Condemning Islamic Culture

[Mr Manifesto]

People working to re-establish a repressive form of government in Iraq, Don, are NOT "freedom fighters"....they are more properly slave owners fighting to get back their property. As such they are not worthy of your idiotic respect....they are working to turn back the clock. Is that really something you can respect???

-z

You can't read, can you? I can tell.

 

[rikzilla]

You can't read, can you? I can tell.

Well my eyes aren't what they used to be but....

I can read well enough to see Bush opening the biggest lead so far of the whole campaign over Kerry....I can also read well enough to select the correct name on my ballot: BUSH.

I imagine that after GWB's re-election the front page print will be about two inches tall and bold on most papers,...so I doubt I'll have trouble reading that either.

Besides Mr. M...you've already lost haven't you? There is no "anti-war" candidate for President any longer....so feel free to continue your anti-American tirade until 2008, by when maybe you can persuade the American public how stupid, pathetic, and deserving of scorn they are...perhaps then you'll see a US government you can finally embrace.

-z

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Well my eyes aren't what they used to be but....

I can read well enough to see Bush opening the biggest lead so far of the whole campaign over Kerry....I can also read well enough to select the correct name on my ballot: BUSH.

I imagine that after GWB's re-election the front page print will be about two inches tall and bold on most papers,...so I doubt I'll have trouble reading that either.

Besides Mr. M...you've already lost haven't you? There is no "anti-war" candidate for President any longer....so feel free to continue your anti-American tirade until 2008, by when maybe you can persuade the American public how stupid, pathetic, and deserving of scorn they are...perhaps then you'll see a US government you can finally embrace.

-z

I'm sure Bush's butt-cheeks are all the happer knowing your lips are firmly planted upon them.

 

[rikzilla]

I'm sure Bush's butt-cheeks are all the happer knowing your lips are firmly planted upon them.

Grow up.

-z

 

[The Don]

Bullsh!t moral equivalency...sorry but "freedom" does not = repression. We in the west have mostly moved from repression into freedom over the last 1,000 years or so...the Arab culture has not. Their culture is thus not as evolved as ours. Unless of course you really do think repression = freedom...but that would be nothing more than objective proof of stupidity.

Some freedom is incredibly oppressive. Maybe it's a character flaw of mine but sometimes I like being told what to do. Several child psychologists have ventured that some children are being stressed by being given too much choice. Of course an ideal society would be one in which those people who wish to express themselves freely in some ways are able to do so, but their desire to subjugate themselves is also tolerated. Like being a muslim (or fundamentalist of any religion) in the west.

Oh, and exactly how do you know that "over a billion people are happy to be Muslim"?? If the vast majority of those people live in nations where their very lives would be threatened if they spoke out against their religion (and they do)...then how do you know??.

Clearly we can eliminate those people who have chosen to convert to islam in the west from your oppressed masses, and those in India who are in the minority, and possibly those in Indonesia who are free do do whatever. In fact you are basing your opinion on those muslims who live in muslim theocracies in the middle east. Or about 25% of the world muslim population.

Historically, as I recall, Islam was relatively tolerant of other faiths. Sure, infidels weren't allowed to occupy poistions of real power but then again they were allowed to live in the muslim world, pursue their faiths (though they were prevented from evangelising) and conduct their business and family affairs.

Without basic freedoms, like speech for instance, in the Muslim world...we can't even quantify your assertion with any degree of accuracy.

These are PEOPLE Don...if freedom is good for people (and I think it is) then freedom is good for Arab people too. Perhaps once democracy has been established in Afghanistan and Iraq we can hear the actual voice of the REAL Arab majority.

Would this be the "true towelhead" falacy ? Most people were ambivalent about Saddam, they will be ambivalent about the new rulers so long as they can feed their families (which is of course something they were able to do up until 1990)

People working to re-establish a repressive form of government in Iraq, Don, are NOT "freedom fighters"....they are more properly slave owners fighting to get back their property. As such they are not worthy of your idiotic respect....they are working to turn back the clock. Is that really something you can respect???

-z

From our perspective, yes, they are terrorists but their actions are not that different than the avowed intentions of patriots everywhere were they invaded. We have justified the invasion on the basis that the system we are implementing it is much better than their old one.

Of course we think that, we just have to understand that they may not feel the same way. Moral absolutism is a dangerous game to play.

 

[TragicMonkey]

from evildave: Your last point is perhaps the most relevant. Westerners (and I use the term quite unabashedly to represent Europe and the US) see history from a perspective that is weird to the people of the Middle East. Westerners have their version of the crusades (for instance) embedded in their world-view, however hazily, while the locals see it from a different, and more historically valid, point of view. It isn't a matter of fomenting hatred, it's a matter of frustration that the elephant in the middle of the room remains invisible. As a history junkie, I can empathise. It's only when Westerners come to terms with real world history, and all its current manifestations, that humanity can move on.

Islamic invasion of Spain: 7th century.
First Crusade: 11th century.

Do let's pick and choose historical injustices and apply them to the modern world!

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Grow up.

-z

Says he who screeches like a cheerleader with glee over his fav political candidate.

You first.

 

[Giz]

Islamic invasion of Spain: 7th century.
First Crusade: 11th century.

Do let's pick and choose historical injustices and apply them to the modern world!

And the Ottomans at the gates of Vienna as late as 1688! What goes around comes around... neither side should play the historic victim card...

 

[TragicMonkey]

And the Ottomans at the gates of Vienna as late as 1688! What goes around comes around... neither side should play the historic victim card...

Exactly. Appeals to history are pointless, because you can go all the way back to Ug and Grug hitting each other with rocks. People only dredge up history when they want an excuse to behave they way they do.

 

[Giz]

Some freedom is incredibly oppressive.

- Said the citizens of the Weimar epublic.

Would this be the "true towelhead" falacy ? Most people were ambivalent about Saddam, they will be ambivalent about the new rulers so long as they can feed their families (which is of course something they were able to do up until 1990)

From our perspective, yes, they are terrorists but their actions are not that different than the avowed intentions of patriots everywhere were they invaded. We have justified the invasion on the basis that the system we are implementing it is much better than their old one.

Of course we think that, we just have to understand that they may not feel the same way. Moral absolutism is a dangerous game to play.

- Would you ever judge another culture harshly? Would you be judgemental about the Nazis? If so, how would you logically justfiy one but not the other? (honest question - i'm truly interested)

Isn't this the problem with moral relativism? That some things are just unacceptable, but under a relativistic framework you can never say so?

 

[rikzilla]

- Said the citizens of the Weimar epublic.



- Would you ever judge another culture harshly? Would you be judgemental about the Nazis? If so, how would you logically justfiy one but not the other? (honest question - i'm truly interested)

Isn't this the problem with moral relativism? That some things are just unacceptable, but under a relativistic framework you can never say so?

Exactly!

A more free society will ALWAYS be superior to a less free society. Unless of course you believe that freedom is meaningless like The Don apparently does.

If freedom IS really meaningless then we'll need to stop supporting liberal causes. Liberals being good people who continuously attempt to push and ENLARGE the envelope of freedom!

I put it to you Don,...would liberals even overtly exist if not for their recognised FREEDOM to be liberals??

The sad thing is that moral equivalency of human culture is a liberal idea that if put in universal practice would provide a rubber stamp for third world "cultures" to further oppress their own home-grown liberal thinkers.

Do you guys really think so little of non-white liberals that you would sentence them to an existence that you yourself would find intolerable? Don't you realise that freedom isn't some cultural fad of the west? It's the very definition of a human right! It's the FIRST human right, without which no other rights would be possible.

SHEESH!

-z

 

[Cleon]

A more free society will ALWAYS be superior to a less free society. Unless of course you believe that freedom is meaningless like The Don apparently does.

Of course, the whole point is an exercise in philosophy*, because there's no universal definition of what "freedom" means. A born-again Falwell supporter would say that "freedom" means "state-sponsored Christianity." A libertarian would say "freedom" is complete liberty to do what you like with your own property. A Marxist would say "freedom" is when workers control the means of production, sans capitalism. A liberal would say "freedom" is when everyone can think what they like and have enough to eat.

Case in point: "There is a road to freedom. Its milestones are Obedience, Endeavor, Honesty, Order, Cleanliness, Sobriety, Truthfulness, Sacrifice, and love of the Fatherland." -Adolf Hitler


* Yes, that is my way of saying this is all bulls---.

 

[Tony]

Of course, the whole point is an exercise in philosophy*, because there's no universal definition of what "freedom" means. A born-again Falwell supporter would say that "freedom" means "state-sponsored Christianity." A libertarian would say "freedom" is complete liberty to do what you like with your own property. A Marxist would say "freedom" is when workers control the means of production, sans capitalism. A liberal would say "freedom" is when everyone can think what they like and have enough to eat.[/SIZE]

So? Are you not able to filter truth from fiction?

 

[Giz]

Of course, the whole point is an exercise in philosophy*, because there's no universal definition of what "freedom" means. A born-again Falwell supporter would say that "freedom" means "state-sponsored Christianity." A libertarian would say "freedom" is complete liberty to do what you like with your own property. A Marxist would say "freedom" is when workers control the means of production, sans capitalism. A liberal would say "freedom" is when everyone can think what they like and have enough to eat.

Case in point: "There is a road to freedom. Its milestones are Obedience, Endeavor, Honesty, Order, Cleanliness, Sobriety, Truthfulness, Sacrifice, and love of the Fatherland." -Adolf Hitler


* Yes, that is my way of saying this is all bulls---.

Of course only a relativist would say that all of these are equally valid interpretations of the word "freedom".

Some tribes believed that the stars were just above the treetops. Modern science says that they're light years away.

Let's not go pretending that all opinions are equal.

 

[The Don]

A more free society will ALWAYS be superior to a less free society. Unless of course you believe that freedom is meaningless like The Don apparently does.

For heaven's sake, I take it that reading comprehension is not top of your list of skills. WHat I am attempting to explain is that there are people out there who have a completely different outlook to us in the West. These people are not just zealots, they just don't understand why this freedom, delivered at the point of a gun is so valuable to them.

You think you are right, which is of course your perogative. Your complete failure to, and lack of desire to, understand the position of someone who has a different perspective is an indication of why you are puzzled that the Iraqis are so ungrateful for their liberation.

Playing the Nazi card was of course predictable. Understanding why the people of Germany in the 1930s were so drawn to its principles could have helped diffuse the situation in the 30s and will possibly help to avoid futher problems in the future.

 

[rikzilla]

Of course, the whole point is an exercise in philosophy*, because there's no universal definition of what "freedom" means. A born-again Falwell supporter would say that "freedom" means "state-sponsored Christianity." A libertarian would say "freedom" is complete liberty to do what you like with your own property. A Marxist would say "freedom" is when workers control the means of production, sans capitalism. A liberal would say "freedom" is when everyone can think what they like and have enough to eat.

Case in point: "There is a road to freedom. Its milestones are Obedience, Endeavor, Honesty, Order, Cleanliness, Sobriety, Truthfulness, Sacrifice, and love of the Fatherland." -Adolf Hitler


* Yes, that is my way of saying this is all bulls---.

So does all that crap mean you don't think "freedom" actually exists??? Freedom is pretty self explanatory to people who read and speak the English language. As a concept, it's existence is widely acknowledged by people WHO DON'T even speak or read English. It's cross-cultural. You mentioned alot of members of different faiths and persuasions...I put to you that if there's a place that all these people can co-exist without abridging anyone else's rights...then there is FREEDOM!

I never said we have perfect freedom here...but the bald fact is that we have more freedom than many other nations.

As a conservative I put this idea out to you...I love liberals. That's right I do. Every great leap of freedom has been pioneered by them. Sure, conservatives resist,...but they also protect past liberal gains. Conservatives protect against some of the more loony excesses of liberals...but all in all we cannot go forward without them! Conservatives are the brakes while liberals are the gas. We need them BOTH!

Since I love liberals so much, I'd like to see more of them. I want to see African liberals, Arab liberals, Muslim liberals, and Chinese liberals!

Only when freedom persists worldwide will we ever see a real rise of free liberalism worldwide....perhaps then we can move the world to become the better place we all know it CAN be.

-z

 

[Cleon]

Of course only a relativist would say...

Of course, the moment you start out by saying "only a ____ would say," I really have no desire to bother with the rest. It starts on such a flimsy note.

My point was not whether which were "valid" or not, my point is simply that without any universal definition of "freedom" that everyone agrees on, arguing about whether "freedom" is worthless or not, or whether "free" societies are superior to "unfree" societies, is rather pointless. As is rather obvious from my post.

 

[Cleon]

So does all that crap mean you don't think "freedom" actually exists???

Oh, for crying out loud...This is really simple, Rik, even for you.

Arguing about whether "freedom" is a good idea or not is pointless unless you have an agreed-upon definition of what "freedom" is. Whether I think it exists or not, or what opinion I have on the matter, is completely irrelevant. Do try to pay attention, Rik.

 

[Giz]

Of course, the moment you start out by saying "only a ____ would say," I really have no desire to bother with the rest. It starts on such a flimsy note.

My point was not whether which were "valid" or not, my point is simply that without any universal definition of "freedom" that everyone agrees on, arguing about whether "freedom" is worthless or not, or whether "free" societies are superior to "unfree" societies, is rather pointless. As is rather obvious from my post.

So because there's disagreement of some extremists interpretation of freedom we can't say anything about the USA's freedom relative to North Korea's oppression?

Ergo we cannot assign any worth to freedom?

Riiiiiight...

Hang on! I just had this great idea! Why don't we just come to the conclusion that maybe North Korea/Hitler/Taliban are just wrong. I can happen you know. Even I myself thought that I'd made a mistake once*.


* but I was mistaken.

 

[Cleon]

So because there's disagreement of some extremists interpretation of freedom we can't say anything about the USA's freedom relative to North Korea's oppression?

Thereby confirming that you don't even want to acknowledge the most basic of points.

It's not a matter of "extremists," as you would've known had you actually read and considered my post before trying to accuse me of "relativism." Most of the people on this board won't be able to agree on what "freedom" is. (Though, I suppose that would also depend on what you consider an "extremist." Some people seem to think that the only legitimate political positions are "conservative" and "libertarian," and everyone else is an "extremist.")

If you don't agree on a definition before discussing its qualities, it's a pointless discussion.