them.
-
And then there's this asshole (https://medium.com/@asgharbukhari/charlie-hebdo-this-attack-was-nothing-to-do-with-free-speech-it-was-about-war-26aff1c3e998).
-
I do find all the 'upholding of freedom of speech' a bit rich. Nick Clegg today said
"people have to be free to offend each other".
Which I agree with. Of course if someone makes a racist tweet, he's the first to get offended and demand arrest.
British politics is so hypocritical. You are free to offend whoever you like, as long as it isn't on their long list of exceptions.
-
Literally no one takes Nick Clegg seriously. Just leave him to his antics. Even UKIP has more support.
-
Even UKIP has more support.
Are you trying to push all my buttons today? >o<
-
Are you trying to push all my buttons today? >o<
Why, I'd never :^)
-
America doesn't negotiate with terrorists... we just try not to offend them.
Actually we just try to bomb them, and anybody else who happens to be close.
-
And then there's this asshole (https://medium.com/@asgharbukhari/charlie-hebdo-this-attack-was-nothing-to-do-with-free-speech-it-was-about-war-26aff1c3e998).
Someone on the CBCS said they would not dare reproduce any Hebdo cartoons because it is offensive to Muslims. Well mass-murder is even more offensive and they were playing the video of the police officer being executed.
-
I'm quite pleased to see that many more people than usual seem to be siding with what would normally be viewed as the "right-wing" view on this situation. Perhaps this will be the tipping point at which we'll say "yes, you're welcome to live in our countries, but you have to play by the rules".
I really hope that'll happen at some point.
-
Perhaps this will be the tipping point at which we'll say "yes, you're welcome to live in our countries, but you have to play by the rules".
And that isn't the case currently? I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything, but I'm just wondering how you'd describe the situation with Muslim immigrants over in Europe. From what I've seen in discussions on the Internet, there do seem to a couple of genuine, non-racist issues that deserve attention, but they always immediately turn into arguments about racism nevertheless.
-
And that isn't the case currently? I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything, but I'm just wondering how you'd describe the situation with Muslim immigrants over in Europe.
A tiny group of Thorks makes bad arguments for why we should get rid of Muslims, and they get media attention. The dominant view is "omg evil racism why do you bully poor Muslims?"
arguments about racism nevertheless.
Islam is not a race.
-
Islam is not a race.
(http://www.mememaker.net/static/images/templates/11785.jpg)
-
Islam is not a race.
le meme
Well, it's true. White Muslims are just as likely to partake in extremist activities as black or brown Muslims. The issue is not that of race, it's one of culture and dogmatic belief.
-
Well, it's true. White Muslims are just as likely to partake in extremist activities as black or brown Muslims. The issue is not that of race, it's one of culture and dogmatic belief.
Race is not exclusive to skin color and can be attributed to things such as culture and beliefs. If you can take a group of people and say "literally all of these people have X attribute" then you've just defined a race of people.
-
Well, it's true. White Muslims are just as likely to partake in extremist activities as black or brown Muslims. The issue is not that of race, it's one of culture and dogmatic belief.
Race is not exclusive to skin color and can be attributed to things such as culture and beliefs. If you can take a group of people and say "literally all of these people have X attribute" then you've just defined a race of people.
No. What is happening is you are redefining race to mean a group that share an attribute. You are saying Christian and homosexual are also races. You could probably make an argument for it, but what is the utility when no one else shares the definition?
-
I'm quite pleased to see that many more people than usual seem to be siding with what would normally be viewed as the "right-wing" view on this situation. Perhaps this will be the tipping point at which we'll say "yes, you're welcome to live in our countries, but you have to play by the rules".
I really hope that'll happen at some point.
Me too. I am sick of people accepting behavior regularly considered abhorrent in the name of pluralism as if it is so lofty a goal that it should trump human rights, dignity and safety.
-
Sand people is the more accurate term, actually.
-
No. What is happening is you are redefining race to mean a group that share an attribute. You are saying Christian and homosexual are also races. You could probably make an argument for it, but what is the utility when no one else shares the definition?
I'm using the term exactly how it has been used in the past. If you think race only pertains to physical traits then you are the one who is mistaken.
Also, Christians and homosexuals can be defined as a race. Plenty of people say "the Christians do this" or "the gays do that." They are referring to them as a singular group, or otherwise known as a race.
-
No. What is happening is you are redefining race to mean a group that share an attribute. You are saying Christian and homosexual are also races. You could probably make an argument for it, but what is the utility when no one else shares the definition?
I'm using the term exactly how it has been used in the past. If you think race only pertains to physical traits then you are the one who is mistaken.
Also, Christians and homosexuals can be defined as a race. Plenty of people say "the Christians do this" or "the gays do that." They are referring to them as a singular group, or otherwise known as a race.
So every segment of people that can be defined as a group sharing a trait are a race. So the TFES are now a race? The New York Yankees are a race? Alcoholics are a race? I think that when you sit down and think about it, you will find that this definition is not useful.
-
So every segment of people that can be defined as a group sharing a trait are a race. So the TFES are now a race? The New York Yankees are a race? Alcoholics are a race? I think that when you sit down and think about it, you will find that this definition is not useful.
How is it not useful to have a strict word for defining a group of people with a specific trait? Also, I'm not sure you could define any of those three as a race without being really vague. For example, one can be a member of TFES without actually believing the earth to be flat. You can't define a group as being part of that group. e.g. I can't say Christians are a race because they are Christian, I have to say Christians believe Jesus is their savior or some other more specific attribute.
Why does this bother you so much? Are you just mad you weren't aware what a race is?
-
I'm using the term exactly how it has been used in the past.
Luckily, we have lexicographers who work very hard on identifying and recording how words are used and were used in the past, so we don't have to take your word for it.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/american-english/race
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/race?searchDictCode=all#race-2
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/race
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/race#Noun_2
Oh.
-
Luckily, we have lexicographers who work very hard on identifying and recording how words are used and were used in the past, so we don't have to take your word for it.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/american-english/race
Oh.
Uh oh, he searched the interwebs until he found a specific source that agrees with him. My argument is doomed.
-
Uh oh, he searched the interwebs until he found a specific source that agrees with him. My argument is doomed.
Feel free to present a source that supports your argument. Nonetheless, I'm fairly content that Saddam, Rama, and I knew what we were talking about. Even if you do find a source (which I doubt), your argument relies on ignoring contextual clues. I would like to ask you to either contribute to the actual discussion or shoo off.
EDIT: I've updated my post to cover all major dictionaries that come to mind.
-
Uh oh, he searched the interwebs until he found a specific source that agrees with him. My argument is doomed.
Feel free to present a source that supports your argument. Nonetheless, I'm fairly content that Saddam, Rama, and I knew what we were talking about. Even if you do find a source (which I doubt), your argument relies on ignoring contextual clues. I would like to ask you to either contribute to the actual discussion or shoo off.
Is this the part where we have dictionary battles?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/race
4. Humans considered as a group.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/race#Noun_2
A group of sentient beings, particularly people, distinguished by common heritage or characteristics
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/race
a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics
Oh.
-
Is this the part where we have dictionary battles?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/race
Oh, of course you'd bring up thefreedictionary.com. The one dictionary most well-known for being unreliable and containing words that do not exist.
4. Humans considered as a group.
Yes. "The human race" is a valid and common use of the word "race". It is also meaningless in the context of racism, unless you're saying that we're discriminating against humans. The other definitions I've linked to also explain that term.
I've given you a chance, but you're clearly not interested in actually contributing to the discussion. We're done here.
-
Stop feeding him.
-
Me too. I am sick of people accepting behavior regularly considered abhorrent in the name of pluralism as if it is so lofty a goal that it should trump human rights, dignity and safety.
Agreed. I'm in favour of pluralism and diversity, but only if it doesn't get in the way of common sense.
-
Oh, of course you'd bring up thefreedictionary.com. The one dictionary most well-known for being unreliable and containing words that do not exist.
Ah, sorry, I didn't realize when you said "find a source" you meant "find a source that I approve of." I'll keep that in consideration.
I've given you a chance, but you're clearly not interested in actually contributing to the discussion. We're done here.
But you brought up that Muslims aren't a race... why would you do that if you didn't want to discuss it? Did you want to be like Saddam and make a hurried statement then scurry away? Don't be like that.
-
Ah, sorry, I didn't realize when you said "find a source" you meant "find a source that I approve of." I'll keep that in consideration.
dictionary.omgomg.eu (http://dictionary.omgomg.eu) says ur dumb.
But you brought up that Muslims aren't a race... why would you do that if you didn't want to discuss it? Did you want to be like Saddam and make a hurried statement then scurry away? Don't be like that.
I'm happy to discuss it, but only if you play by the rules. Pointing out that the term "the human race" exists is irrelevant. I'm asking you to start contributing, and if you don't, I'll just stop responding to your posts. It's simple.
-
dictionary.omgomg.eu (http://dictionary.omgomg.eu) says ur dumb.
I added more sources, including your own sources... which support my argument. You can't withdraw those sources now.
I'm happy to discuss it, but only if you play by the rules. Pointing out that the term "the human race" exists is irrelevant. I'm asking you to start contributing, and if you don't, I'll just stop responding to your posts. It's simple.
"Play by the rules"? You made a statement. I noted it was false. You tried to support that it was true, then I showed it was false, then you get mad and say "well I just won't respond anymore ur a big dumbo" Who is being the real non-contributor here? What sort of contribution was "muslims are not a race" in the first place?
Regardless of what you want to call them, Muslims are a group of people with very specific beliefs that tend towards that violent indoctrination of every culture they come into contact with. European countries don't have a problem recognizing Nazism as a really bad thing. Why are they so slow to follow that Islam is bad? How many people would be called Nazi-phobic if Hitler rose during the modern times instead of the 1930's?
-
metalheads are a race
-
I added more sources, including your own sources... which support my argument. You can't withdraw those sources now.
Muslims are not distinguished by common heritage or characteristics. I already made this point.
"Play by the rules"? You made a statement. I noted it was false. You tried to support that it was true, then I showed it was false, then you get mad and say "well I just won't respond anymore ur a big dumbo" Who is being the real non-contributor here? What sort of contribution was "muslims are not a race" in the first place?
Please refrain from further derailing this thread. I will not act as a moderator in a dispute I am part of, but I'll delegate this to someone else to have a look at this. In the meantime, I will simply ignore your posts, as I do not consider them to be worthwhile or contributive for my own purposes.
-
Regardless of what you want to call them, Muslims are a group of people with very specific beliefs that tend towards that violent indoctrination of every culture they come into contact with. European countries don't have a problem recognizing Nazism as a really bad thing. Why are they so slow to follow that Islam is bad? How many people would be called Nazi-phobic if Hitler rose during the modern times instead of the 1930's?
Actually, scratch what I just said. This bit seems like a proper contribution.
As far as I understand, the decision that Nazis (and Soviets, for example) are bad was made during a very different political climate. Europe wasn't as dominated by leftists as it is now. We're being slowed down by xenophilia, which is a kneejerk reaction to the "crimes" of our white ancestors.
-
Muslims are not distinguished by common heritage or characteristics. I already made this point.
Muslims all having a specific belief system is a pretty big characteristic.
As far as I understand, the decision that Nazis (and Soviets, for example) are bad was made during a very different political climate. Europe wasn't as dominated by leftists as it is now. We're being slowed down by xenophilia, which is a kneejerk reaction to the "crimes" of our white ancestors.
I can't accept that an entire continent is being torn apart because it suffers from a severe case of white guilt.
-
I can't accept that an entire continent is being torn apart because it suffers from a severe case of white guilt.
The European Union is an attempt at creating a union similar to the USA. Sure, the member states enjoy much more autonomy than they do in the USA, but they share a common policy on many issues. In addition to that, with those in charge meeting frequently and discussing common issues in much more depth than they historically did, it's no wonder that they reach very similar conclusions throughout the Union.
Besides, it's only like half of the continent. See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Islam_in_Europe-2011.svg
-
Of particular note is the fact that the EU has been working very hard on "tackling Islamophobia" over the recent years. They've been trying to get Muslims more engaged and integrated, hoping that they would co-exist with us in a reasonable manner. (See: http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2012/muslims-european-union-discrimination-and-islamophobia)
And, well, in general, this is the case. Most Muslims are ok people. The problem is that they bring certain undesirable elements along with them - be that extremists blowing shit up or fundamentalists telling us we should change some of our restaurants so that they don't serve pork. The EU wants them to integrate with our culture, but many Muslims want us to adapt instead.
In varietate concordia!
-
The European Union is an attempt at creating a union similar to the USA. Sure, the member states enjoy much more autonomy than they do in the USA, but they share a common policy on many issues. In addition to that, with those in charge meeting frequently and discussing common issues in much more depth than they historically did, it's no wonder that they reach very similar conclusions throughout the Union.
Besides, it's only like half of the continent. See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Islam_in_Europe-2011.svg
It also happens to be the wealthy part of the continent. I don't think that is coincidental.
I still don't get it, though. No one gets pointed at for being a Nazi-phobic when they talk about Nazism and its negative impact on society, but at the same time Islamophobe is a real thing that you can be hit with. I mean, hell, they even have a handy dandy book detailing their beliefs and intents. It's like reading the fucking Mein Kampf and thinking "eh, no big deal." Not only are these people doing shit to your country, but they're also nice enough to provide you with an outline of what they're doing and why.
I don't mean to say Muslim's are literally Hitler, but still, the comparison is apt enough to warrant a questioning of Europe's politics and not taking belief systems more seriously. For a group of countries that so easily crush some people's beliefs, they are really slow to react on other's.
Of particular note is the fact that the EU has been working very hard on "tackling Islamophobia" over the recent years. They've been trying to get Muslims more engaged and integrated, hoping that they would co-exist with us in a reasonable manner. (See: http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2012/muslims-european-union-discrimination-and-islamophobia)
And, well, in general, this is the case. Most Muslims are ok people. The problem is that they bring certain undesirable elements along with them - be that extremists blowing shit up or fundamentalists telling us we should change some of our restaurants so that they don't serve pork. The EU wants them to integrate with our culture, but many Muslims want us to adapt instead.
It's really hard to force a culture to integrate when that culture has very specific guidelines as to what it can and can't do. Most other major religions ignore the majority of their religious guidelines and adhere to the government, a lot Muslims are really good at doing the opposite.
-
It also happens to be the wealthy part of the continent. I don't think that is coincidental.
The region that doesn't have a large Islamic population is generally considered to be "xenophobic" and is overall ethnically uniform. It's probably a combination of both factors.
I still don't get it, though. No one gets pointed at for being a Nazi-phobic when they talk about Nazism and its negative impact on society, but at the same time Islamophobe is a real thing that you can be hit with. I mean, hell, they even have a handy dandy book detailing their beliefs and intents. It's like reading the fucking Mein Kampf and thinking "eh, no big deal." Not only are these people doing shit to your country, but they're also nice enough to provide you with an outline of what they're doing and why.
I absolutely agree. But, again, the problem lies with who makes the decisions. Consider, for example, that the hammer and sickle is illegal in Poland, as is the Nazi swastika. I can't just wear a t-shirt with one of those symbols in Poland (unless I have good reason to, e.g. it's part of a show about history or something). In fact, I almost got in trouble because I had a Red Army belt buckle on my possession once while travelling - I ended up being fine because the border guard didn't want to bother. Many other people/countries would consider that to be a silly violation of the freedom of expression.
We now largely have governments who put too much emphasis on diversity and equality. Sweden is trying to apply feminism to foreign policy, for fuck's sake. Slowly, but steadily, people are getting pissed off with the left. They look for alternatives. Eventually, the support will tip. I just hope it won't be for the likes of UKIP and Front National.
I don't mean to say Muslim's are literally Hitler, but still, the comparison is apt enough to warrant a questioning of Europe's politics and not taking belief systems more seriously. For a group of countries that so easily crush some people's beliefs, they are really slow to react on other's.
[...]
It's really hard to force a culture to integrate when that culture has very specific guidelines as to what it can and can't do. Most other major religions ignore the majority of their religious guidelines and adhere to the government, a lot Muslims are really good at doing the opposite.
Again, I agree completely. I'm not trying to defend the EU policy or argue for it. I think it's silly. I'm just trying to clarify what's happening and why.
-
On the notion of Sweden:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/12/05/can-vladimir-putin-be-intimidated-by-feminism-sweden/
What? Okay, getting more women involved, that much I understand, but the rest of this is just...what?
-
Yyyyyup.
-
It would be a great day to rob a bank in Paris.
Two hostage crisis at once. They couldn't muster a swat team or a helicopter for you right now if you went into your local Paris branch with a shotgun and demanded all the money.
-
http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/jan/09/charlie-hebdo-manhunt-kouachi-terrorist-links-live-updates
So much suspense. What will happen next?
-
All the terrorists will kill themselves and be granted 72 virgins each in the afterlife. Same as always.
-
"More than 80,000 personnels are now on the ground to tackle the two hostage situations in Dammartin and porte de Vincennes, according to the French interior ministry."
Yup, great day to rob a bank.
-
It's time for big daddy America to move in, occupy that place, and protect it with the iron fist of democracy. Obviously France cannot take care of themselves, and as the world becomes more and more violent due to sand people and crazies they are going to need all the protection they can get.
-
It's time for big daddy America to move in, occupy that place, and protect it with the iron fist of democracy. Obviously France cannot take care of themselves, and as the world becomes more and more violent due to sand people and crazies they are going to need all the protection they can get.
They probably should arm some small extremist faction to fight the IS too.
-
It's time for big daddy America to move in, occupy that place, and protect it with the iron fist of democracy. Obviously France cannot take care of themselves, and as the world becomes more and more violent due to sand people and crazies they are going to need all the protection they can get.
They probably should arm some small extremist faction to fight the IS too.
They already do that.
-
It's time for big daddy America to move in, occupy that place, and protect it with the iron fist of democracy. Obviously France cannot take care of themselves, and as the world becomes more and more violent due to sand people and crazies they are going to need all the protection they can get.
They probably should arm some small extremist faction to fight the IS too.
They already do that.
I feel like it has been awhile since they have done it though. We need more of that.
-
It's time for big daddy America to move in, occupy that place, and protect it with the iron fist of democracy. Obviously France cannot take care of themselves, and as the world becomes more and more violent due to sand people and crazies they are going to need all the protection they can get.
You are aware sand people and crazies flew 2 aircraft into the twin towers and one into the pentagon in 'Big Daddy America' and America did absolutely nothing to prevent it? Maybe America needs looking after?
-
It's time for big daddy America to move in, occupy that place, and protect it with the iron fist of democracy. Obviously France cannot take care of themselves, and as the world becomes more and more violent due to sand people and crazies they are going to need all the protection they can get.
You are aware sand people and crazies flew 2 aircraft into the twin towers and one into the pentagon in 'Big Daddy America' and America did absolutely nothing to prevent it? Maybe America needs looking after?
Why are you so sure that that attack was carried out by real sand people? There's a lot of evidence suggesting that 9/11 was an inside job.
-
It's time for big daddy America to move in, occupy that place, and protect it with the iron fist of democracy. Obviously France cannot take care of themselves, and as the world becomes more and more violent due to sand people and crazies they are going to need all the protection they can get.
You are aware sand people and crazies flew 2 aircraft into the twin towers and one into the pentagon in 'Big Daddy America' and America did absolutely nothing to prevent it? Maybe America needs looking after?
"If America didn't want the WTC blown up, they should not have engaged in such aggressive foreign policy"
Classic victim-blaming.
-
And then there's this asshole (https://medium.com/@asgharbukhari/charlie-hebdo-this-attack-was-nothing-to-do-with-free-speech-it-was-about-war-26aff1c3e998).
I like how the writer calls an MQ-4C a 'freedom machine'. Those things are surveillance drones, they don't carry weaponry.
Looks like it's all over, GIGN raided both buildings within minutes of one another and reported the death of the perpetrators shortly afterwards. Quite a few interesting details coming out (if they're true) like someone informing on the terrorists from inside the hostage situation by hiding in a box. It's disappointing they ended up getting the martyrdom they wanted, these scumbags should have received a trial and rotted in jail.
-
It's disappointing they ended up getting the martyrdom they wanted, these scumbags should have received a trial and rotted in jail.
What? You'd rather they sit around wasting good money keeping them alive? Ew.
-
It's disappointing they ended up getting the martyrdom they wanted, these scumbags should have received a trial and rotted in jail.
What? You'd rather they sit around wasting good money keeping them alive? Ew.
Yes. They didn't deserve martyrdom, even though they received it by being turned into swiss cheese. I'd happily pay to see them exist, and watch as Hebdo not only survives but thrives.
-
Yes. They didn't deserve martyrdom, even though they received it by being turned into swiss cheese. I'd happily pay to see them exist, and watch as Hebdo not only survives but thrives.
I, on the other hand, don't care what they did/didn't want. What they think about themselves is meaningless. This kind of thinking is why movie killings are always drawn out and annoying. "I want to make sure this guy knows I'm about to kill him and for what reasons!" Shit don't matter, yo, guys gonna be dead in the end anyway.
-
Yes. They didn't deserve martyrdom, even though they received it by being turned into swiss cheese. I'd happily pay to see them exist, and watch as Hebdo not only survives but thrives.
I, on the other hand, don't care what they did/didn't want. What they think about themselves is meaningless. This kind of thinking is why movie killings are always drawn out and annoying. "I want to make sure this guy knows I'm about to kill him and for what reasons!" Shit don't matter, yo, guys gonna be dead in the end anyway.
I would also not want them to have a chance of spreading sedition in prison. They were put down, just like any dangerous animal should be.
-
All the terrorists will kill themselves and be granted 72 virgins each in the afterlife. Same as always.
http://youtu.be/TtS9ssgR9C4
-
I'm glad to see that there aren't any politicians or other public figures apologizing to the Muslim world for the cartoons themselves, as if their archaic rules about never depicting Mohammed or jeering at Islam have a shred of moral legitimacy to them, or are in any way compatible with a free society. At least, I haven't heard of any apologies.
-
Most orthodox religions should be reclassified as hate crimes/cults. Freedom of religion or speech doesn't (or shouldn't) cover the incitement of violence or laws which clash with the government. E.g. it should be a crime if you actively promote reading material which says you should stone your daughter to death or some other such nonsense.
Freedom of religion means you should not be bothered for what you believe in, it doesn't apply to physical things you're actually doing.
-
Most orthodox religions should be reclassified as hate crimes/cults. Freedom of religion or speech doesn't (or shouldn't) cover the incitement of violence or laws which clash with the government. E.g. it should be a crime if you actively promote reading material which says you should stone your daughter to death or some other such nonsense.
Freedom of religion means you should not be bothered for what you believe in, it doesn't apply to physical things you're actually doing.
You're a dirty communist.
-
It's a pipe dream, anyway. Any politician that suggests anything remotely like what I just said would best case never be voted in again and worse case murdered almost immediately after saying it.
-
Yes, because if what you said is applied then the Bible and other such books would be effectively banned due to the various heinous things they promote. People would cry and say you're trampling their freedom of speech and religion. It would be impossible to determine how one reads and interprets the Bible, so determining if they "promote violence etc" would be impossible.
-
Yes, because if what you said is applied then the Bible and other such books would be effectively banned due to the various heinous things they promote. People would cry and say you're trampling their freedom of speech and religion. It would be impossible to determine how one reads and interprets the Bible, so determining if they "promote violence etc" would be impossible.
Not banned in their entirety, I think a lot of their parts should be banned, though. Things like stoning people, honor killings, enforced circumcision, etc. should be removed. Since the bible/quran/etc is not advertised as fiction, you should not be allowed to advocate murder by using it and if you do it should be a hate crime.
Also it is very possible to determine the exact meaning of various verses, take this one for example:
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.
Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death.
It's really hard to do some sort of mental gymnastics to say that isn't a hate crime. It literally says "if someone does this murder them." That's no bueno.
-
I agree with your points, but ultimately the bible/quran/etc is fiction even though the advocates don't advertise them as such. This isn't so much a problem with the content of the books, but the mindset of the individual's reading these works of fiction.
And no one is allowed to advocate murder anyways. That's usually frowned upon and investigated, at least in good ol' US of A. Sadly not every country across our great disc is the USA, so some places are more lenient and/or tolerant of hate speech brought about by religious text. This is also where we get into things like Christians saying "oh that part is outdated and no longer applies lol" or "no you're interpreting it incorrectly".
All hate crimes, whether religiously motivated or not, should have appropriate punishments. However, I don't think religion is going away anytime soon if ever due to that little bit about freedom of religion and freedom of speech, which sometimes can be more detrimental than helpful, especially in the cause of Islam. But I'm not going to pretend that Islam is the biggest offender, because Christianity, Judaism, and others were just as violent at some point in their histories.
Also, banning certain parts of religious texts is not going to change anything. People will still cling to the old ways.
The problem with religion is that it was conceived to begin with, now it's going to be very difficult to do away with.
-
I agree with your points, but ultimately the bible/quran/etc is fiction even though the advocates don't advertise them as such. This isn't so much a problem with the content of the books, but the mindset of the individual's reading these works of fiction.
The majority of the world thinks that at least one of those books isn't fiction.
And no one is allowed to advocate murder anyways. That's usually frowned upon and investigated, at least in good ol' US of A. Sadly not every country across our great disc is the USA, so some places are more lenient and/or tolerant of hate speech brought about by religious text. This is also where we get into things like Christians saying "oh that part is outdated and no longer applies lol" or "no you're interpreting it incorrectly".
And yet the books literally advocate murder, and as I said before, most of the world doesn't think they're fiction.
All hate crimes, whether religiously motivated or not, should have appropriate punishments. However, I don't think religion is going away anytime soon if ever due to that little bit about freedom of religion and freedom of speech, which sometimes can be more detrimental than helpful, especially in the cause of Islam. But I'm not going to pretend that Islam is the biggest offender, because Christianity, Judaism, and others were just as violent at some point in their histories.
Religious hate crimes get special treatment; they get to hand out murder books without repercussion, then we all act surprised when religious extremists murder people. Cause meet effect.
-
Let's take a look at The Catcher in the Rye.
Mark David Chapman identified with this book as if it were a religious text, so much so that he wanted to change his name to Holden Caulfield. He is on record stating that this book was the main motivation behind his killing of John Lennon. Another killer, Robert John Bardo, also identified with this book and cited it as his motivation to kill Rebecca Schaeffer.
Should The Cather in the Rye be banned? Ultimately, the Bible and anything like it is fiction, but there are crazies out there that will take everything in it literally and follow it to the letter... there are crazies out there that also murder people because of The Cather in the Rye and other fictitious books, of course the number of those crazies is significantly smaller in the latter's case, but it has still happened and people are dead because of it.
Now, let's say that these people were mentally disturbed and killed because of a deep rooted psychological problem... then the same exact thing can be said of religious fanatics. Religion is arguably a mental illness, and murdering for religious reasons can be associated with that easily. That's why we have to take every murder, hate crime, stoning, etc on a case by case basis and punish the individual instead of the catalyst.
-
Let's take a look at The Catcher in the Rye.
Mark David Chapman identified with this book as if it were a religious text, so much so that he wanted to change his name to Holden Caulfield. He is on record stating that this book was the main motivation behind his killing of John Lennon. Another killer, Robert John Bardo, also identified with this book and cited it as his motivation to kill Rebecca Schaeffer.
Should The Cather in the Rye be banned? Ultimately, the Bible and anything like it is fiction, but there are crazies out there that will take everything in it literally and follow it to the letter... there are crazies out there that also murder people because of The Cather in the Rye and other fictitious books, of course the number of those crazies is significantly smaller in the latter's case, but it has still happened and people are dead because of it.
Now, let's say that these people were mentally disturbed and killed because of a deep rooted psychological problem... then the same exact thing can be said of religious fanatics. Religion is arguably a mental illness, and murdering for religious reasons can be associated with that easily. That's why we have to take every murder, hate crime, stoning, etc on a case by case basis and punish the individual instead of the catalyst.
Are there people at there airport handing out flyers about how "The Cather [sic] in the Rye" is a religious text and it is the word of god? Do bookstores sell it in the religious section? Sorry, but this has to be trolling. If you have a moral problem with what I believe, that's fine, but don't insult yourself by professing this bollocks of a rebuttal.
-
Are there people at there airport handing out flyers about how "The Cather [sic] in the Rye" is a religious text and it is the word of god? Do bookstores sell it in the religious section? Sorry, but this has to be trolling. If you have a moral problem with what I believe, that's fine, but don't insult yourself by professing this bollocks of a rebuttal.
No, but they could... and many groups that hand out religious flyers do not go on to murder people or commit hate crimes, so I don't understand the connection you're trying to make. You can't lump those people together with extremists who murder people just because of some murderous cartoon rampage fueled by murder books. You can't control what people do, and if you start banning specific sentences from religious texts then you're on a very slippery slope which leads to book burning and censorship and ultimately state-controlled trial without jury execution parties.
-
Yes. They didn't deserve martyrdom, even though they received it by being turned into swiss cheese. I'd happily pay to see them exist, and watch as Hebdo not only survives but thrives.
I, on the other hand, don't care what they did/didn't want. What they think about themselves is meaningless. This kind of thinking is why movie killings are always drawn out and annoying. "I want to make sure this guy knows I'm about to kill him and for what reasons!" Shit don't matter, yo, guys gonna be dead in the end anyway.
I would also not want them to have a chance of spreading sedition in prison. They were put down, just like any dangerous animal should be.
They would be much less dangerous than the many free radicals that exist, so it doesn't matter.
-
Oxygen is the most dangerous free radical.
-
Oxygen is the most dangerous free radical.
Unlike argon, it is not a noble gas.
-
Oxygen is the most dangerous free radical.
Unlike argon, it is not a noble gas.
4/10 felt forced
-
Yes. They didn't deserve martyrdom, even though they received it by being turned into swiss cheese. I'd happily pay to see them exist, and watch as Hebdo not only survives but thrives.
I, on the other hand, don't care what they did/didn't want. What they think about themselves is meaningless. This kind of thinking is why movie killings are always drawn out and annoying. "I want to make sure this guy knows I'm about to kill him and for what reasons!" Shit don't matter, yo, guys gonna be dead in the end anyway.
I would also not want them to have a chance of spreading sedition in prison. They were put down, just like any dangerous animal should be.
They would be much less dangerous than the many free radicals that exist, so it doesn't matter.
It matters even less when they are dead.
-
Yes. They didn't deserve martyrdom, even though they received it by being turned into swiss cheese. I'd happily pay to see them exist, and watch as Hebdo not only survives but thrives.
I, on the other hand, don't care what they did/didn't want. What they think about themselves is meaningless. This kind of thinking is why movie killings are always drawn out and annoying. "I want to make sure this guy knows I'm about to kill him and for what reasons!" Shit don't matter, yo, guys gonna be dead in the end anyway.
I would also not want them to have a chance of spreading sedition in prison. They were put down, just like any dangerous animal should be.
They would be much less dangerous than the many free radicals that exist, so it doesn't matter.
It matters even less when they are dead.
Do you know what a martyr is?
-
Yes. They didn't deserve martyrdom, even though they received it by being turned into swiss cheese. I'd happily pay to see them exist, and watch as Hebdo not only survives but thrives.
I, on the other hand, don't care what they did/didn't want. What they think about themselves is meaningless. This kind of thinking is why movie killings are always drawn out and annoying. "I want to make sure this guy knows I'm about to kill him and for what reasons!" Shit don't matter, yo, guys gonna be dead in the end anyway.
I would also not want them to have a chance of spreading sedition in prison. They were put down, just like any dangerous animal should be.
They would be much less dangerous than the many free radicals that exist, so it doesn't matter.
It matters even less when they are dead.
Do you know what a martyr is?
Do you know what sedition is? I will give you a hint. You must be alive to engage in it.
-
Why do so many people bother with spiting them? You don't have to make sure they know they've lost, they're dead. Are you worried they really did get 72 virgins? I'm not. Besides, the fuck kind of reward is that, anyway? 72 starfishes is not a fucking reward.
-
Why do so many people bother with spiting them? You don't have to make sure they know they've lost, they're dead. Are you worried they really did get 72 virgins? I'm not. Besides, the fuck kind of reward is that, anyway? 72 starfishes is not a fucking reward.
Lol. I think all the marches is to show some undefined outgroup that they are not afraid. Nothing tells me you are in need of security more than an impulse to gather in a large group.
-
1,000,000 people marched against terrorism that hurt a handful of people. Financial terrorism that effects everyone has no such condemnation. People are dumb.
-
1,000,000 people marched against terrorism that hurt a handful of people. Financial terrorism that effects everyone has no such condemnation. People are dumb.
Yes, murdering people has a stronger reaction than foreclosing their house. Can't explain that!
-
1,000,000 people marched against terrorism that hurt a handful of people. Financial terrorism that effects everyone has no such condemnation. People are dumb.
Yes, murdering people has a stronger reaction than foreclosing their house. Can't explain that!
Murdering half a dozen people has a stronger reaction than foreclosing on the homes of hundreds of thousands. I think perspective is being asked to shut up again.
-
1,000,000 people marched against terrorism that hurt a handful of people. Financial terrorism that effects everyone has no such condemnation. People are dumb.
Yes, murdering people has a stronger reaction than foreclosing their house. Can't explain that!
Murdering half a dozen people has a stronger reaction than foreclosing on the homes of hundreds of thousands. I think perspective is being asked to shut up again.
Nah. It's totally in perspective. As in the "I'm not being foreclosed so why should I care" perspective. You know, first person.
-
Murdering half a dozen people has a stronger reaction than foreclosing on the homes of hundreds of thousands. I think perspective is being asked to shut up again.
Violent crimes are always prioritized over property crimes. If you think the opposite, that's fine, just don't come in here lording over the thread like it's silly to have an opinion that is different from yours.
-
Violent crimes are always prioritized over property crimes.
Rubbish. Assault a man and you won't get very long in prison - no time at all if it is a first offence. Electronically steal a few million from a bank, first offense or not you will never see the light of day again.
-
Rubbish. Assault a man and you won't get very long in prison - no time at all if it is a first offence. Electronically steal a few million from a bank, first offense or not you will never see the light of day again.
I don't understand how that is relevant to what I said. You were complaining people were marching in response to murders instead of foreclosures, now you say this. Are you keeping up with your own discussion or do you just type out whatever comes to mind and then hit the post button?
-
My point was all these people go crazy over a half dozen deaths, but won't come out and march when they are all defrauded by the global financial system. I think its bizarre.
-
My point was all these people go crazy over a half dozen deaths, but won't come out and march when they are all defrauded by the global financial system. I think its bizarre.
I don't think it's bizarre. Wow, great discussion Thork. I'm glad we could just sit around and say what we feel without any supporting points or thoughts. It really drives a good, engaging discourse of the subject.
-
I frankly find this whole Paris thing a complete waste of time. Millions of French stood about and trudged very slowly down a street. Do you think Jihadists care they did that? Or is it to influence politicians? Because I think if anything politicians are behind this march. I wouldn't be surprised if funding for this event was state sponsored. Its was called 'unity' and was about pushing multiculturalism, which opinion polls suggest is actually very unpopular in Europe. Politicians and news networks have leapt on this event and used it to garner support for further integration. At no point has anyone said "maybe if we didn't have an open doors immigration policy, jihadists wouldn't live amongst us". The whole thing has been designed to stifle the obvious thought in order to carry on with the low-wage agenda.
-
My point was all these people go crazy over a half dozen deaths, but won't come out and march when they are all defrauded by the global financial system. I think its bizarre.
Is this when you post a picture of The Joker?
-
You know, I didn't notice that Thork actually sounds like that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-gf29nuYYA
-
ITT: Something in the world happens that may give Thork's political party of choice the tiniest semblance of legitimacy. Thork immediately proceeds to discredit everything to do with the event.
Not a pointless contrarian at all. :-*
-
It's almost like the human brain doesn't attach the same emotional significance to money as it does to death.
-
It's almost like the human brain doesn't attach the same emotional significance to money as it does to death.
This would be true if we could prove that Thork's brain isn't human as Thork's brain does in fact attribute a higher importance to money over death. You need only read his comments in this thread and the "Pandemic Alert!" thread to verify my previous statement.
-
It's almost like the human brain doesn't attach the same emotional significance to money as it does to death.
This would be great if we could prove that Thork's brain isn't human as Thork's brain does in fact attribute a higher importance to money over death. One need only read his comments in this thread and the "Pandemic Alert!" thread to verify my previous statement.
Thork thinks he's special because he can out logic the masses when in reality it isn't a hard thing to do. It's also pretty irrelevant to mention the GFC.
-
It's almost like the human brain doesn't attach the same emotional significance to money as it does to death.
This would be true if we could prove that Thork's brain isn't human as Thork's brain does in fact attribute a higher importance to money over death. You need only read his comments in this thread and the "Pandemic Alert!" thread to verify my previous statement.
I was right about the 'pandemic'. I called it very early ... that there would be no pandemic even though every scientist and news station said there would be. There are still under 8,000 deaths 10 months later. 10 times as many people were killed in the Syrian conflict last year, yet ebola deserved $1bn. I can see doctor evil right now demanding it. One Billion Dollars, muhahahahaha!
Thork thinks he's special because he can out logic the masses when in reality it isn't a hard thing to do. It's also pretty irrelevant to mention the GFC.
Well you are part of the masses, so shush noisy mass! >:(
-
I was right about the 'pandemic'. I called it very early ... that there would be no pandemic even though every scientist and news station said there would be. There are still under 8,000 deaths 10 months later. 10 times as many people were killed in the Syrian conflict last year, yet ebola deserved $1bn. I can see doctor evil right now demanding it. One Billion Dollars, muhahahahaha!
Thork... it didn't get worse because a lot of money and people were thrown at the problem. You can't say that "i told u so lolololol" when the world did exactly the opposite of what you advised. You claimed if we ignored the problem it would go away and we were better off giving rubber boots to the midwest. You are literally the worst and I for one am glad you make no decisions whatsoever that affect the health and safety of anyone on this planet.
-
Until he becomes a dad. It's only a matter of time before business lady comes around.
-
Thork... it didn't get worse because a lot of money and people were thrown at the problem. You can't say that "i told u so lolololol" when the world did exactly the opposite of what you advised. You claimed if we ignored the problem it would go away...
This reminds me of people who complain about the issue with the ozone layer never amounting to anything, and that's why we shouldn't trust scientists about anything and global warming is a lie and blah blah blah. Granted, part of the blame probably lies with the media for overhyping problems and never caring as much about their solutions, but it's still remarkable how often people get confused between solving a problem and the problem never being real to begin with.
Where's Chris? He should find this amusing:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11338985/Fox-News-terror-expert-says-everyone-in-Birmingham-is-a-Muslim.html
-
I was right about the 'pandemic'. I called it very early ... that there would be no pandemic even though every scientist and news station said there would be. There are still under 8,000 deaths 10 months later. 10 times as many people were killed in the Syrian conflict last year, yet ebola deserved $1bn. I can see doctor evil right now demanding it. One Billion Dollars, muhahahahaha!
Thork... it didn't get worse because a lot of money and people were thrown at the problem. You can't say that "i told u so lolololol" when the world did exactly the opposite of what you advised. You claimed if we ignored the problem it would go away and we were better off giving rubber boots to the midwest. You are literally the worst and I for one am glad you make no decisions whatsoever that affect the health and safety of anyone on this planet.
No, the WHO and UN demanded 1 billion dollars. They did not get anywhere near that and the problem still went away. If they had been given the money ... would they have given it back? No chance. It would all have been spent for the same outcome.
-
I never said they got 1 billion dollars... Where did you read that? I give up discussing your nonsense if you're not going to actually try to counter points which destroy your argument.
-
Until he becomes a dad. It's only a matter of time before business lady comes around.
No sooner had I had dinner with business woman she was calling me up for more dinners. Tonight she said she must buy me dinner as a thank you for helping her at work. Anyway, I told her 'no more dinners. Its too much like a date'. She's only wasting my time. :(
-
Don't worry, you're bound to find someone to knock up sooner or later. Then you'll be a dad and you'll finally have real power.
-
Stop Thorking up the thread. Let's see what's going on in France:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/14/france-terror-crackdown_n_6469726.html
inb4 markjo comes in and says something incredibly witty and insightful like "So much for free speech."
-
France isn't the US, they never had free speech. Isn't holocaust denial illegal over there?
Frankly, anyone espousing those opinions is a fuckwit, and while I don't necessarily agree with detaining them (in that it not only makes it worse, but violates muh free speech), I'm not going to complain that they are detained.
-
You agree with the principle of free speech, but you don't care if it exists or not
-
You agree with the principle of free speech, but you don't care if it exists or not
Yes. One response is reasoned, one is emotional.
-
http://time.com/3674900/paris-mayor-fox-news/
Very amusing.
-
Until he becomes a dad. It's only a matter of time before business lady comes around.
No sooner had I had dinner with business woman she was calling me up for more dinners. Tonight she said she must buy me dinner as a thank you for helping her at work. Anyway, I told her 'no more dinners. Its too much like a date'. She's only wasting my time. :(
Thork will get to bag this ho soon. Reject her once more, then move in for the kill.
-
“When we’re insulted, and when we’ve had an image, then I think we’ll have to sue, I think we’ll have to go to court, in order to have these words removed,” Hidalgo told Amanpour in an interview. “The image of Paris has been prejudiced, and the honor of Paris has been prejudiced.”
It's really a wonder that Faux News is still a thing. They must to be a front for the shadow government. It seems like no matter how much bad press they get, they still come out on top and continue saying and doing stupid things.
-
Yes, it is a complete mystery as to how the most popular news network on the face of the Earth continues to "come out on top."
-
Yes, it is a complete mystery as to how the most popular news network on the face of the Earth continues to "come out on top."
The mystery is how they are the most popular news network on the face of the Earth when all I hear from people is how much they suck. Who's dick are they sucking?
-
The mystery is how they are the most popular news network on the face of the Earth when all I hear from people is how much they suck. Who's dick are they sucking?
What people are you talking to that say this? Do they exist outside the interwebs? Are you aware that there are people in the world that you don't hear from at all?
-
Yes, it is a complete mystery as to how the most popular news network on the face of the Earth continues to "come out on top."
The mystery is how they are the most popular news network on the face of the Earth when all I hear from people is how much they suck. Who's dick are they sucking?
Older conservatives. A very large demographic, but one you aren't likely to interact with, as an enlightened young male who lives on the internet.
-
PP2 I did not choose you. Go away.
-
I'm actually surrounded by more conservatives than I am comfortable with.
-
Thork and Tom are not even here yet.
-
I'm actually surrounded by more conservatives than I am comfortable with.
Surely not in your neighborhood though. They seem like a liberal bunch.
-
They seem like a liberal bunch.
I think the word you're looking for is 'black'.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/15/europe/denmark-shooting/
Oh no. :(
-
#danishlivesmatter