Hardware
Have you seen this one? It belongs in the "sad, but true" file.
[b][u][i] MUST WATCH[/u] Short Video! Re Muslims[/b][/i]
[b]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU[/b]
[i][b]Dawg[/i][/b] ]:)
by ic-it
It is telling you to spread the Gospel to the Muslims.
Although that was a lot of fear mongering to listen to before finally offering their "call to action". ;-)
by boxfiddler
by sleepin'dawg
but I'll be damned if I let anyone move in and try to convert me. The Jehova's Witnesses and The Seventh Day Adventists are a big enough pain in the butt but to have to put up with these clowns is going to be way too much.
Like it, or not, Islam seems to be overly prone to the promotion of fundamental fanaticism, which is often given to acts of terrorism. Until you've seen. at first hand, the aftermath of a suicide bomber, you have no idea of the devastation that these people can inflict.
An example of the "respect" these people have for the other religions of this world may be observed in the actions of the Taliban and what they did to the Banyan Bhuddas, artifacts which preceded Islam by over a thousand years. Imagine similar assaults upon our national and/or religious shrines.
[b][i]Dawg[/b][/i] ]:)
by oz_media
I recently watched a 3 hour (3-part) doc on how they go about recruiting and brainwashing these young children.
It is not ISLAM as a whole that is teh problem, it is a small group of very radical Islamic fundamemtalists that are training hoards of young children to follow the same radical movement.
They actually gather orphans and children from poverty stricken homes and braianwash them, yes brainwash. They are ONLY allowed to read the Qur'an, nothign else, they are not allowed television unless it is supplied by leaders for propaganda puropses, no radio no anything. They literally memorize a twisted translation of the Qur'an and are taught to belive that Islam will eventually take over the world.
When they go to fight, they say the youngsters are not allowed to fight but can be with them to learn and aid by supplying them. We all know that this is how they cover/protect themselves, with cihldren.
MOST of the population is against these radical terrorists and their camps baiting their children away. It is not lik eeveryone is on the same page, it is a secluded group that is growing in vast proportions due to the poverty level there and in other recruiting countries, such as Somalia, Botswana etc. One teen student that was interviewed (over a closely watched shoulder)said he planned on going to the US, wher ehe would joing existing terror groups and learn to spread his hatred in America.
Islam is not to be feared or hated, Muslims are not to be feared or hated, it is a radical group. Think of their equivalent of evangelists, the radical Christans of our society, but of course in a much more aggressive manner, more like the Christian crusaders.
The problem is, people often see these propaganda videos and wrongly label an entire race or religion with it. Christianity isn't a bad thing either, but
some made it appear so for many years.
This perpetuates western ignorance and increases the number of normally peaceful Muslims who slowly grow to resent our culture and grow to support their religion in mroe aggressive, and radical ways.
No, I'm not saying its our fault but we certainly aren't working well at reducing a growing problem by educating ourselves. Instead, propaganda based material further builds on Western ignorance, working against a us instead of for us.
As usual, you let your Islamophobia run away with your common sense. Not stopped you in the past, though, so I'm not surprised at this post.
The assumptions in the posted video are HUGE.
That "Any Muslim" automatically equals "bad".
That the fertility figures are correct in the first place.
That they will continue at the stated levels for succeeding generations.
The first one is the key upon which the whole relationship between "us" and "them" - and, by that, "us" and "you". It's all too easy to use 7/7 to point up the "radicalisation" threat but that sort of narrow Islamophobic thinking is doing a disservice to the variety of opinion forming happening amongst Muslims as well as the rest of us in this "War on Terror" era.
Many Muslims, first-, second- or third-generation Britons, have settled their place in Britain in the context of their politics and social position. Not purely on the basis of their religion.
Your assumption is that a Muslim will be a Muslim first - in terms of loyalty to a religion above acceptance of law and social or political frameworks - and then British or German or French or Dutch or whatever. That simply hasn't happened in Europe as it hasn't happened in the US or Canada.
In the Muslim community, girls outnumber boys in higher education in the UK. Read in that what you will. I read something positive.
by sleepin'dawg
aside from 9-11, can you shed any sort of rational explanation for the bombings in London, France and Spain. Even predominantly Islamic nations such as Egypt, Algeria and Morocco, have been experiencing troubles with The Islamic Brotherhood as well as their more notorious Al-Qa'ida buddies. Think these guys aren't at war with western civilization?? Have you noticed any bombings or terrorist acts being performed by Bhuddists, Hindus, Shintoists, etc., recently.Hmmm, thought not.
It seems terroist bombings are the preserve of Muslims and some nutball Christians, such as the bomb in Tulsa. We don't have to fear the Christian fruitcakes so much anymore; they've been handled appropriately like the mad dogs they were, and were put down. Ooops, almost forgot one other group of fruitcakes, the Sikhs. They did blow up an Air India Flight. However, Islamic terrorists are an on going threat. Short of them detonating one of their devices in your Y-fronts, what does it take for you to recognize the danger. BTW I take it you didn't check out the link in toal - all the sources were/are listed.
Me, I look at Muslims in the same manner one observes a snake; make sure they are harmless and/or the poison is removed. Way back in the 60's the anti-nuclear people had a bumper sticker which read, "One nuclear bomb can ruin your whole life" I bet the people riding on those buses in London will tell you that it doesn't have to be a nuke.
One other item [b][i][u]I[/b][/i][/u] didn't post the subject video to YouTube and I don't agree with it totally but I do think it is something we should all be aware of and act accordingly. To do otherwise is sheer foolhardiness in the extreme.
[b][i]Dawg[/b][/i] ]:)
by oz_media
"make sure they are harmless and/or the poison is removed"
What secret do you have, I'm sure the thousands of troops over there could use your keen knowledge.
How do you go about determining if they have "had the poison removed"?
by boxfiddler
I call it as I see it. The piece that Dawg linked to was biased crap. Its sole purpose was inflammatory - as is Dawg's thread. I just thought I'd post a bit of opposition to the simplistic, racist crap in the Youtube video.
by oz_media
by oz_media
In the end, when all is said and done, it's YOUTUBE and yet people STILL buy into this crap.
Where's the ignorance, with the fundamentalist Islamists or in our own understanding of their culture?
They aren't all rebels hell bent on killing Americans, as so often portrayed, but so many people are lead to believe so by videos such as this.
Then again if you buy into this vid, you'd also be sucked into the one that 'proves' how cable box manufacturer's installed apinhole camera to spy on us through our cable TV connectons. LOL :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQ4iIM8Eljc
:D
(and I include Dawg bringing it to our attention) will adversely affect the way some people relate to Muslims which will, in turn, alienate some Muslims which will, in turn...
Bombing a few Muslim countries doesn't help either. You just have to consider that from fifty to one hundred times as many people (depending on who you listen to) have died as a direct result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan started by us than have been killed directly by terrorist attacks in the last ten years in the entire world and you wonder whether the priorities are right.
by jkameleon
Free market will correct this.
by sleepin'dawg
economy is currently in, and performing, we could be in for some real masacres and bloodbaths.
[b][i]Dawg[/b][/i] ]:)
by jkameleon
No demand, no supply.
by cupcake
...as freedom of choice. From what I know about alot of the Islamic states, you don't have a choice about how you worship. If you move to another country and another part of the world, that will change. Just as the history of the US demonstrated that once we had the choice (including whether to worship at all), religion became less central to our society.
I suspect that this will happen to those who come next who experience religious freedom as well.
In a democracy, majority rules. Do you disagree?
Then consider the consequences. Example: wouldn't you LOVE to be subjected to the desires of the majority?
The USA is supposed to be a Republic, thereby avoiding the tyranny of either the majority or the minority. But it's melting away. Do you disagree?
In a [i]politically correct[/i] majority, those subject to the [i]politically correct[/i] tyranny often quiver in fear of criticism. Do you disagree?
Have a nice future. I'll be dead. Why should I care?
Yes, I ask the same question of my own son.
Edit: It's amazing to see how many people are SO AFRAID of asking obvious questions for fear of opinion and criticism; they give-in to the [i]politically correct[/i].
by tonythetiger
By what scheme do you invoke "exist" and "always"? Of what, your certainty?
Bluff?
by oz_media
I don't think neil fears Dawg, he may recognize his position and disagree with it but that does not make one phobic. Neil is hardly scared and avoiding Dawg, as Dawg fears and avoids Islamists, Muslims and I suppose all other brown people equally.
That's like saying that if I say you are agrophobic, then I must be agrophobiaphobic.
Complete horsehite and definitely far from accurate.
by sleepin'dawg
is primarily socialist, if not out and out full blown communist, in nature. Even Germany has become tainted with these ideals.
BTW, have you noticed how quick Europe has tried to blame their economic fubar on the US. It's kind of funny seeing as how the WMF has been warning about the lack of regulations and controls on Europes banks. They are in even a worse state than the US banking system, especially Germany and the UK.
[b][i]Dawg[/b][/i] ]:)
Communist indeed. Mmm, I fear not - that is a badly informed (perhaps badly educated) view of the entire European demographic from the political standpoint.
It reeks of a total lack of experience. When was the last time you actually stood on European soil then Dawg? If you ever have, any sense of communism is more likely to have been read off the back of a packet of breakfast cereal than actually seen or felt out on the street. Germany as a country and moreover as an historical nation, would as one, condemn anything approaching rampant Socialism because they are still trying to mend their own history from the last World War.
Per se any economic collapses that have occurred around the planet and been felt in associated financial markets, it is a sad fact of life that all activity is governed by the rotation of the Earth and its orbit around the Sun. That is not the fault of Britain, nor is it the fault of any other country - it's just a fact that as one market opens, another one to the east has just closed and when the US market closes, the next one to the west opens and the circle continues.
Open your eyes and smell the ginseng.
by nicknielsen
Who produced it?
What sources did they use for their data?
Are their assumptions valid?
Where are these links you reference in a later post? There are no links that I can find on that page to anything significant.
What makes this video more than paranoid speculation?
Facts and specifics, please. A source for the video would be a good start.
Edit: It occurs to me to point out that birthrates for the most affluent have historically been lower than those of the remaining population. As Europe and North America are the most affluent regions on the planet right now...
I expect the same will happen to the society that succeeds ours, regardless of the source.
by cupcake
I did a quick search and found this:
"The fertility rate hit 2.1 in 2006, according to preliminary estimates released by the National Center for Health Statistics. It's a milestone: the first time since shortly after the baby boom ended that the nation has reached the rate of births needed for a generation to replace itself, an average 2.1 per woman."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-19-fertility_N.htm
So far, its not looking like due diligence was paid.
by nicknielsen
Shag for victory?
Send them all...home?
Kill them all while we can?
Attempt to reach some sort of communication, find some common values and maybe build something worthwhile?
What?
Do you believe that a well-established nation has a right to maintain a national identity? A preferred culture? A national culture? I certainly do.
Consider Bridget Bardot, and how, for twenty years, she's been an outspoken critic of French immigration laws and policies. How many times has she been put on trial for [i]inciting racial hatred[/i] only because she's been speaking out on how the French culture was not only being overtaken, but was at risk of vanishing? I don't believe that she would be an advocate of wanting to kill Muslims, but rather see a change in French immigration policies that would make sure France remains French. And she's spot-on correct.
We have similar issues in the United States, not just with Muslims, but with legal - and especially illegal - immigration from Mexico. It's changing our national identity and, in many areas, our culture.
Speaking specifically to the United States, I dismiss the common notion that we're a [i]nation of immigrants[/i]. Heck, you could say that about any country if you go back far enough in its history. After a certain amount of time - and 235 years seems like it's surpassed that time - a nation no longer becomes a [i]nation of immigrants[/i], and it becomes something defined by its own created identity.
Immigration laws. That's how to maintain one's own national identity. I believe a nation has a right to control who comes into its country and for what purpose. Immigration to be assimilated into the national culture is one thing. To change the face of it is another.
Although I agree with you about "national identity" and a "preferred culture" this is not really attainable in that - put simply - things change. In the UK, many hanker after the 1950s in the belief that everything was better then. Some people idealise about "multiculturalism" and others hate the whole idea and blame all the ills of the country on immigrants. If you were to ask me to put my finger on what Britishness is, I couldn't do it.
The link posted by Dawg was solely concerned with extrapolating the effect of diverging birth rates. It was anti-Islamic propaganda of the worst sort, extrapolating disaster from very suspect premises and offering no solutions.
The majority of British Muslims are legal immigrants and their offspring. We HAVE to deal with this somehow without radicalising any of the hundred ethnic groups in the UK. London alone has fifty ethnic with populations over 10,000. We don't just have Muslims. An accommodation has to be reached between us all.
by tonythetiger
[i]Do you believe that a well-established nation has a right to maintain a national identity? A preferred culture? A national culture? I certainly do.[/i]
... but the citizens? And as the citizens change ...
This is one issue I have with "stick-in-the-mud" Republicans. Change is inevitable. We can sit and pine more and more for "the good old days" the farther and farther ago they get, or we can embrace the change... even help to manage and direct it!
by tonythetiger
[i]We have similar issues in the United States, not just with Muslims, but with legal - and especially illegal - immigration from Mexico. It's changing our national identity and, in many areas, our culture.[/i]
No human being should have any less right to try to better themselves simply because they weren't born "here". That's the kind of thing I'd expect from an "I'm on top of the hill and I'm going to try to stop you from climbing" Democrat.
Embracing change...
by tonythetiger
And for Europe, get ready to engage in another huge war because of your ...... well, you define it for yourself, that what you've done to yourself. You're screwed - and you did it to yourself - as usual. World War One, World War Two, the Cold War - Europe doesn't have the faintest idea on how to avoid war.
For the USA, however, we better wake up and smell the coffee. Throw political correctness out the window; clamp down on immigration; and work to build an America as it was envisioned to be - focus on individual freedom, and we'll be fine, regardless of the individual preferences.
That's the main difference between Europe and the USA. Europe continually tries to find a collective solution to all issues, while the REAL solution lies in individualism - a distinct American ideal.
We, in the USA, DO NOT want to emulate Europe. Not for the past one hundred years, and not for the next.
by tonythetiger
[i]We, in the USA, DO NOT want to emulate Europe.[/i]
Instead of fighting the change, and failing, we should USE it. and SUCCEED!
Just think of how much MORE influence this country could have with TWICE the population.
from a citizen of a country that is largely responsible for the bad current relationship that the West has with Islamic countries.
While you cling to the ficticious idea of idea of 'The West' against the 'Islamic world' you feed the anti-Islamic and anti-Western groups on both sides. The "War Against Terror" is simplistic crap and we all know it.
Put simply, although the West does not really systematically target Islamic people with aggression or discrimination, the fact of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the cavalier incursions into Pakistan give them every reason to perceive the West as an enemy.
Israel...
As for wars. Other than the ones that YOU have dragged US into - against the wishes of our people - I don't recall us doing much direct killing lately. Reckon that shows we have a clue.
Any war that we're likely to have in the future may well be with you. Resources are likely to be the cause and resources are something that your precious "freedom" induces you to use at a level beyond common sense. That's something that you cannot control. Whether you will attempt to annexe Canada in my lifetime, I don't know.
Priorities are ALL wrong. The number of people killed by terrorism in a year is less than one thousand. The number killed by hunger - not in the West of course - is ten million. solving THAT one will go a long way toward decreasing the reasons for terrorism.
Neil :)
by jdclyde
You are not going to imply that much of the poverty in the middle east isn't directly caused by the ruling parties of some of the most oil rich nations in the world, are you?
They created the problem so they could convince the mindless masses it is the fault of "the west" that life sucks.
Waiting until the minority is a majority is not a solution, is it? We have seen how well Muslims have been received in the racist nation of France, as well as how happy second generation Muslims in the UK are, right? Your own government has admitted ignoring the groups in the hope they will leave you alone is never going to work, and a mistake.
I've been listening to people (from both inside and outside the USA) slamming my country for any number of reasons, and for quite a few years.
However, take a look at Europe over the past 100 years. Both World War I and World War II were started on that continent, millions of people died on that continent, and all because people - European people - ignored what was really happening; they put their heads into the European sand. The USA has been criticized for entering both wars too late, yet the USA is also criticized for being a [i]warring nation[/i]. Of course, people conveniently forget our [i]Lend Lease[/i] agreement with the Brits, one that provided vital military supplies for them to fight off German advances on the British Isles. (To the Brits credit, however, their repayment of American funds was one of the only - if not THE only - of all nations involved in WWII.)
(As a side-note, I absolutely love the Brits - for quite a few reasons. And in a strange kinda' way, I don't consider them when I refer to [i]Europeans[/i].)
The 50 year Cold War was, in large part, a military investment by the USA to prevent Soviet Socialism (Communism) from overtaking Western Europe. Perhaps we should have let you guys handle it. What do you think the outcome would have been? The USA led Marshall Plan saved thousands, if not millions of European lives. Yet, the USA is criticized for being a [i]warring nation[/i].
Sorry, Neil, but Europe's history does not bode well for how it might [i]plan[/i] its future. In fact, it (Europe) doesn't plan at all, but rather they apparently let people (or tyrants) run amok over their territory, defining it however they wish, and stick their heads in the sand hoping it will all go away.
I'm not impressed with the way Europeans have handled themselves over the past 100 years. Why on earth should I give them the benefit of the doubt that they will handle things in the best manner over the next 100?
by the 'g-man.'
Some good acting however.
If only 'I'll be back' was American, the fun we would all have.
by dadspad
This has been done many times in history. The first that comes to mind is the Euroupean to the Native American in Canada and the U.S., with the Spanish doing the same in most of the rest of the Americas. There are many examples of this, but I would rather go on to the
Solution: The video leans toward converting Muslims to Christian. This might work, religion must appeal to 3rd world peoples and solve their situation in life. So far, Muslims seem to be at the advantage, we will have to see if Christians can make headway.
This is not best solution, that is education. How do you control a population easily? Keep the majority uneducated. If you cannot read or write, and overworked, you can easily control how they think. According to what I have watched on the news, many muslim countries forbid females to any education, an many male are with none or limited education.
See every one tomorrow, I have to go get my eyes checked.
Before WWII, especially in the U.S., very few besides the wealthy could obtain a University education. The GI bill changed all of that. With the education of the 'common man' our culture changed and did the rest of the world. Just think about what has changed since 1950!!
Educate and make the Muslim properous and see how their procreation changed to make their life better.
by sleepin'dawg
[i]The link posted by Dawg was solely concerned with extrapolating the effect of diverging birth rates. It was anti-Islamic propaganda of the worst sort, extrapolating disaster from very suspect premises and offering no solutions.[/i]
[b]First:[/b] I do not deny that I am prejudiced against [b][i]militant Islam[/b][/i]. I have my own reasons, which are of a personal nature, but which were formed at first hand contact; something, you've acknowledged, you've never experienced.
For that matter I am prejudiced against [b][i]any and all militant religions that insist upon prosletyzing their viewpoint through coercion, force and terrorism.[/b][/i]. Other than Islam, and the odd group of Christian wackos, show me any other religion that is currently carrying on such actions against the [b]whole World not just the West.[/b] I'm sure the people in Bali and Mumbai would be interested in debating your views with you.
[b]Second:[/b] I did not like the quasi- religious overtone masquerading as "objective" fact in the video. I certainly did not appreciate the "call to arms" at the conclusion. I questioned the demographic data, which, like me, you could have done independently. The information is readily avilable at all the web sites of the nations named; Canadian stats are avilable at StatsCan.gov.ca. Unfortunately the birthrates quoted turn out to be valid.
Just because you don't agree with the messenger does not mean that the message contents are false.
[b]Third:[/b] Prior to WW II, most european Jews refused to accept the possibility that something as horrific as The Holocaust could or would take place. Six million of them paid for the errors of their thinking; your lack of objective thinking is similar. As a self-professed atheist, why are you suddenly so intent to ride to the defense of Islam??? BTW, there was a BBC news program, a few years ago, about Muslims in the UK; it was around the time some idiot tried to detonate a bomb in his shoe. It seemed the point they made, was that the most fanatical Muslims in the UK were converts of Anglo-Saxon origin. (similar to Nazi sympathizers, Shades of Lord HaHa) What it it with the UK?? Something in the air or the water?? Why is it the UK seems to produce more eccentrics (and for that matter gays) per hundred thousand of population than any other place on earth???
[b]Fourth:[/b] I do have a solution but arguably, it would not be "socially" acceptable. Recently we went through an exercise wherein minority groups were invited to complain about any lack of discrimintion and acceptance they were receiving in Canada. [b]Over 95% of complaints were from Muslims.[/b] There were some complaints as regards race, from orientals, Sikhs as regards kirhpans, but [b]all Muslims[/b] complained about Christian holidays, the mode of dress of westerners, western morals and/or the lack thereoff, and the fact that employers were not prepared to let them pray during work hours. Two or three groups "demanded" special places to pray at universities and their places of employment emplloyment. Most of the other groups stated that they felt Canadians did not so much discriminate against them as that they were not understood due to ignorance on the part of Canadians of their ways. Only Muslims demanded that Canadians should accomodate them.
My question; why the hell should we. I don't care what their religion is, they have no damned right to inflict, theirs upon me [b]nor do I have any right (nor desire) to inflict mine upon them.[/b] They left their places of origin; why??? Because of persecution?? Because they want a better life?? Economic advancement??
They knew before they got here that we would be different from them; so why should we accomodate them. If they want to get on they [b]have[/b] to accomodate us; otherwise stay the hell home. Surely you've heard the old cliche "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" or, better yet, "If we do not learn the lessons of history we will be condemned to repeat them."
[b]Fifth:[/b] For an atheist you seem to be overly fond of Islam. Thinking of becomming a convert?? Before you do, consider this: one of the first things Islam demands, is that you be cicumsized. Can you afford to lose anymore??? :^0
[b][i]Dawg[/b][/i] ]:)
by tonythetiger
[i]For that matter I am prejudiced against any and all militant religions that insist upon prosletyzing their viewpoint through coercion, force and terrorism.[/i]
That's another thing I could never understand... One of God's greatest gifts to us, even moreso than our existence, is our FREE WILL! It seems like common sense, but forcing worship is never going to be real, just as forcing love or charity are never going to be real.
It just seems to me that a lot of people claiming to worship this God who gave us this free will spend an awful lot of time and energy trying to TAKE that away from someone (else) or other... :(
by jdclyde
that many in the world will do just about anything to keep from being called a racist, even if it involves discriminating against everyone BUT the complaining group.
In the US, these same people have the right to choose their religion, but they are allowed to force their religious requirements upon others ( which no Christan can get away ).
They have DEMANDED prayer rooms at airports and other such places. Sorry, but you want a prayer room, build your own or piss off.
......[i]bleeding heart Socialist.[/i]
Sorry, but that's all of your message that I read before I posted my comment.
I'll go on the read the rest, maybe leaving further comment.
by sleepin'dawg
by tonythetiger
by jdclyde
Maybe if we are really nice to everyone, they will be really nice back, and we can all live in peace and harmony.
It has worked so well around the world, huh?
Therefore the figures are intrinsically flawed.
If they can't get the figures right for one lowly little OM, what chance is there that they are correct for the remainder of the planet? ;)
by tonythetiger
by sleepin'dawg
by sleepin'dawg
by sleepin'dawg
In 1933 Communists outnumbered Nazis by almost 15% and could have won an election if they could have ever got properly organized.
The largest communist parties outside of the USSR and the PRC were to be found in Italy and France. They've since renamed themselves as some sort of soacilist parties sfter the colapse of "communism" in Russia and her satellites.
In the UK, need I remind you of Burgess, Mclean et al and the Oxbrige connection to Lubyanka Square in Moscow??? Top that off with a Labour Party that practically bleeds red and a supposed Conservative party that isn't far behind in trying to outdo them in terms of "socialism"
I get to the UK every year, sometimes for only a few days, sometimes longer. It's a great place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there due to the cut-to-the-bone dampness and your governments attempts to try and divest me of my hard earned money. In Canada, we consider ourselves hard done to by our GST-Goods and Services Tax but at a measely 6.5%, I count myself lucky when I compare that to your VAT.
Winston Churchill, someone who should know due to his various trips across the floor, once said , "Scratch a socialist and you'll find a communist underneath." I choose to believe him.
At least the Chinese have the decency to call themselves communists although in contrast to Europe, they are slowly sliding more and more towards capitalism.
[i][b]Dawg[/i][/b] ]:)
taken together with ALL of the "et al" totalled five people. They also operated sixty years ago.
Sometimes I have difficulty getting my head round the crap that you write.
by sleepin'dawg
That Rose analogy works both ways. Don't paint yourself into a rose-looking corner.
Neil's not a socialist. And you're not ......... well, the other extreme. Or are you? If so, define the other extreme.
I like Neil, and I respect his opinion. I realize there are areas in which we will disagree, but we can do it without being disagreeable. Moreover, there are some issues on which we probably have a [i]workable[/i] agreement.
AND
I like dawg, and I respect his opinion. I realize there are areas in which we will disagree, but we can do it without being disagreeable. Moreover, there are some issues on which we probably have a [i]workable[/i] agreement.
HOWEVER
If I had to pick one's opinion over the other, I'd pick dawg - simply because of my insistence that individual liberty trumps all else.
Neil, tell me that individual liberty trumps all else, and I'll post a retraction.
[b]Individual Liberty:[/b] It's a powerful concept. That's my bottom line, and I'll let the subsequent chips fall where they may.
Please, Neil or anyone, argue against it.
(Edited to fix typos - and those nagging question marks.)
You're going to have to define "Individual Liberty" and what you mean by it. Do you consider all government to be undesirable? What do I have to agree to in order to make you like me more than Dawg?
I don't think that I can.
What is "freedom"? Is it freedom as opposed to coercion? Freedom from coercion? All democracies practise coercion. You want them to be strong and provide you with good property laws and a robust defence of your shores, don't you? So, it's all about balance in that states develop coercion in order to protect freedom and restrict that coercion in order to protect freedoms. Where that balance ideally lies is such a personal matter that we aren't ever going to agree and you're never going to agree with the black single-parent from Louisiana.
I don't reckon that you're an anarchist although that is the obvious end-point of the primacy of individual liberty. I reckon we can get this one out of the way. I'm certainly not an anarchists and I reckon that the world is too complicated and too crowded now for anarchists to be allowed to do what they want. I'd shovel up the anarchists who stopped me going to my favourite restaurant in Brighton on Monday and dump them in the sea. How far out? Hmmmm... tough one.
So, I'll wait for your definition and see if I can grab any of it.
Neil :)
by the 'g-man.'
I mean, who really cares?
The 'UK' will be no more within 10 years anyway.
by tonythetiger
by sleepin'dawg
I can understand Neil's view of personal and/or individual freedom extending towards anarchy; it's a distinct poossibility [u][b]if[/b][/u] the individuals are devoid of any sense of responsibility. Since each individual would have differing views upon the limits of personal responsibility; there would be a need for a limited set of guide lines (we can call them laws) to hold individuals responsible for their actions.
I've heard personal freedom defined as the liberty to perform any act as long as one keeps in mind that, that liberty ends at the other individuals nose. We must bear a sense of responsibility to be able to live at social peace. From time to time that sense of responsibility might call upon us to perform acts of a socially consensual nature, such as defend our country, but individually we should be able to hold ourselves apart, much like concientious objectors.
We do have to bear a certain level of taxation for things like the infrastructure, but I do believe that the users of the infrastucture bear the majority of the cost. I resent any and all taxation that supports those individuals who are too "proud" (read lazy) to perform work they deem beneath them.
Likewise it really ticks me off listening to those caught in the economic squeeze because they were too irresponsible to set aside some money for a "rainy day". or lived too far beyond their means. These individuals are reaping what they've sown and deserve no sympathy whatsoever.
Canada, socially, tilts towards the left but not to the same extent that Europe does. There, they expect, and in fact, demand a social safety net which they constantly whign about having to pay for. They are constantly crying for increased taxes on their "rich".
Until you've experienced it at first hand you would find it difficult to believe the levels of taxation the Europeans experience.
I know for a fact that if I were living in the UK or Germany, the taxes on my present level of income would be anywhere from 25 -40% greater than what I pay in Canada or, better yet, the USA
Wasn't it Jefferson who said, "The best form of government is the least form of government". I'm not sure if I've quoted that precisely or even if the source is correct, but I agree with the sentiment.
BTW Neil you might surprise yourself to discover that our views on global warming are not so far apart now
Regards
[b][i]Dawg[/b][/i] ]:)
I sharpen up my debating skills and dodge the teeth at the same time.
Still, I do await Maxwell's reply with interest...
:D
And you, Dawg, tell me more about your GW thoughts. Quietly, though, else you might lose some street cred among the Deniers!
by sleepin'dawg
I just think that what people think is the cause is in error. In fact it is GW which is the root cause of Climate Change which is a whole different ballgame. I'm in the process of chasing down the corroborative facts but I'll toss you a link to whet your appetite. Whether you agree or disagree; it's all interesting stuff.
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/climate-wars/
This link is to a series of broadcasts that our CBC made. The man who made them is Gwynne Dyer, an aquaintance of mine. (We frequent the same watering holes whenever he is in Montreal or Boston and we have somewhat similar educational backgrounds; mine are on the technical side and not to his doctorate level)
Ask yourself what happens if the earth's atmospheric temperature increases by 2 degrees celsius and if you think that's bad wait till you hear that the projected increase of the earth's averages temperature is due to rise 5 degrees celsius by 2050; only 40 years away. Very scary stuff.
[b][i]Dawg[/i][/b] ]:)
Anarchy actually denies individual liberty. I?m in favor of government that protects and guarantees individual liberty. I oppose government that denies individual liberty. The distinction should be very clear.
Why is it that whenever I espouse individual liberty, people stretch my meaning to anarchy? I don?t know about the others, but you?re smarter than that, Neil.
Edit:
I won't edit my message because I want to show those irritating question marks. PLEASE - PLEASE fix it.
Neil, dawg and me.
And dawg's buying.
by sleepin'dawg
still do, but not in the sense that the general populace brlieved it to mean. [i][b]I do not belive in MAN MADE global warming[/i][/b] The global warming I refer to is not a man made phenomonom but rather a natural cycle that the earth is "currently" going through. These cycles appear to be of a somewhat indeterminate duration but the estimated duration of the "current" cycle is 40,000 years. Supposedly, we are at, or coming to. the end of an [b][i]"Ice Age"[/b][/i]; just one of the many that the earth has experienced over it's many millions of years existence.
[i]Much of this information will truly piss-off the [b]Creation[/b] theorists, who claim the earth is only 6000 years old. Scientific fact has a tendancy to do that to them. Blows their creation tale(theory) all to hell.[/i]
How accurate are my ideas, and information on this topic? I cannot give a truly definitive answer at the moment since I've only commenced to truly study the question when I commenced my supposed retirment at the end of 2006. (My "retiremnt" means that I no longer put in 60-70 hour weeks but have reduced that to something like 25-30hours/week}.
So far, I've come to believe we are in, or are in for, a period of global warming, which is a natural phenomena not of any man-made origin and which man can do bloody little. This global warming is causing [b][i][u]Climate Change[/b][/i][/u] and, sorry to say, there is bloody well nothing anyone can do about that. [b][i]However,[/b][/i] the effects of Climate Change [b][i][u]are[/b][/i][/u] being exacerbated by much of what man has done or is doing.
An apt analogy; [i]picture the global atmosphere as an immaculate antibellum estate. Now picture the inhabitants of said estate sitting on the balconies, drinking beer, and then throwing the empties out on the lawn. Over years, due to the accumulation of beer bottles, the estate would cease to appear immaculate, but rather unkempt and untidy; which could be rectified by the inhabitants pickiing up all the empty beer bottles. To create some incentive for this, and to make some money, return the bottles for the deposits on them.[/i] We cannot continue throwing our "empties"(garbage) into our atmosphere without expecting some consequences over time. This is not all bad. There is an investment opportunity in the technology necessary for the "clean-up". [i](See where I'm going with this Max? I am most definitely not altruistic. If I can make a buck, I will and if there is any global benefit, all well, and good)[/i]
Studying all this has become, in many ways, fun. I'm even considering doing some post-graduate study on this subject. After all, what's a poor old man supposed to do in his dotage; collect stamps or, like Neil, pornography? (Just kidding Neil; I know you aren't collecting pornography. You don't have a "pornograph" on which to play it!!!LOL :^0
[b][i]Dawg [/b][/i] ]:)
Not any of the many different types of anarchists. Anarchy is, though, the final end-point of the "Freedom" spectrum.
As you, me and even Dawg therefore obviously believe that some state coercion is necessary then my next step is to mark the point at which we believe that state coercion becomes unacceptable. And I just reckon that differs for everyone.
For every circumstance...
:)
.....state protection. Another clear distinction.
From the perspective of someone in the USA (me), consider this.
In the beginning, the state (the nation-state, that is) was created not to coerce the people into anything, but rather protect their rights to individual liberty - protection from other people, from the individual states, and from outside nations. I don't believe our government was created to protect us from ourselves.
In theory, each and every citizen has a right to unlimited individual liberty, as long as that of another is not infringed upon. That's the basis of our government - again, not to protect us from ourselves, and certainly not to provide individual wants and needs.
Who would have thought the day would come when the peoples' right to individual liberty would need protection from the very state (nation-state) that was designed to protect and guarantee it?
Actually that did occur to Thomas Jefferson, as well as other founders.
The following is a cut-and-paste from another source. (Take your pick as to the source. It's plagiarized, without giving original credit, all over the Web.)
[i]Jefferson believed that each individual has "certain inalienable rights." That is, these rights exist with or without government; man cannot create, take, or give them away. It is the right of "liberty" on which Jefferson is most notable for expounding. He defines it by saying "rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add - within the limits of the law - because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
Hence, for Jefferson, though government cannot create a right to liberty, it can indeed violate it. And, the limit of an individual's rightful liberty is not what law says it is, but is simply a matter of stopping short of prohibiting other individuals from having the same liberty. A proper government, for Jefferson, is one that not only prohibits individuals in society from infringing on the liberty of other individuals, but also restrains itself from diminishing individual liberty.[/i]
But we do indeed have state coercion. It is used to maintain law, to control the vicious and irrational so that the rest of us can go about our business.
I reckon Kant got some of it right...
Kant gives two main reasons for obeying the law. These are the rational motivation that says that we have a duty to obey the law in order to preserve the order in society and the punishment motivation which stops those who have no respect for the law but obey the law in order to avoid punishment.
Kant goes on to state that coercion impinges upon freedom but he goes on to say that, when used [b]in a proper manner[/b] by the state, it secures freedom. Restricting the freedom of a few is justified to secure freedom for the majority.
Then you do have to define where you stand with respect to "in a proper manner". Now, even I reckon that the UK government has gone way to far in poking its nose into things that doesn't or shouldn't concern it.
More later...
:)
Means ideation, which means imagination, which means making it so, which is what being human is about.
You err gravely, Neil. You orphan the ideal.
by tonythetiger
those in power usually define "irrational" as that which violates their personal sensitivities. The result is laws which serve no legitimate state interest, serving only to control people "because we can", and to increase the influence of the government... in essence, creating the need for themselves.
You orphan his and yours. In which case, neither can be ideal. Each is lesser. Neither incorporates the other in this matter of the whole of humanity.
By "err" I mean ideation that falls short. By "gravely" I mean ideal that is not.
Carry on as you are necessarily constrained, but refrain from, "ideal".
by boxfiddler
[i]Means ideation, which means imagination, which means making it so, which is what being human is about.[/i]
Mmm, mmm, mmm. Good lord but (your) imagination titillates.
we would be able to reconcile my ideation and imagination with Maxwell's - and perhaps with the black single mother in Louisiana - and make it so.
But we want different things.
:)
Those who try to make it such only infringe on the individual liberty of others - they try to make others conform to their version of [i]ideal[/i].
There is no universal version of an [i]ideal world[/i]. That's the beauty of a government that protects individual choice, freedom, and liberty - people can work for, and try to create their own [i]ideal[/i] lives. But if a person's [i]ideal[/i] life requires the infringement upon, or denial of another's liberty, that goes too far - something our government should protect against, and certainly not practice itself.
.....Islamaphobiaphobiaphobicphobic
Excuse me, I'm getting dizzy.
by oz_media
You have GOT to be kidding! These are stats and facts? LOL.
Wait until I put my magic beans video up, I'm sure to have a lot of takers based on the people who buy this crap.
Quick, everyone fear Islam! Religious BS, no worse and no better than any other, Christianity, Judism, etc. "Just a grown up's imaginary friend."
by tonythetiger
[i]What secret do you have, I'm sure the thousands of troops over there could use your keen knowledge.[/i]
That secret could also be used to counter gang activity.
by sleepin'dawg
we all feel compelled to inflict our version of that ideal upon others; not recognizing or respecting, that others may already have what they deem to be their [b][u]own[/b][/u] version of an ideal. For whatever reson, one or both parties will feel a need to proselytize their version of what is the ideal upon the other party. Unless or until the various versions of ideal can be kept out of contact with others, or can withdraw without penalty, from all others, conflict will arise and any sort of ideal becomes null and void.
[b][i]Dawg[/b][/i] ]:)
by sleepin'dawg
Why not? It's our ladder. We own it; we climbed it; why should we lend it to others? Don't we have a "right" to choose whom we lend it to?
[i]"I'm on top of the hill and I'm going to try to stop you from climbing" Democrat[/i]
Democrat??? Republican??? I would think it's any politician whose economic base is set where illegal immigration keeps employers price competitive with "foreign" competition.
[i][b]Dawg[/i][/b] ]:)
by tonythetiger
without the use of a ladder, others made steps out of the heads of others.
[i]Democrat??? Republican??? I would think it's any politician[/i]
Not the politicians... the OWNERS of the politicians.
[i] whose economic base is set where illegal immigration keeps employers price competitive with "foreign" competition.[/i]
Protectionism is for cowards.
by sleepin'dawg
with a lot of politicians, it's set too low or too easily reached. Here're some oxymorons for you: [b]Political ethics and/or Business ethics,[/b] either are commodities in very short supply.
{i][b]Dawg[/i][/b] ]:)
by oz_media
Speak my mond why don't you? As for the radpily spreading 'ignorant brain disease' it's too late; some people, as you can see yourself, have already become so blinded by western propaganda that they don't see reality any longer.
Just do a wander through similar YouTube videos, there are tons like this, mostly of western origin that illustrate a scary level of ignorance. Just like all the past wars, here we go again with the conspiracy BS.
by jdclyde
Are you counting soldiers? Citizens? And killed by who? Do you add in the citizens targeted by terrorists, or just ones accidentally hit in a firefight?
Which do you count and where do you get your numbers?
The organizations that come along and throw a new stuffed animal in a bombed out building to pretend children were targeted?
Also, how do the numbers compare to the bodies they are pulling out of Iraqi mass graves?
Just curious.
by oz_media
"or just ones accidentally hit in a firefight?"
How about those purposely killed and yet completely innocent of a crime or affiliation? I'm not suggesting it is the soldier's fault, they are there to succeed at a task. However anyone in that situation is not going to know who everyone is and they will be prone to killing innocents, partially due to the many barriers that separate us, such as our cultures and languages, from truly understanding one another and resulting in poor decisions.
by tonythetiger
by jkameleon
by jdclyde
by tonythetiger
by gate keeper
I see TR's very own racist windbag is at it a again.
complete with your trite overly dramatic titles (oooh You'll get nightmares !!!)
Are you really as backward and ignorant as you try to make everyone believe you are ? (you are succeeding by the way)
is this what passes off for facts and statistics in your world ?
Every single claim made in the video is prefaced with "Research shows that ..." OR "Historical research show that...." OR "statistics prove that .... "
Please tell me you are not that dumb & gullible. The whole thing would be laughable if not for idiots such as yourself that actually believe this crap.
the entire video is complete trash and put together by xenophobic half-wits.
Sort by Trending