DescentBB

Posted: **Tue Jan 04, 2011 11:12 pm**

Jefferson, Churchill and others before us knew what our politically correct ruling class and media overlook and even apologize for in islam.

Churchill wrote:

\"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.\"

If the Klu Klux Klan were an \"ancient\" religious sect with a large following that seemed exotic and foreign to us, would we embrace it in the name of diversity? Would we overlook the cross burnings and negro lynchings elsewhere in the world because \"it's their way of expressing their religious views?\"

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 9:58 am**

I'll clue you in on something.

It's the reactionary nationalist extremists on your side of the fence that polarise the debate. They inevitably end up encouraging people like me to defend your enemies (in this case Islam?) from the hypocracy of your side's claims.
Because we have to do all we can, to show that we're different to you crazy people.

You're basically a loose cannon that the rest of us rational people have to chase around and try to tie down. Your extreme side wastes everybody's time and effort dealing with YOU, time and effort that would have been better spent dealing rationally with the finer points of the case at hand.

But no, instead the conversation is polarised between \"AHH MOTHERLAND!\" and \"i'm 12 wut is this?\", forever.

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:20 am**

Suddenly I'm some kind of irrational loon you have to protect everyone else from.

Seriously, you have to do better.

What's irrational about posting about an extremist theocratic ideology that seeks to impose its will upon all of mankind?

We're not supposed to make a big deal about it I suppose. All religions are equally repugnant, backward and savage. Why pick on islam? Is that your view?

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:51 am**

Roid wrote:... They inevitably end up encouraging people like me to defend your enemies (in this case Islam?) from the hypocracy of your side's claims.
Because we have to do all we can, to show that we're different to you crazy people. ...

That's a lame excuse for finding yourself in a morally compromised position, Roid. A person isn't compelled to defend anyone who's wrong from someone else who is also wrong. A person's responsibility among their fellow man is to call what's right right, and what's wrong wrong, not to be the arbitrator of the way things ought to be.

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:19 am**

roid wrote:It's the reactionary nationalist extremists on your side of the fence that polarise the debate. They inevitably end up encouraging people like me to defend your enemies (in this case Islam?) from the hypocracy of your side's claims.
Because we have to do all we can, to show that we're different to you crazy people.

so let me get this right. you feel it neccesary to defend the Islamists from the Big Bad conservative. and as conservatives we are Over reacting to the Islamists.
we are over reacting to a group of people that happen to have within their ranks people that like to blow up other people??? maybe you should re-think who the Crazy people are and why you chose to "defend" those crazy people

I will point to world history for you if you think this is a new thing for the Islamist's to be doing. you'll find they have been doing the same thing for centuries.

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 12:21 pm**

ThunderBunny wrote:What's irrational about posting about an extremist theocratic ideology that seeks to impose its will upon all of mankind?

Matthew 28:16-20 wrote:Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

ThunderBunny wrote:If the Klu Klux Klan were an "ancient" religious sect with a large following that seemed exotic and foreign to us, would we embrace it in the name of diversity? Would we overlook the cross burnings and negro lynchings elsewhere in the world because "it's their way of expressing their religious views?"

The KKK is not expressly illegal in the United States. It is not against the law to be racist or dislike black people in the vast majority of circumstances (barring Equal Housing Opportunity and Equal Opportunity Employment, etc). Furthermore it is ludicrous to connect all violence against black people with American KKK members.

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 12:30 pm**

null0010 wrote:
ThunderBunny wrote:What's irrational about posting about an extremist theocratic ideology that seeks to impose its will upon all of mankind?

Matthew 28:16-20 wrote:Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

I'm not seeing the part where it says "and Kill them if they don't follow"

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 12:35 pm**

I've covered that before:

Acts 3:20-26 wrote:And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

emphasis mine

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 12:50 pm**

And that covers that? What reading level are you at?

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 12:54 pm**

Sergeant Thorne wrote:And that covers that? What reading level are you at?

OH it's not the reading of the word where he is lacking Thorne, it's the Comprehension of the Word.

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 12:59 pm**

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 1:02 pm**

Null isn't the only one making unfounded interpretational jumps.

IMHO, non-Muslims who quote the Quran to support their claims about Islam, and non-Christians who quote the Bible to support their ideas about Christianity... neither one knows as much as they think.

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 1:04 pm**

Foil wrote:Null isn't the only one making unfounded interpretational jumps.

That's my point.

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 2:08 pm**

Again, just how many christians are out burning synagogues, mosques and killing unbelievers these days?

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 2:28 pm**

Albany Times Union (Albany, NY)

Christians slaughter Muslims in Nigeria; Corpses burned, mosques defaced in reprise sparked by published cartoons.

In 2007, a young group of white supremacists burned downed a mosque in Columbia, Tennessee. They wrote racist things like ‘white power, we run the world’ and identified with the Christian Identity Movement.

http://craigconsidine.wordpress.com/200 ... tennessee/

Taraba State Police Commissioner, Aliyu Musa said the killings started on Tuesday in the community of Bukari after Christian youth became angry over the location of a mosque. He told The Associated Press on Wednesday that a group of young people burned down the mosque, which caused a counterattack by Muslims.

http://234next.com/csp/cms/sites/Next/H ... lence_.csp

Should I go on?

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 3:06 pm**

ThunderBunny wrote:Again, just how many christians are out burning synagogues, mosques and killing unbelievers these days?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing with you there. At all. It's horrific, barbaric stuff, and it currently far surpasses acts from extremists of other religions.

Where I take exception is when non-Muslims start quoting the Quran and making claims about "what True Islam is". It's just as laughable as Null horribly mis-interpreting the Biblical quote to make a claim about Christianity.

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 4:54 pm**

Yea Null, leave the horribly mis-interpreting Biblical quotes to the Christians.

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 5:05 pm**

Spidey wrote:Yea Null, leave the horribly mis-interpreting Biblical quotes to the Chriatians.

Agreed Christians misquote the Bible more than anyone, thats because many dont know how to read it, OR. they wish to justify something in their lives or their actions in some fashion. which is terribly sad.

possibly like,

say,

a Muslim would do?

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 5:25 pm**

CUDA wrote:possibly like, say, an extremist of any faith would do?

fixed that for you

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 5:56 pm**

null0010 wrote:
CUDA wrote:possibly like, say, an extremist of any faith would do?
fixed that for you

you dont need to be an extremist to misinterperate something. you are a prime example. are you an extremist for your Missinterpretation of the Bible? or are you just not properly educated in it's reading?

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 6:00 pm**

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:06 pm**

Heretic wrote:Albany Times Union (Albany, NY)

Christians slaughter Muslims in Nigeria; Corpses burned, mosques defaced in reprise sparked by published cartoons.

In 2007, a young group of white supremacists burned downed a mosque in Columbia, Tennessee. They wrote racist things like ‘white power, we run the world’ and identified with the Christian Identity Movement.
http://craigconsidine.wordpress.com/200 ... tennessee/

Taraba State Police Commissioner, Aliyu Musa said the killings started on Tuesday in the community of Bukari after Christian youth became angry over the location of a mosque. He told The Associated Press on Wednesday that a group of young people burned down the mosque, which caused a counterattack by Muslims.
http://234next.com/csp/cms/sites/Next/H ... lence_.csp

Should I go on?

Yes, you should- but you will never come up with anywhere near the numbers of attacks and killings that muslims perpetrate in the name of their religion.

A ratio of 90:1 (as in 90 attacks by muslims upon nonbelievers or apostates, to 1 of any and all other "faiths" combined) in any given year is more probable- and that may be an underestimation on the muslim side of the ratio.

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:16 pm**

Sergeant Thorne wrote:
Roid wrote:... They inevitably end up encouraging people like me to defend your enemies (in this case Islam?) from the hypocracy of your side's claims.
Because we have to do all we can, to show that we're different to you crazy people. ...
That's a lame excuse for finding yourself in a morally compromised position, Roid. A person isn't compelled to defend anyone who's wrong from someone else who is also wrong. A person's responsibility among their fellow man is to call what's right right, and what's wrong wrong, not to be the arbitrator of the way things ought to be.

Extremists like OP make it hard to converse about the finer points of the case at hand and find common ground.

This is basically a Tea Party rally with people screaming slogans like 'Obama is a Muslim'. It's hard to talk here about adult things, amongst the backdrop of this grotesque clown show.
But hey you all seem to be enjoying yourselves. If this is what you want then fine, continue the circlejerk.
If not, if you want something more, then do something about it.

(Note to Spidey: I'm linking the definition because last time i said this, someone misunderstood and took it the wrong way. Do i really need to make this disclaimer? Apparently so, just for you.)

I've got better things to do than listen to "George Bush doesn't care about black people" retards as well, thankfully we don't have any of them we've already got all the wingnuts we can handle here.
I'm sick of this ★■◆●, can't we do better than this?

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:35 pm**

roid wrote:...
Extremists like OP make it hard to converse about the finer points of the case at hand and find common ground.

This is basically a Tea Party rally with people screaming slogans like 'Obama is a Muslim'. It's hard to talk here about adult things, amongst the backdrop of this grotesque clown show.
...

Yes there is no discussion of substance going on here for all the racially charged Obama vitriol we are always chanting.

I wonder, can you get any more pathetic in your mis-characterization of this forum?

Posted: **Thu Jan 06, 2011 12:24 am**

Roid, I happen to know exactly what a “circle Jerk” is when used to describe something that is not the literal definition.

Do you ever give someone the benefit of the doubt, or are you really convinced everyone is ignorant?

If you want to raise the bar in this forum, start with yourself…hypocrite.

Now would you be so nice as to explain what a Millimeter is again…

Posted: **Thu Jan 06, 2011 12:49 am**

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millimetre

Posted: **Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:25 pm**

This has got to stop. I don't mean to stop speaking against Islam. I mean people who aren't spiritual always try to say religion is the devil and try to use the malevolent/ignorant actions of others as proof of their statements. The real way to prove your point about such things is to use whatever defines the religion and interpret it in its entirety with true logic and common sense.

It's okay to wage war over \"terrorism\" and energy, but if you fight over religion that's surely a trait of a \"terrorist.\"

God forbid that the cause of war be a consequence of behavior, malevolence, greed, hate, ignorance, etc. No, we have to blame it on \"religion.\"

Having said this, I don't think increasing awareness of how bad you're asserting Islam to be shouldn't be enough to motivate posts like these, because I think many people in the U.S. already have the same opinion. If they didn't, no one would have thrown a brick into a local mosque after 9/11, and Bush wouldn't have to tell the sheeple that he's not waging war on Islam.

Churchill and Jefferson aren't exactly righteous defenders of truth here, either. :P Churchill is just creating yet another diversion with what he said here, and redirecting scrutiny to an unrelated group (that sounds kind of like what goes on today) and Jefferson was most likely an elitist. :P What if Mohammed just wanted to bring people back to the simplicity of being good people with the love of the one God? What if people saw this and 'Islam' went downhill, like with everything else?

I think ThunderBunny has the right idea here. He's been writing about what he considers to be unwholesome/unsavory about Islam, to say the least, and he has stated reasons for this and has (at least) hinted toward sources of supporting evidence, even though they may not have been in every new thread. I like what Colonel Thorne said. :) Not speaking out against something one considers to be wrong to the best of his knowledge is just a cop out. You know what they say, those who stand for nothing will fall for anything. =P

Posted: **Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:47 pm**

Part of PC is respect to others. Surely a concept worth spreading.

Posted: **Thu Jan 06, 2011 8:54 pm**

Extremists like OP make it hard to converse about the finer points of the case at hand and find common ground.

LOL, that's funny I don't care who you are. I think the whole goal of man is to enjoy his life, work something with his hand, mind his own business and don't partake of things that you deem evil. That says worlds there.

For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

Every single person on this earth has the right to decide for themselves what to choose. No where is force accepted except through the government. The only time someone should be forced to conform is when they are a harm to themselves or others.

Posted: **Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:42 am**

Part of PC is respect to others. Surely a concept worth spreading.

Respect for others does not need political correctness to enforce the concept. Simple human empathy is needed- and is something that is completely missing in the body of the exercise of political correctness, Gren. PC is a false shadow of empathy solely used for, guess what, political ends. Most of these political ends are manipulative at best- nefarious and downright evil at worst.

In order to begin to address the issue of PC, you must recognize its true motive and mode of operation.

Posted: **Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:09 pm**

<Sigh> As mentioned in the other thread, there seem to be multiple definitions of \"PC\" here.

If we take \"PC\" as most conservatives do, to mean the tendency of media and social groups to use social pressure as a means to censor ideas ... then it's a bad thing.

If we take \"PC\" as most liberals do, to mean a social contract to engage in dialogue with respect, avoid malicious language, etc. ... then it's a good thing.

Posted: **Fri Jan 07, 2011 1:04 pm**

Let me help you out, here.

The tendency of media and social groups to use social pressure as a means to censor ideas in order to "engage in dialogue with respect, avoid malicious language, etc."

Posted: **Fri Jan 07, 2011 1:33 pm**

ThunderBunny wrote:
Part of PC is respect to others. Surely a concept worth spreading.
Respect for others does not need political correctness to enforce the concept. Simple human empathy is needed- and is something that is completely missing in the body of the exercise of political correctness, Gren. PC is a false shadow of empathy solely used for, guess what, political ends. Most of these political ends are manipulative at best- nefarious and downright evil at worst.

In order to begin to address the issue of PC, you must recognize its true motive and mode of operation.

Yeah, what he said. :P There nothing respectful about political correctness, anyway. You're not my waitress? You're not female? You're a machine programmed and used to offer services for other users? You're not my mail lady? You're not female? You're not a lady? Not lady-like? Have you no other purpose?

...and don't call me Shirley. ^_~

Posted: **Fri Jan 07, 2011 4:26 pm**

If we take \"PC\" as most liberals do, to mean a social contract to engage in dialogue with respect, avoid malicious language, etc. ... then it's a good thing.

That is absolutely wrong. The \"social contract\" is created by parental upbringing and not set by a political body. PC is created by a political body (interest, lobby or pressure group) to enforce a new paradigm.

Do we really want to let other people dictate what our children are taught (right or wrong) rather than what is the parents' right and responsibility?

Granted, there are cases where the parents' ideas or ideology are so counterproductive or skewed that it is far from what is civilly acceptable- but this is the exception (the enforcement of islamic law and family honor killing, for instance.)

Tangent, though connected:

Parental responsibility is another dimension to the problem. The \"liberal\" political groups insist upon wresting control over the upbringing of children from the parent to government or institution.

In effect, this is a creating a situation where parents are no longer encouraged to take responsibility for their children in any respect- in fact they are actively discouraged.

A permanent dependent underclass is created which serves a socialist agenda where the state replaces family as ultimate responsible party and \"protector.\"

Individual responsibility is regarded with distaste in this environment. The state is responsible for all and the individual for nothing.

\"Socialist\" may be a hotbutton term, but it is relevant.

Posted: **Fri Jan 07, 2011 4:45 pm**

But yet, they still conveniently blame the parents when something goes wrong.

Posted: **Fri Jan 07, 2011 4:47 pm**

ThunderBunny wrote:
If we take "PC" as most liberals do, to mean a social contract...

That is absolutely wrong. The "social contract" is created by parental upbringing and not set by a political body. PC is created by a political body...

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

You define "PC" as created by a political body. That's fine, and under that definition, I tend to agree with you in many ways.

But your definition is not necessarily universal. To many others, "PC" is a social interaction between individuals, with no ties to political groups whatsoever.

---

TB, when someone says, "PC is about respect", that makes no sense to you, correct? Because you define PC as a political group agenda, it has nothing to do with respect... and you're correct, under your definition.

Conversely, if you say, "PC is about a group agenda" to someone else, it may make no sense to them, because under their definition, PC has nothing to do with groups or agendas... and they're correct, under their definition.

---

Personally:

I usually think of the term "Political Correctness" much the way TB does, just because the word 'political' implies a partisan or group dynamic.

But I also realize that probably half the debate is simply due to the huge differences in what people mean by "PC".

Posted: **Fri Jan 07, 2011 5:03 pm**

Factual incorrectness is the root of PC ie Blind is visually challenged which is a Oxymoron since a blind person can do nothing visually.

Just like Afro American is used to refer to Black Americans where as all blacks are not decedent from Africans.

I find this one example funny as hell.

PC says I'm not fat, I am weight and height disproportionate so why don't we go get another Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese meal and super size it.

Define PC all you want but I say PC is just another way to side step the debate about inequalities and discriminatory issues of our time.

Posted: **Fri Jan 07, 2011 5:32 pm**

Heretic wrote:...but I say PC is...

Thank you for clarifying your own definition.

As long as you understand that your definition isn't necessarily shared by everyone in the conversation, we'll be fine.

Posted: **Fri Jan 07, 2011 6:38 pm**

PC is what PC is no matter how you define it. People may claim to have this or that ostensible reason for engaging in political correctness, but it is, in reality, the a-moral practice of diluting everything to the point where it's totally innocuous to everyone, without regard as to whether they're right or wrong in taking exception. It's a bad trend.

Posted: **Fri Jan 07, 2011 7:09 pm**

But your definition is not necessarily universal.

Sure and I want to call a spade a three of hearts. I have a right to my own definition, but is it adequately even close to describing what actually exists?

DescentBB

Because of PC we fail to see islam's threat

Because of PC we fail to see islam's threat

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: