krispy kremlin wrote:
For the past ten years I've consistently listened to NPR while commuting to work - I only change the channel to music stations when the conversation becomes racists or saturated with ridiculous cultural irrelevance (about 3 or 4 times a week).
How is singling people out for being Muslim any better than racism?
Well duh wrote:
Agip wrote:Right now, right here, it seems very obvious to me that Europe and the English speaking foreign colonies are indeed exactly better than other societies. At other times that was not true. But your moral equivalencing the west and Islamic countries is nonsensical.
In other words, it is meaningless to do what you are doing- trying to fling the turd of hypocrisy on the west. Let's just look at the now.
I will grant you that my method of trying to bring my point to fruition was convoluted.
That said, I feel you're still missing what I'm trying to get at. KK thinks that he is better than Muslims, has more of a right to live here than they do, etc. My point is that he is not, and does not. My point is that people will do what they will do to get what they want, and because he already has most of what he wants, he can sit on the internet and participate in a fear-based wave of anti-Islam rhetoric. If he had been born 200 years ago he would probably be pro-slavery and all that mess.
I'm, again, not trying to refute that now extreme fundamentalist Muslims are the predominate source of terrorist activity globally. That doesn't make Muslims worse people than anyone else.
Kk, is it true that you think you are better than Muslims and that you have more of a right to be here than Muslims?
I'll agree that even in the 1940s and 50s kk would have been a states righter, fighting federally commanded desegregation, saying that the federal govt has no right to come into a state and tell the locals what to do.
Well duh wrote:
krispy kremlin wrote:For the past ten years I've consistently listened to NPR while commuting to work - I only change the channel to music stations when the conversation becomes racists or saturated with ridiculous cultural irrelevance (about 3 or 4 times a week).
How is singling people out for being Muslim any better than racism?
That's like saying singling out people because of their politics is like racism.
You have to actively decide to become a Muslim, unlike race. If you have concluded that Islam is a wicked religion and Muslims should be singled out...you are stupid but it's notthe same thing as racism.
Well duh wrote:
undercover of the night wrote:Don't bother. This is what people like him do, exactly what you described above. They do it to blacks (too) all the time on here (and everywhere else)- focus on black crime, wait, change that, OBSESS about black crime, and then paint the entire black race as "criminals", "animals", etc, while completely ignoring the horrendous crimes committed by whites every day in our country.
Hey, here's an idea: if you want to draw a black and white picture of who is pure good and who is pure evil, which what they seem to like to do (white americans on one side, blacks and muslims on the other) based on which groups commit more horrific violent acts, then let's do it by gender instead. What do we have now? If these clowns like KK were consistent they'd say:
'MALES ARE EVIL! We need to stop males from being so violent and committing such horrific acts. Don't even try to compare the few crimes by women to what MALES do, it's simply not comparable. MEN have a violence problem. MEN have a crime problem. MEN ARE A SCOURGE ON SOCIETY."
But do they say this? no of course not. But they don't mind making such blanket statements about blacks in this country, or muslims elsewhere. Hypocrites.
First, I'll say I appreciate the gender analogy. It's an even more consistent line than grouping by religion or ethnicity because it's not geographically determined.
I must also point out that there is substantial statistical evidence that blacks in America are more likely to commit crime (by a percentage of total population). This we can't ignore. That said, it has nothing to do with the fact that they are black; it has everything to do with the situations they are born into, and how they respond to it. People from lower socio-economic statuses are more likely to commit crime, or at least have higher incarceration rates. But it is no one's fault if they are born into poor situations. It is the fault of past white Americans that blacks are on average more disadvantaged than whites. And the current people in power are not doing nearly enough to remedy the situation; the widening of the gap between the rich and poor is worsening it. I will add to that that clearly socio-economic status is not the only determining factor in one's criminal inclinations.
You can't look at one factor, be it race, religion, social class, location, whatever, and say pointedly that you know how that person will turn out or what their behavior will be. Humans are more complex than that. But it's convenient for people like KK to do that because then he can continue to perpetuate the beliefs and actions that have afforded him so much more than most people in the world, past and present.
I don't think I've ever spoken about race in a derogatory way on this website - if you can find an example when I have, I'd like to see it.
If you interpret what I say as racist, I would ask you to re-evaluate the lens through which you read my words.
"Perpetuate the beliefs and actions"...? So wait a minute, you can talk about Native Americans - does that mean I can talk about overcoming the oppression of the Nazis and Japs of the early 1940s?
Anglo-saxon males 1 - liberal beliefs that all voices are equal 0
How about citing.... wrote:
How about citing a single incident.
Better yet give us an incident where an NRA ("gun culture") Christian went on a killing spree in the name of Christianity.
Just 1!
You are a liberal blowhard terrorist apologist nothing more, nothing less.
We will be waiting for your findings.....
....crickets.
Chirp chirp chirp... wrote:
How about citing.... wrote:How about citing a single incident.
Better yet give us an incident where an NRA ("gun culture") Christian went on a killing spree in the name of Christianity.
Just 1!
You are a liberal blowhard terrorist apologist nothing more, nothing less.
We will be waiting for your findings.....
....crickets.
I suspect something here will meet your needs.
http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/10-worst-terror-attacks-extreme-christians-and-far-right-white-menkrispy kremlin wrote:
Anglo-saxon males 1 - liberal beliefs that all voices are equal 0
This is exactly the type of thinking that needs to be discouraged.
You also haven't addressed my question as to how you think racial and religious discrimination are so different. That's why I brought up race. I wasn't saying you are racist but your views towards people based on religion are essentially the same thing.
Agip wrote:
Chirp chirp chirp... wrote:....crickets.
I suspect something here will meet your needs.
http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/10-worst-terror-attacks-extreme-christians-and-far-right-white-men
None of the examples show evidence of a Christian "jihadist," none of the racist you cited were NRA Members...so you failed to cite a single example.
Other than your hatred of whites, which is transparent, I see no relevance in your post.
-Not a White Guy BTW.
Kk man I think I have scored multiple hits on you - acknowledge or fight back.
Agip wrote:
Kk man I think I have scored multiple hits on you - acknowledge or fight back.
...that you are a dillusional libtard.
Congrats you are like every libtard before you....
you are Clueless.
Not exactly.... wrote:
None of the examples show evidence of a Christian "jihadist," none of the racist you cited were NRA Members...so you failed to cite a single example.
Other than your hatred of whites, which is transparent, I see no relevance in your post.
-Not a White Guy BTW.
Jihad is not a part of the Christian vocabulary so there's not just thing as a Christian jihadist.
Again, jihad means struggle, and the dumbing down of terms used by other groups (in this case Muslims) to refer to the actions of a small sect of that group (in this case extreme fundamentalists) hurts the entire group, and only perpetuates the divide between Eastern and Western cultures.
What exactly is your point w.r.t the NRA? That you have to be a member of the NRA to support the right to bear arms? To be an American?
I'm not perceiving a hatred of whites from agip. Moreover, this isn't a white vs black, Christian vs Muslim issue. It's an issue of how we can globally encourage understanding and tolerance of other cultures and stop perceiving people as different because they were (by sheer, random chance) born into a different culture than us. Lack of tolerance is what drives ISIS and other like groups, but it also hurts society when it comes from the other side.
Well duh wrote:
krispy kremlin wrote:Anglo-saxon males 1 - liberal beliefs that all voices are equal 0
This is exactly the type of thinking that needs to be discouraged.
You also haven't addressed my question as to how you think racial and religious discrimination are so different. That's why I brought up race. I wasn't saying you are racist but your views towards people based on religion are essentially the same thing.
"Well duh" - I was hesitant to wade into this conversation because of that reason but I felt too much liberal rim-shining was occurring regarding this issue. Fundamental to my defense is that, as agip mentioned: you are born into a race but you choose a religion (don't take this off the rail about free will, please).
But I want to go back to your first point:
Wait a minute... I can't emphasize the accomplishments of my race...? I can't remind people that the greatest culture this world has ever seen is a result of my western European ancestry?
"Well duh", I want you to turn around and tell everyone else that they can no longer talk about what their bothers and sisters and parents and grandparents have done/gone through/believed in. If you do not do this right now it is I that will be calling you a racist and a bigot.
Liberals - I want an answer to your racism.
Well duh wrote:
Not exactly.... wrote:None of the examples show evidence of a Christian "jihadist," none of the racist you cited were NRA Members...so you failed to cite a single example.
Other than your hatred of whites, which is transparent, I see no relevance in your post.
-Not a White Guy BTW.
Jihad is not a part of the Christian vocabulary so there's not just thing as a Christian jihadist.
Again, jihad means struggle, and the dumbing down of terms used by other groups (in this case Muslims) to refer to the actions of a small sect of that group (in this case extreme fundamentalists) hurts the entire group, and only perpetuates the divide between Eastern and Western cultures.
What exactly is your point w.r.t the NRA? That you have to be a member of the NRA to support the right to bear arms? To be an American?
I'm not perceiving a hatred of whites from agip. Moreover, this isn't a white vs black, Christian vs Muslim issue. It's an issue of how we can globally encourage understanding and tolerance of other cultures and stop perceiving people as different because they were (by sheer, random chance) born into a different culture than us. Lack of tolerance is what drives ISIS and other like groups, but it also hurts society when it comes from the other side.
That is right terrorist "jihad" doesn't exist with Christians. Thanks for proving the point.
You can keep apologizing for the terrorist $hit sticks I will maintain the reality they are all evil c0ck suckkers!
Chirp chirp chirp... wrote:
How about citing.... wrote:How about citing a single incident.
Better yet give us an incident where an NRA ("gun culture") Christian went on a killing spree in the name of Christianity.
Just 1!
You are a liberal blowhard terrorist apologist nothing more, nothing less.
We will be waiting for your findings.....
....crickets.
I never said it was SPECIFICALLY an NRA member going on a killing spree in the name of christianity. Those are your words (though I am sure it has happened).
What I said was: a Christian person (considered himself as such, went to church) going on a killing spree. I also said likely partly due to being brought up in a sick, gun-culture/violent society (and there is no doubt that describes america perfectly). Here's one example of a good "christian"'s killing spree:
(there are many more)-
What this sick ba$tard did is as bad as ANY crimes by muslims. But i guess it doesn't count because he didn't do it "in the name of his religion" ?? Frankly, who cares what his reasons were. The bottom line is: he was considered a "good christian" and then went out and committed mind blowing atrocities. All because he didn't get his way. Sick, sick f-ck:
http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/man-dressed-as-santa-kills-at-least-8-at-holiday-party/"By many accounts, Pardo was an unassuming, religious man who served regularly as an usher at evening Mass at Holy Redeemer Catholic Church in Montrose.
Pardo had volunteered to usher at the midnight Mass on Christmas Eve that began as the rampage was unfolding in Covina."
A guy like that is WAY MORE LIKELY TO KILL YOU OR ANY AMERICAN than some terrorist sitting in a cave somewhere. Believe it. Stop pretending the bogeyman is a muslim, while he is really the american christian guy who lives next door to you, maybe your pal, maybe, and from your past behavior on here, quite LIKELY............YOU
krispy kremlin wrote:
"Well duh" - I was hesitant to wade into this conversation because of that reason but I felt too much liberal rim-shining was occurring regarding this issue. Fundamental to my defense is that, as agip mentioned: you are born into a race but you choose a religion (don't take this off the rail about free will, please).
But I want to go back to your first point:
Wait a minute... I can't emphasize the accomplishments of my race...? I can't remind people that the greatest culture this world has ever seen is a result of my western European ancestry?
"Well duh", I want you to turn around and tell everyone else that they can no longer talk about what their bothers and sisters and parents and grandparents have done/gone through/believed in. If you do not do this right now it is I that will be calling you a racist and a bigot.
Liberals - I want an answer to your racism.
This is why I brought up the history issue though, which everyone seems so adverse to. First of all, "great culture" is subjective, although I do believe our culture to be in many ways superior to most of the world. Second of all, if it weren't for many of the things I mentioned before, acts against other races/cultures etc., our current culture would be unrecognizable. If you want to tout how great our culture is you can't ignore what was done to create it. Any extreme fundamentalist could say the same thing you are (that they're part of a superior belief system and the ends justify the means) but the fact remains that any culture where that thinking is mainstream is not ideal.
And given the fact that religion is so geographically segregated, you cannot argue that it is merely a matter of choice. You don't choose where you are born or what your parents or culture raise you to believe. If it were purely choice, and your surrounding environment were not at play, then there would be an even distribution of all religions everywhere. So you're just wrong there.
And I will eagerly say that any accomplishments by my parents, grandparents, siblings, and myself, are due in large part to the opportunities and circumstances that surrounded them and only in small part to the individual themselves. Same goes for you. The notion that you can have more of an influence on your outcome than the billions of years and thousands of ancestors that preceded you is just ridiculous.
We are all just products of our environment. We should make every effort within our abilities to do what we determine is right for ourselves and those around us (all across the globe) and so we can't shun our responsibility. But no one is self-made, and no one is self-destructive. Life is complicated, you're trying to dumb it down to talking points.
undercover of the night wrote:
Chirp chirp chirp... wrote:....crickets.
I never said it was SPECIFICALLY an NRA member going on a killing spree in the name of christianity. Those are your words (though I am sure it has happened).
What I said was: a Christian person (considered himself as such, went to church) going on a killing spree. I also said likely partly due to being brought up in a sick, gun-culture/violent society (and there is no doubt that describes america perfectly). Here's one example of a good "christian"'s killing spree:
(there are many more)-
What this sick ba$tard did is as bad as ANY crimes by muslims. But i guess it doesn't count because he didn't do it "in the name of his religion" ?? Frankly, who cares what his reasons were. The bottom line is: he was considered a "good christian" and then went out and committed mind blowing atrocities. All because he didn't get his way. Sick, sick f-ck:
http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/man-dressed-as-santa-kills-at-least-8-at-holiday-party/"By many accounts, Pardo was an unassuming, religious man who served regularly as an usher at evening Mass at Holy Redeemer Catholic Church in Montrose.
Pardo had volunteered to usher at the midnight Mass on Christmas Eve that began as the rampage was unfolding in Covina."
A guy like that is WAY MORE LIKELY TO KILL YOU OR ANY AMERICAN than some terrorist sitting in a cave somewhere. Believe it. Stop pretending the bogeyman is a muslim, while he is really the american christian guy who lives next door to you, maybe your pal, maybe, and from your past behavior on here, quite LIKELY............YOU
But I am not a Christian. Your personal attack and lack of an argument that the terrorist who hacked up the blogger are nothing more than evil c0ck suckkers means one thing FOR SURE........
I WIN.
Well duh wrote:
krispy kremlin wrote:"Well duh" - I was hesitant to wade into this conversation because of that reason but I felt too much liberal rim-shining was occurring regarding this issue. Fundamental to my defense is that, as agip mentioned: you are born into a race but you choose a religion (don't take this off the rail about free will, please).
But I want to go back to your first point:
Wait a minute... I can't emphasize the accomplishments of my race...? I can't remind people that the greatest culture this world has ever seen is a result of my western European ancestry?
"Well duh", I want you to turn around and tell everyone else that they can no longer talk about what their bothers and sisters and parents and grandparents have done/gone through/believed in. If you do not do this right now it is I that will be calling you a racist and a bigot.
Liberals - I want an answer to your racism.
This is why I brought up the history issue though, which everyone seems so adverse to. First of all, "great culture" is subjective, although I do believe our culture to be in many ways superior to most of the world. Second of all, if it weren't for many of the things I mentioned before, acts against other races/cultures etc., our current culture would be unrecognizable. If you want to tout how great our culture is you can't ignore what was done to create it. Any extreme fundamentalist could say the same thing you are (that they're part of a superior belief system and the ends justify the means) but the fact remains that any culture where that thinking is mainstream is not ideal.
And given the fact that religion is so geographically segregated, you cannot argue that it is merely a matter of choice. You don't choose where you are born or what your parents or culture raise you to believe. If it were purely choice, and your surrounding environment were not at play, then there would be an even distribution of all religions everywhere. So you're just wrong there.
And I will eagerly say that any accomplishments by my parents, grandparents, siblings, and myself, are due in large part to the opportunities and circumstances that surrounded them and only in small part to the individual themselves. Same goes for you. The notion that you can have more of an influence on your outcome than the billions of years and thousands of ancestors that preceded you is just ridiculous.
We are all just products of our environment. We should make every effort within our abilities to do what we determine is right for ourselves and those around us (all across the globe) and so we can't shun our responsibility. But no one is self-made, and no one is self-destructive. Life is complicated, you're trying to dumb it down to talking points.
Four paragraphs - four blind statements.
1. Great - our culture did some less than acceptable things - by standards of today. What they did at that time are completely justifiable.
2. Wrong. Ok, geography determines religion. But I draw the line at its determination to make one a suicide bomber/jihadist. At a certain point the individual become responsible for their decisions - and if they/we/culture has reached a point that the individual can no longer be responsible for his/her decisions then we need to ask questions about the specific culture/environment/religion - hence this thread.
3. "The circumstances that surrounded them" were an effect of their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents. At some point, some where down the line the right decision was made. At some point in my lineage, a great grand^n father made the decision that he didn't want to raise his kids in east africa. At another point, one of my grandfathers said eastern europe wasn't good enough - and said "let's move west". It is not [completely] geographical-determination, it is not [completely] individual determination, it is linage-determination.
Difficult decision were made. Liberalism ignores this and says it all comes down to chance - which is a slap in the face to anyone who has in any way achieved something such that they can pass it on to their children. "To create a better life for my family" was at one time a real american value (none of this 'white picket fence" marketing-liiberal bs) - your argument attempts to kill this belief - hence: rampant liberalism is gutting the middle class of america and leaving us in an undirectionist plane ripe for invasion. - krispy
4. Make every attempt to better your individual station along with that of your family within a moral framework. Outside of that, stop wasting my time.
krispy kremlin wrote:
...
4. Make every attempt to better your individual station along with that of your family within a moral framework. Outside of that, stop wasting my time.
Only you can waste your own time/
The Koran advises us:
Make war on and kill those who don't accept Islam. (Sura 9.5, 9.29-31)
Anyone who dies fighting for Allah will go to heaven. (47.4-6)
Unbelievers are the vilest of all creatures. (8.55)
Appropriate punishments for opposing Islam include execution, crucifixion, the cutting off of hands and feet, and exile. (5.33)
It seems quite clear to me that this is not a book people should follow for how to go about living their lives. We need to be able to criticize bad ideas and people who act in the name of these ideas. Western liberals' reluctance to criticize Islam is a real problem.
krispy kremlin wrote:
Four paragraphs - four blind statements.
1. Great - our culture did some less than acceptable things - by standards of today. What they did at that time are completely justifiable.
2. Wrong. Ok, geography determines religion. But I draw the line at its determination to make one a suicide bomber/jihadist. At a certain point the individual become responsible for their decisions - and if they/we/culture has reached a point that the individual can no longer be responsible for his/her decisions then we need to ask questions about the specific culture/environment/religion - hence this thread.
3. "The circumstances that surrounded them" were an effect of their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents. At some point, some where down the line the right decision was made. At some point in my lineage, a great grand^n father made the decision that he didn't want to raise his kids in east africa. At another point, one of my grandfathers said eastern europe wasn't good enough - and said "let's move west". It is not [completely] geographical-determination, it is not [completely] individual determination, it is linage-determination.
Difficult decision were made. Liberalism ignores this and says it all comes down to chance - which is a slap in the face to anyone who has in any way achieved something such that they can pass it on to their children. "To create a better life for my family" was at one time a real american value (none of this 'white picket fence" marketing-liiberal bs) - your argument attempts to kill this belief - hence: rampant liberalism is gutting the middle class of america and leaving us in an undirectionist plane ripe for invasion. - krispy
4. Make every attempt to better your individual station along with that of your family within a moral framework. Outside of that, stop wasting my time.
1. Justifiable by what standards? Standards of the day? Irrelevant if we're going by your logic. Standards by today? No, they were not justifiable.
2. Yes, individual choice comes into play w.r.t. terrorism. You haven't been reading my posts if you think I'm saying there isn't a relation between Muslims and today's terrorism. I'm addressing you throwing a blanket over all Muslims, who again, didn't really choose to be Muslim and were more than likely born into it (we agree on this front) as being a threat. It's an unfair assumption. It becomes fair if >50% of Muslims are pronounced terrorists.
3. I see where you're coming from. That's a rational-enough point of view. However, who you become, what made your parents who they were which resulted in your conception, what made your grandparents who they were when conceiving your parents, etc, is all chance and circumstance. Those "right decisions" were influenced by their environment because they were made based on the what they deemed to be the best decision given the experiences their environment had presented them with. Additionally, I'm sure there are people who don't want their descendants to live in East Africa but have no means to making that happen. Most people don't live where they live out of choice.
4. Yes, yes, and also along with that of all humans. As someone else said, if you felt this were a waste of time you wouldn't respond.