-
Posts
-
You can’t declare physical war on an ideology at all. The only thing you can do is prevent it from spreading, and showing it’s members why the alternative (western liberalism) is better.
Western liberalism isn’t better though is it, only in your opinion and it is laughable that a liberal, you, wants to impose your ideology on everyone else.
Oh and while ISIS were savagely burning women alive and beheading, Obama was murdering women and children in North West Pakistan with drone bombers. As Father Ted would say they are “two cheeks of the same erse”.
drac, I find that the problem wiht your tactic of slicing your opponent’s arguments into segments and then setting out often-controversial points to counter them can be counter-productive. You equate inessential arguments with essential ones. I answer to some points you make, not all, because otherwise the arguemnt will go spinning in all directions. If i don’t answer others, it doesn’t mean I accept them. I don’t want to get into historical arguemnts about the Inquisition and the Reconquista, for example, though you’re entitled to make the points.
The other problem with this tactic is that you can ignore the essential arguments of your opponent and obscure the main point as a result.
The essential argument is that you can’t distinguish between Islam and Muslims in the way that you’re doing. Islam is a faith practised by Muslims. If you can persuade Muslims not to accept Islam, then they aren’t Muslims any more.
If you pronounce Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia to be enemies, and rfuse to accept any immigrants form those countries (Muslim or not), or if you stop any Muslims comming nin full stop, then first, you will cause fear among British Muslims – if I were a British Muslim, I would see you declaring my faith to be your enemy, and would start wondering when BB and his mates are going to be arriving at my door with the baseball bats.
Secondly, it’s not going to deal wiht the problem of terrorism. The muslims who’ve struck in the UK aren’t form Islamic countries. They are British Muslims. At least that barbarian BB has consistency on his side.
I absolutely agree that lobbing in obscure random points adds nothing of substance to the debate and is extremely frustrating to deal with. Thank you though Skeptical for saying it more eloquently than I can.
Western (secular) liberalism isn’t better though is it, only in your opinion and it is laughable that a liberal, you, wants to impose your ideology on everyone else.
Liberalism certainly isn’t perfect, but it’s better than fundementalist Islam in pretty much any metric you could think of.
Oh and while ISIS were savagely burning women alive and beheading, Obama was murdering women and children in North West Pakistan with drone bombers. As Father Ted would say they are “two cheeks of the same erse”.
I don’t agree with US policy regarding drone strikes either. But Obama wasn’t deliberately targeting civilians to my knowlage, so those things aren’t exactly the same.
The other problem with this tactic is that you can ignore the essential arguments of your opponent and obscure the main point as a result.
Please tell me which of your arguments I have ignored.
The essential argument is that you can’t distinguish between Islam and Muslims in the way that you’re doing. Islam is a faith practised by Muslims.
Muslims practice certain parts of Islam that they like, and ignore the rest (except ISIS). Just like every religion. The problem is that nearlly all of Islam is aweful, at least christianity at least has positive or contradicting passages that can be chosen from by it’s followers. Not being able to distinguish is exactly why a complete ban on immigration is required.
if I were a British Muslim, I would see you declaring my faith to be your enemy, and would start wondering when BB and his mates are going to be arriving at my door with the baseball bats.
That would be a highly irrational, and paranoid response.
Secondly, it’s not going to deal wiht the problem of terrorism. The muslims who’ve struck in the UK aren’t form Islamic countries. They are British Muslims. At least that barbarian BB has consistency on his side.
That is partially correct, but where do those British muslims come from? They are (~95%) the children or grandchildren of muslim immigrants. If we can stop british muslims from becomming radicalised, it would then be safe to remove the ban.
I absolutely agree that lobbing in obscure random points adds nothing of substance to the debate and is extremely frustrating to deal with. Thank you though Skeptical for saying it more eloquently than I can.
The points I made about the reconquista are absolutely relevant to the debate. It is an example of what it would be like if Islamic rule (think of Sharia being introduced into British law) was allowed to happen in the west.
“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it” seems like a fitting description for your attitude towards this.
I absolutely agree that lobbing in obscure random points adds nothing of substance to the debate and is extremely frustrating to deal with. Thank you though Skeptical for saying it more eloquently than I can.
The points I made about the reconquista are absolutely relevant to the debate. It is an example of what it would be like if Islamic rule (think of Sharia being introduced into British law) was allowed to happen in the west. “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it” seems like a fitting description for your attitude towards this.
It’s not relevant at all, sidestepping and blasting out irrelevant information as a red herring that can be countered every step of the way, is just a waste of font. It never goes anywhere. As I said, you claim to be a liberal, but have no liberal values whatsoever. Do you want Muslims from countries you don’t approve off to wear a yellow star on their chest? You automatically connect all Muslims to violence and radicalization because I guess, you are a far right Christian fundamentalist yourself. You are certainly no liberal. There is arguing for the sake of it…. and a reasonable debate.
It’s not relevant at all, sidestepping and blasting out irrelevant information as a red herring that can be countered every step of the way, is just a waste of font. It never goes anywhere.
The logic you seem to be using is unbelievable. If we were instead taking about nazism, would you also say that talking about WW2 is sidestepping? Would the holocaust be a red herring?
This is the argument you are making.
Do you want Muslims from countries you don’t approve off to wear a yellow star on their chest? You automatically connect all Muslims to violence and radicalization
I have never said either of those things.
I guess, you are a far right Christian fundamentalist yourself.
Lol, i’m an fundamentalist christian atheist?
I think you confuse progressivism (center left) with liberalism (center right) though.
if I were a British Muslim, I would see you declaring my faith to be your enemy, and would start wondering when BB and his mates are going to be arriving at my door with the baseball bats.
That would be a highly irrational, and paranoid response.
Secondly, it’s not going to deal wiht the problem of terrorism. The muslims who’ve struck in the UK aren’t form Islamic countries. They are British Muslims. At least that barbarian BB has consistency on his side.
That is partially correct, but where do those British muslims come from? They are (~95%) the children or grandchildren of muslim immigrants. If we can stop british muslims from becomming radicalised, it would then be safe to remove the ban.
Why would it be irrational and paranoid to know that I am a suspect if my parents or grandparents were Muslims? Why would it be irrational and paranoid to think that regarding Islam as a force of evil, so that immigration form Islamic countries is forbidden, that I would be a suspect as a Muslim? It strikes me as a very rational response.
I’m not a Muslim, of course, I find Islam deeply unattractive. The point is that I tolerate Islam, and find the Muslims I have met to be really nice people. Radical Islam cannot be tolerated – they’re the ones involved in a reconquista – you have to be a bit paranoid to think Islam as a whole is. That ended in 1492 (well more like 1683 at the gates of Vienna). The same thinking would see Catholics as murderous killers because of twhat happened in ulster in the 1641 massacres.
The essential argument is that you can’t distinguish between Islam and Muslims in the way that you’re doing. Islam is a faith practised by Muslims.
Muslims practice certain parts of Islam that they like, and ignore the rest (except ISIS). Just like every religion. The problem is that nearlly all of Islam is aweful, at least christianity at least has positive or contradicting passages that can be chosen from by it’s followers. Not being able to distinguish is exactly why a complete ban on immigration is required.
This is the essential argument you haven’t answered, drac. You make assertions, but you haven’t answered it. Islam is a faith, practised by Muslims. In the political terms you’re talking about, they can’t be differentiated in the way you do. You rightly say that Muslims (well I assume most) don’t practise it in full. That’s fine by me. It’s up to them. But then you say Islam is awful. But if it’s awful, then Muslims who practise part of it are also awful.
The argument is toleration. Muslims and you as a christian atheist vampire (lol) don’t see eye-to-eye. Fair enough. Live with one another. As long as Muslims live with us, and don’t try to forcibly change us, I’m happy. As long as i don’t try to forcibly change them, they’re happy with me. Toleration doesn’t mean agreement; it just means agreeing to live with people who don’t agree with you.
BB, you listening, in between your fantasies about forcibly deporting millions of British citizens to the desert somewhere?
I think you confuse progressivism (center left) with liberalism (center right) though.
I don’t confuse it at all, in one breathe you claim to be a liberal and in the next breathe deny others, the liberalism, you support. You are certainly not “centre” left or “progressive” and your ideology is far right. Based solely on what you type on here of course. In my opinion.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!