lol tathi. yeah, aCA and today tonight are ridiculously awful. if ray martin was the victim of a terrorist attack id be a happy chappy. the best footage i ever saw was on john safran's camera, with ray's hand trying to cover the lense. oh the sweet sweet irony.
quote:
Originally posted by tathi
does tolerance require one to tolerate other peoples intolerance?
no.
stevieboy32808
quote:
Originally posted by Cal
Yeah my bad, I should have highlighted the part that had that impact on me.
Anyway I'll try to explain why this interview had such an impact on me. It's the part about the left marching shoulder to shoulder with radical muslims for the same goal. And like she said, the left are people that are for personal freedoms, sexual freedoms, freedom of speech and opinion, and all that liberal stuff. And the radical muslims pretty much have the opposite beliefs, with their sharia law, rejection of personal and sexual freedoms and so on. The two share nothing in their ideologies, except they both protest the invasion of Iraq/Lebanon/potential invasion of Iran, etc.
I never though about it like that, so it was pretty much a mind,
Coincedence my friend. All she did was take some random belief that matches both mine and some radical extremist muslim, then associate it in such a way that it makes it look like both parties are holding hands. That's all she's doing. She's connecting common, but irrelevant dots.
quote:
When you say "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I would fight to the death for your right to say it" to a person who believes that you should not have a right to an opinion AT ALL, doesn't that defeat the purpose of reaching out to that person?
"I may not agree with you saying that my way of life should be abolished, but I would fight to the death for your right to say it?"
It's like an ideological paradox or something.
No it's not an ideological paradox. Regardless of the other party's beliefs, in this case a western hating extremist muslim, liberals would still defend his/her right to free speech. This is no different.
stevieboy32808
quote:
Originally posted by tathi
does tolerance require one to tolerate other peoples intolerance?
Yes
Assuming person A is the one with the tolerant behaviour and person B, the impatient, short-tempered trait of intolerance), then by definition person A should not feel bad putting up with person's B intolerance.
tathi
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
lol tathi. yeah, aCA and today tonight are ridiculously awful. if ray martin was the victim of a terrorist attack id be a happy chappy. the best footage i ever saw was on john safran's camera, with ray's hand trying to cover the lense. oh the sweet sweet irony.
my dads told me about that, said it was ing hilarious, do you have a copy iw ould LOVE to see it.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by tathi
my dads told me about that, said it was ing hilarious, do you have a copy iw ould LOVE to see it.
as you wish mate!! :D
Cal
I'm trying to go deeper than just muslims vs the western world. The interview was just the catalyst.
quote:
Originally posted by tathi
does tolerance require one to tolerate other peoples intolerance?
More like does tolerance require one to tolerate other people's intolerance TOWARD tolerance?
(Yeah its a mouthful isnt it :p but think about it)
What I'm thinking is that liberalism, as an ideology, is like an animal out of Darwin. If an animal is well equipped, has good genes, and is able to adapt to its environment it will survive. But if it's defective in any of these ways the animal will die.
It's like this sect of christians that used to live here in Ontario before. What made them special is their views on pleasures of the flesh, which they thought was from the devil or something like that. Long story short, they avoided it like the plague, even having sex through a hole in a sheet which they put between the man and woman so that, God forbid, they would touch each other and feel good about it. And predictably enough, they eventually died out due to not enough kids being born into the sect.
So this sect couldn't cut in the world because its ideology had that inherent weakness.
And my question to you is - does liberalism have a possibly fatal flaw in being tolerant and accepting even of attempts to destroy it?
I hope you guys are getting what I'm trying to say. It's late and I'm sleepy, gnight.
shaolin_Z
^^^ Listen man, most Muslims will end up conforming to "liberalism" just like Christians and Jews, and give up their values as taught in scripture. How many Christians or Jews do you know who don't have premarital sex, experiment with drugs etc? I don't see what you're getting so worried about. And it's not like alot of them already haven't.
EDIT: And for the record, "opressing" women, violence, and all other nonsense propagated by mainstream media has nothing to do with Islam. The Taliban regime in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia's Wahabi controlled social order has nothing to do with traditional or authentic Islam, in fact alot of their practices are completely contrary to Quranic teaching. These guys even go around killing other Muslims!
DJ Shibby
This is just so.. so.. shocking!!
I mean, really, I am just.. just shocked!!
Cal
So just because the Islamist totalitarian movement of Wahhabi Islam of the Saudis that is so successful in the petrolium nations in the Middle east, parts of Asia and Africa is not considered to be mainstream Islam it should be discounted out of hand?
Islam, especially Wahhabi Islam, is not Christianity, and not all Muslims understand or want to share in any Western future based on Western values of freedom, tolerance, and an attitude of live and let live. If a bunch of muslim kids who were raised in the western world get together with the aim to blow up as many westerners as they can (see the interview I posted), there's something wrong the whole multiculturalism thing the liberal west keeps pushing.
Anyway, I've decided. Integrating non-Western migrants based on a theory of multiculturalism just doesn't work. The western world needs to get its head out of its ass.
shaolin_Z
quote:
Originally posted by Cal
So just because the Islamist totalitarian movement of Wahhabi Islam of the Saudis that is so successful in the petrolium nations in the Middle east, parts of Asia and Africa is not considered to be mainstream Islam it should be discounted out of hand?
The point was you're equating that with Islam, which is incorrect.
quote:
Originally posted by Cal
Islam, especially Wahhabi Islam, is not Christianity,
Well, that's a pretty redundant statement. Christianity isn't Buddhism. Islam isn't Buddhism. Judaism isn't Hinduism... Ok, I think I've made my point.
quote:
Originally posted by Cal
and not all Muslims understand or want to share in any Western future based on Western values of freedom, tolerance, and an attitude of live and let live.
The reason why I hate that kind of rhetoric is because it's absolute bull. If those truly are "Western values," they should be reflected in our foreign policy as well. And if that were the case, there wouldn't be any problem to begin with.
quote:
Originally posted by Cal
If a bunch of muslim kids who were raised in the western world get together with the aim to blow up as many westerners as they can (see the interview I posted), there's something wrong the whole multiculturalism thing the liberal west keeps pushing.
First of all, I have serious doubts about any significant number of "muslim kids conspiring to blow up as many westerners as they can." Even assuming there is large enough number, their aim isn't "blowing up as many westerner as possible."
quote:
Originally posted by Cal
Anyway, I've decided. Integrating non-Western migrants based on a theory of multiculturalism just doesn't work. The western world needs to get its head out of its ass.
It works just fine. The western world needs to take some responsibility for it's elected leaders foreign policy and hold them accountable. Quit shruggin off responsibility and pointing fingers at something else as the source of a problem when it isn't. If you can't do that, you don't deserve to live in a democracy. Freedom doesn't come with out responsibility. Stop being such a wuss.
Arbiter
Memetic mutations can be just as disadvantageous to the individual as genetic ones. If we can seek remedies for the latter, then we should not be shy about attempting to cure the former when appropriate.
So-called "liberals" who have long abandoned the proud legacy of that philosophy would do well to recognize this.
Fir3start3r
quote:
Originally posted by Arbiter
Memetic mutations can be just as disadvantageous to the individual as genetic ones. If we can seek remedies for the latter, then we should not be shy about attempting to cure the former when appropriate.
So-called "liberals" who have long abandoned the proud legacy of that philosophy would do well to recognize this.
Word of the day...Memetic...wow
An interesting one too:
quote:
The term "meme" (IPA: [miːm], not [mɛm], or [mimi]), coined in 1976 by Richard Dawkins, refers to a unit of cultural information transferrable from one mind to another. Dawkins said, Examples of memes are tunes, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches. A meme propagates itself as a unit of cultural evolution analogous in many ways to the gene (the unit of genetic information). Often memes propagate as more-or-less integrated cooperative sets or groups, referred to as memeplexes or meme-complexes.
An interesting thought too, however who determines if Memetic mutations are appropriate or not?
Where would one find a unbiased judge of that?
Shouldn't the local 'law of the land' be enough to keep things in check?
