It is currently Tue Oct 21, 2014 4:15 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 358 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 12  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:25 am 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 3302
Location: Essex, England
That bloke makes me laugh, and right up until now I only thought youtube brought crap to the masses.

I would reccomend to anyone who has watched just one of his video clips and enjoyed it, watch them all, and watch them in the correct order (oldest first). Dont make the mistake I did and watch the 5 newest ones before deciding to watch them in the corrct order as he often responds to questions people have given to him, and it makes more sense to watch them in the order that God intended :wink: I have watched 24, and counting, I like work when its quiet.


Andy

_________________
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,000MHz, 256 GB Samsung 830, 500-GB 7K500, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr, PC is super quiet :o
Server, 6-TB RAID-5 array, + 2 x 2-TB backup drives, 380W Enermax Pro82+, 4x very quiet fans, positive pressure only, no exhaust fans
Living Room PC, 3500+, 2-GB RAM, HD501LJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 4:25 pm 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 3302
Location: Essex, England
I have now watched them all - it was good fun.


Andy

_________________
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,000MHz, 256 GB Samsung 830, 500-GB 7K500, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr, PC is super quiet :o
Server, 6-TB RAID-5 array, + 2 x 2-TB backup drives, 380W Enermax Pro82+, 4x very quiet fans, positive pressure only, no exhaust fans
Living Room PC, 3500+, 2-GB RAM, HD501LJ


Last edited by andyb on Fri Nov 20, 2009 4:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 6:09 pm 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 6:02 pm
Posts: 749
A few things on the movie Cov linked to.

Especially about Geert Wilders, political leader of the PVV in The Netherlands.

Pat says, this party is one of the largest in The Netherlands. It is not. In the polls it seems it's going to be big, but it isn't yet.

Furthermore, it is one thing to be able to speak one's mind, it's another thing to put a religious minority with its back to the wall, in the process polarising the social climate.
Trying to tax the headscarf, or as he puts it "the head rag" (in fact it's more insulting in Dutch).
Trying to ban the Quran? It's not even constitutional, there's freedom of speech but also freedom of religion.

PVV "Partij voor de vrijheid" - "Party of freedom". Freedom for whom? Look it up on Wiki, the ideology of this party is conservative nationalism.

Freedom of speech, of religion, and then there's the law against discrimination. Unlimited freedom of speech will clash with the law against discrimination, especially in Wilders' case.
Is being able to speak your mind more important than protecting groups of people against insults and discrimination? Should you be able to insult other people because of freedom of speech? Should you be able to instigate hatred against other people because of freedom of speech? Or violence because of it?
Interesting. Where do you draw the line?

There is so much more to be said about Wilders but suffice it to say, if you only hear "MP is prosecuted for speaking his mind" you are missing a lot.

Conservative. Nationalism. Singling out one group of people "who don't belong here". Older people have bad memories to these words, ranging back some 70 years or so.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 4:35 am 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 3302
Location: Essex, England
Quote:
Furthermore, it is one thing to be able to speak one's mind, it's another thing to put a religious minority with its back to the wall, in the process polarising the social climate.


I thought it was the biggest religion in the world, and it aims to be the only religion in the world, so it will by definition of what it is, not be a minority in any country.

Islam is as ridiculous as any other religion, but right now Islam is very dangerous. There are so many valid points about Islam that have already been pointed out that I will only bother to repeat a few.

People in the western world are (quite rightly) fearful of Islam getting a firmer grip than it already has, we currently have fewer rights than we did a decade ago, thanks to bleeding heart liberals, Islam, and people with smaller balls than mice not standing up and saying NO.

It is very simple really, dont let Islam change the culture of the western world, and that culture includes letting enslaved women walk around in disguise (are they even women, I cant tell). People in disguise is wrong on so many levels, and has nothing at all to do with Islam, it is simply a crude insult that we should not allow.

If someone wants to appease something as revolting as forcing women to not be visible in public, then they simply dont belong in civilised society, just like the mentally ill people who force their wives to wear a disguise, and the disguise wearers themselves.


Andy

_________________
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,000MHz, 256 GB Samsung 830, 500-GB 7K500, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr, PC is super quiet :o
Server, 6-TB RAID-5 array, + 2 x 2-TB backup drives, 380W Enermax Pro82+, 4x very quiet fans, positive pressure only, no exhaust fans
Living Room PC, 3500+, 2-GB RAM, HD501LJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 8:22 pm
Posts: 2465
Location: London
andyb wrote:
People in the western world are (quite rightly) fearful of Islam getting a firmer grip than it already has, we currently have fewer rights than we did a decade ago, thanks to bleeding heart liberals, Islam, and people with smaller balls than mice not standing up and saying NO.


How many second and third generation British Muslims do you know?

_________________
Thinkpad X200 – aging fan, T60p – Core Duo whine :(
Nothing endures but change


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:15 pm 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 6:02 pm
Posts: 749
andyb wrote:
I thought it was the biggest religion in the world, and it aims to be the only religion in the world, so it will by definition of what it is, not be a minority in any country.

Christianity still is the largest religion: 33% or 2.1 billion people.
Islam: 21% or 1.5 billion.
The Islam is the fastest growing religion though (not in percentage, but by sheer numbers).
Compared to Christianity, the Islam is a "young" religion, you might say it's in its puberty. Trying to conquer the world, just like when Christianity had its crusades. Islam is not mature in that sense.

But in this case it's not important how the Islam is doing in the world. Wilders' expressions are related to national issues only and Muslims in The Netherlands are a minority, about 5% of the total population.
Contrary to what one might expect, there are indications the amount of Muslims is declining here.

I agree that Islam is dangerous, in the sense that it's more dangerous than other religions. The simplest solution to me is to try to integrate these people into society (and by far, most already have - you can find Muslims in any corporation, city, and in certain political parties as well, just not in the PVV).

Integrating is better than to send them back to where they came from, like Wilders is suggesting (only a fraction came from another country originally - most have been born here and have a Dutch passport). There are major cities all over the world which are melting pots of different ethnicities and religions, without much difficulties.
The reason Wilders is successful with the things he says, is because some people here are discontent for whatever reason. Wilders is offering them a scapegoat. Once the Muslims are gone, more people will have a job, less people will feel anxiety, and our culture will be saved.

[Something about Wilders: he loves to attack policy and is notorious for his striking one liners, but he never proposes alternatives. He never says how things should be handled, how things can be improved upon (for this reason alone, it would be a disaster if the PVV gets in government).
He wants to get rid of Article 1 of our constitution: "All Dutch will be treated equally. Discrimination because of religion, political views, race, gender or any other distinction will not be allowed". For most here, it makes more sense if what he says means getting rid of part of the First Amendment of the USA.]


andyb wrote:
We currently have fewer rights than we did a decade ago, thanks to bleeding heart liberals, Islam, and people with smaller balls than mice not standing up and saying NO.

I don't know if you're married or if you have a partner (I don't), but living together means compromise.
As a single, I have more freedom and I can do what I want: I don't have to consider another person's feelings or wants.
If you have a house miles away from your nearest neighbours, you have more freedom than if you live in an apartment. I can't play music as loud as I sometimes want after 22.00.
In normal day life, we already live by rules and compromises. Rules which make us able to live together, which are compromises really.
No one will take me seriously if I play my stereo as loud as it can at 3 AM, the police showing up and I shout "freedom".
Which rights have you lost in the last decade?

Living together (with a partner, or with people of another religion) means we have to make rules, compromise. In return, we can live in (perhaps relative) freedom, and gain peace. Rules are made to protect the peace we have amongst eachother.

Culture.
Changing culture.
Culture has changed through the entire history of man, in every country. Culture is an ongoing process, it's not static but very dynamic.
If black people can live with white people, if right wing and left wing parties can co-exist in ruling a country and even form coalitions in some cases, I don't think it's impossible to have people with religion A live together with people from religion B.

I even think this is a must. For so many reasons. Putting people of a certain religion in a certain part of the world (again, like Wilders is suggesting) makes communication very hard, therefor understanding eachother very hard.
Thinking globally, we are all one race. Every person is unique, with variables like skin, religion, political belief, education, environment, the way they dress, the music they prefer, what kind of people they are attracted to, if they like their PC quiet or just overclocked as hell.
All these people live "here". Six degrees of separation.

Living our life in freedom (living it by rules/compromises we agreed to) means we have to communicate. Communication is always easier if the other group is close by, instead of sent far away from us. Separating groups of people on whatever ground, will escalate the differences of opinion. Seperating these people from us will bring bigger issues in the long run - it won't be invisible women but invisible WMD's (hmmm... or will it...?).


andyb wrote:
It is very simple really, dont let Islam change the culture of the western world, and that culture includes letting enslaved women walk around in disguise. If someone wants to appease something as revolting as forcing women to not be visible in public, then they simply dont belong in civilised society, just like the mentally ill people who force their wives to wear a disguise, and the disguise wearers themselves.

The only way to do this is to let them live with "us". Communication, debate, the way a (sub)culture evolves because of the outside (in this case: Western) influences.
Or would you rather they stay away? They will continue to enslave their women for sure if there is no pressure.
If you really feel this passionate about this wrongdoing, the only option is to integrate them and change their views from up close.

I am a firm believer of democracy and equality. Not that long ago, women weren't allowed to vote, black people weren't allowed to go where they wanted to.
Western society will influence the Islam in a positive way, but Islam has to be in contact with Western society for this to happen.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 4:03 am 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 3302
Location: Essex, England
Quote:
How many second and third generation British Muslims do you know?


One, he is with me right now (Saturday worker). He is a very nice inteligent young man, with one character flaw, he has been brainwashed by his parents and and it shows.

He is a supporter of the Pakistani Cricket team (even when they are playing England, there is something very wrong there), he covers up parts of the female on my calendar that the bikini does not cover, and most importantly I cant use him as anything more than a gopher in the shop.

Although he is clever, and very keen on computers, he is simply not capable of asking questions, therefore he cant actually be trained to fix computer problems (thats why he is still my Gopher after 15-months).

This last point I also give to non-muslims who are very religious. I have noticed this before, and when I have spoken to friends and family about this it seems to be a recurring theme. Highly religious people DO NOT ask questions, but that is really not very surprising at all as they have been taught not to, after all if theye were allowed to ask questions and think freely they would have abandoned their parents attempts at brainwashing (if the brainwashing didnt start until they were much older - poor sod never had a chance).

_________________
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,000MHz, 256 GB Samsung 830, 500-GB 7K500, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr, PC is super quiet :o
Server, 6-TB RAID-5 array, + 2 x 2-TB backup drives, 380W Enermax Pro82+, 4x very quiet fans, positive pressure only, no exhaust fans
Living Room PC, 3500+, 2-GB RAM, HD501LJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 5:30 am 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 3302
Location: Essex, England
Quote:
I even think this is a must. For so many reasons. Putting people of a certain religion in a certain part of the world (again, like Wilders is suggesting) makes communication very hard, therefor understanding eachother very hard.
Thinking globally, we are all one race. Every person is unique, with variables like skin, religion, political belief, education, environment, the way they dress, the music they prefer, what kind of people they are attracted to, if they like their PC quiet or just overclocked as hell.


But you have just highlighted a major part of the problem, its pretty much one sided. Us tollerant people in the western world are bending over forwards to recieve people from other countries with different beliefs, cultures, and morals. Yet if we go to Sudan, and teach poor children to help make their lives better, and name the calss teddy bear after a well recognised paeodphile we are imprisoned.

That is a memorable example of why we should stop bending over forwards, because no-one else will. Therefore it is a one-sided deal, we will accomodate you, but you will not accomodate us. That doesnt even cover the point that people in other countries who's citizens we bend over forward for still have serious human rights abuses that are considered not just normal, but just and correct.

So why should we really try to accomodate people who dont want to change, who dont even try to fit in, and who we are changing laws for, to protect. We wouldnt need to change laws to protect anyone, if everyone was the same, because they would be the same as us.

A lot of people are concerned that could be the thin edge of the wedge, what will happen next.? People are speculating even more laws to protect people who dont want to be like us, who dont want to integrate, what the next step is for us, sharia law.? Personally I doubt that this will happen within the next 20 years, but that horrible Juvenile religion knows no bounds and I belive that it really could happen - and I would simply move country to somewhere where they still have self respect if that does happen.

Integration is the key to this entire problem, as you have quite rightly said most people integrate perfectly well, but some simply dont. Only 5-years ago I never saw Ninja's walking down the highstreet where I live. 2-years ago, I saw the occasional Ninja, and now I see Ninja's every day or two.

You cannot tell me that this makes me feel totally comfortable in the place that I have lived since I was born. You cannot tell me that is integration of any kind, it goes right against the grain of integration, and it is being done on purpose for the benefit of the BNP, and the PVV.

They are gaining support very rapidly because people want to bring their own crude hate filled rules with them, and they know we are so nice that we will allow them to walk down the street, and even into banks in disguise, and we let them because some idiots in power dont have the balls to say NO. If I walked into a bank wering a hockey mask (or any other disguise) I would be refused service and no doubt the silent alarm would be pressed and I would be arrested in short order.

Therefore I give you an example of rights that are being breached, and laws that have been changed to accomodate people who want to rub our generous welcome in our own faces.

And here is another example that people refuse to integrate, it is actually down here in black and white.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8364756.stm

These people will go to such lengths as to NOT let their children integrate that they would prefer to send them half way round the world to Pakistan to get an education, rather that to send them to the school down the road (for free) to integrate with other children.

So those children will grow up in my country, and their children will be 3rd generation living here, will they be given the chance to integrate at long last.?

People keep on saying "dont worry, its only the minority who dont integrate". I would like to see some proof of that, but first there need to be some rules to classify true integration. Such rules I would use would be, go to a state school, dont wear silly clothing in public, treat all women as human, support the country's sport (and other) teams of the country you live in, speak the language fluently, dont teach your children your previous language fully (common greetings and phrases excluded), live by the rules and laws of the country you live in rather than the rules and laws of the country you used to live in, live by the rules and laws of the country you live in rather than that of your religion. I think that about does it, and on that basis, my Gopher is not British - which I think says everything about pseudo-integration, rather than true integration.

Whilst at the same time hypocrisy rules. People have been arrested for flying the "Union Jack", and "St Georges Cross" during massive football events, but no one has at the same point in time been arrested for flying flags of any ther nation. This of course has nothing directly to do with immigrants, but everything to do with the powers that be going out of their way to help people feel at home, whilst at the same time directly discriminating against 90% of the population. That backfired in a big way, the very next day the sales of the Union Jack and St Georges Cross flags went through the roof, and became so popular that the police would have to arrest half of the populous if they wanted to continue their silly behaviour. This I suspect is exactly what is happening right now, people are waking up and smelling the manure and are saying NO to people who dont want to integrate, but DO want to impose their rules on everyone else.

Yet another example (thanks to the voices from above), the Turks that live in the flat above my shop. The husband speaks English to an understandable degree, the wife does not, not a word, and neither can she understand me. Their child I dont know about, but the othe lady that sometimes lives with them also does not speak or understand a word of English. Personally I would not have let them into the country until they at least learnt to speak, understand, read and write English to a decent standard. Anything less than that and Integration is simply not possible.


Andy

_________________
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,000MHz, 256 GB Samsung 830, 500-GB 7K500, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr, PC is super quiet :o
Server, 6-TB RAID-5 array, + 2 x 2-TB backup drives, 380W Enermax Pro82+, 4x very quiet fans, positive pressure only, no exhaust fans
Living Room PC, 3500+, 2-GB RAM, HD501LJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 12:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 8:22 pm
Posts: 2465
Location: London
andyb wrote:
Quote:
How many second and third generation British Muslims do you know?


One, he is with me right now (Saturday worker). He is a very nice inteligent young man, with one character flaw, he has been brainwashed by his parents and and it shows.

He is a supporter of the Pakistani Cricket team (even when they are playing England, there is something very wrong there), he covers up parts of the female on my calendar that the bikini does not cover, and most importantly I cant use him as anything more than a gopher in the shop.


Okay. What about that makes you afraid? How is he different from a devout Christian from, say, Wales?

This is a serious question, actually. I seem to recall reading most immigrants almost entirely adopt their new country's culture in second or third generation. Certainly this is true for fertility rate. This is also pretty accurate to my own observations in school, though we don't have as many Muslims and I acknowledge the possibility of the situation in the UK, which I haven't experienced first hand and I haven't really looked into academically, being different. I had hoped the sample size would be a bit larger, so that we can do a bit more than trade anecdotes.

I did read this article earlier this year: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8038398.stm

And excuse me for saying, but your points about women's rights ring a bit hollow with a bikini calendar at work. I guess supporting the right to get almost naked for money is halfway there.

andyb wrote:
But you have just highlighted a major part of the problem, its pretty much one sided. Us tollerant people in the western world are bending over forwards to recieve people from other countries with different beliefs, cultures, and morals. Yet if we go to Sudan, and teach poor children to help make their lives better, and name the calss teddy bear after a well recognised paeodphile we are imprisoned.


Turn the other cheek, treat others as you would like to be treated, not how they treat you. Those are pretty well established in Western culture. I don't suppose preaching one thing and doing another will be terribly effective.

andyb wrote:
Personally I doubt that this will happen within the next 20 years, but that horrible Juvenile religion knows no bounds and I belive that it really could happen - and I would simply move country to somewhere where they still have self respect if that does happen.


Well, I hope you're learning the language, the culture, and the names of the football players for when you do move, so as to be able to speak, understand, read and write to a decent standard and make everyone born there totally comfortable with you.

andyb wrote:
If I walked into a bank wering a hockey mask (or any other disguise) I would be refused service and no doubt the silent alarm would be pressed and I would be arrested in short order.


What about walking about into an office in a yarmulke -- should you be asked to remove it? Why or why not?

andyb wrote:
People keep on saying "dont worry, its only the minority who dont integrate". I would like to see some proof of that, but first there need to be some rules to classify true integration. Such rules I would use would be, go to a state school, dont wear silly clothing in public, treat all women as human, support the country's sport (and other) teams of the country you live in, speak the language fluently, dont teach your children your previous language fully (common greetings and phrases excluded), live by the rules and laws of the country you live in rather than the rules and laws of the country you used to live in, live by the rules and laws of the country you live in rather than that of your religion.


Most of these vary from reasonable (laws) to somewhat questionable (supporting teams, really? Really? That's what makes one English?), but the languages bit is downright idiotic.

I entirely agree learning the local language is incredibly important. But at the same time, knowing more than one language is an incredible asset, from an economic viewpoint, from a cultural viewpoint, and from social viewpoint too. Actively denying that, to anyone, for any reason, especially languages that are reasonably popular worldwide, especially considering children pick up languages remarkably easily and a native speaker parent is the best possible language teacher, is ridiculous.

I fully intend on teaching my children, if I ever have any, both languages I speak currently in addition to the local language of wherever we are living at the time. I categorically reject the notion that this would make me a bad immigrant.

andyb wrote:
Their child I dont know about


Take the effort and find out. You might be surprised.

Finally, sorry for the low shot, but I can't help but chuckle at this:

andyb wrote:
the populous

andyb wrote:
speak, understand, read and write English to a decent standard

_________________
Thinkpad X200 – aging fan, T60p – Core Duo whine :(
Nothing endures but change


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 1:28 pm 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 3302
Location: Essex, England
Quote:
Okay. What about that makes you afraid? How is he different from a devout Christian from, say, Wales?


What I have pointed out should be proof enough that I am not afraid of him at all, I have no reason to be, but devout Christians from Wales - they are evil and will turn you into frogs the moment you relax :wink:

Quote:
I did read this article earlier this year: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8038398.stm


As you may have "observed" in the past, many questionnaires are manipulated by the very wording of the questions that are asked, that is why 2 questionnaires taken at the same time asking the same question, but with different wording will result in dramatically different answers.

And I totally reject that questionnaire for two simple reasons. 1, it was funded by "The Coexist Foundation", guess what their message is about, guess how they manipulated their queswtions to get the answers they wanted. 2, the front page of their website has quotes from "The Muslim Council of Britain", who say things like this, among many others.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/content/mus ... -statement

Quote:
And excuse me for saying, but your points about women's rights ring a bit hollow with a bikini calendar at work. I guess supporting the right to get almost naked for money is halfway there.


You obviously decided to forget an important part of that sentence, choice. If that was a photo of someone who didnt want to be there, and didnt want to get paid (because its their job) they simply wouldnt, but they choose to be there, so your point of womens rights to be photographed wearing a bikini and printed by the thousand is their right. Many Ninja's simply dont get the right to choose what they wear, unless they choose to offend hundreds of people by walking around in public in disguise..

Quote:
Turn the other cheek, treat others as you would like to be treated, not how they treat you. Those are pretty well established in Western culture. I don't suppose preaching one thing and doing another will be terribly effective.


Thats really funny, its as much an unwritten rule as anything else, what do you do when your playing a game of cards by the rules, and someone else uses their own rules, I presume you continue to loose every game, but I assume you will still be smiling at the end.

Quote:
What about walking about into an office in a yarmulke -- should you be asked to remove it? Why or why not?


Yes you should when you are wearing it over your face with a few tiny holes so you can barely see and breathe. Or how about wearing 27 pairs of sunglasses neatly arranged to cover your whole face, maybe a potato sack, or a hollowed out pumpkin.

You know my point is valid, and yours was just silly, all you need to do now is admit that it was. Note that I never mentioned headscarfs of any designation, because they dont cover your whole face, thus you are not in disguise.

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

Quote:
Most of these vary from reasonable (laws) to somewhat questionable (supporting teams, really? Really? That's what makes one English?), but the languages bit is downright idiotic.


At last a sensible point, and indeed a compliment.

If I moved to Canada for example, I would choose to support Canada and England, not just England, and Canada first (I would have had a good reason to move there). My children would have to support Canada, as they would be Canadian, but my Gopher chooses to Support Pakistan, and not England even though he was born here, he seemingly favours the country his parent left rather than the country he was born in, his friends were born in, and where he has lived in his whole life. Dont you think that he has a bit to much of a grip on a country that he visits on holiday, do you support the USA in sporting events (presuming you have gone on holiday in the USA).

Yes I agree that "suggesting" that people shouldnt be taught their parents language by their parents in their own home is just as silly as wanting to kill all homosexuals for what they want to do in their own home, and I belive that you are right, it should be no more than a suggestion.

But there are some parts of some countries that are so insular that they dont even speak their country's language at all, they dont need to because they brought their whole country with them, just fostering such things will not help integration (remember I said that was key). Its not a great feeling when I walk into a shop and find half of the staff are speaking to each other in a foreign tongue, and every one of them was plainly born here. That is simply rude, and it is a very common practice that simply pushes people apart rather than together. Do you think that it is rude for people to speak together right in front of you (about you perhaps), knowing full well that you dont have a clue what they are saying (about you).

Quote:
I fully intend on teaching my children, if I ever have any, both languages I speak currently in addition to the local language of wherever we are living at the time. I categorically reject the notion that this would make me a bad immigrant.


I assume you speak English and French as you are Canadian, in the same way that many countries around the world often use 2 languages. And I would not be surprised to know that if you moved to another country that spoke neither English or French that you would learn the local lingo, but I would expect you to be polite enough to teach your children the local lingo as their primary language, and not to talk in foreign around people who have no idea on what was being said.

Quote:
Take the effort and find out. You might be surprised.


Judging by the height and the drool, I would go for 3 years old. And anyway she was pretty scared because I was asking questions loudly to people who had no idea of what I was trying to communicate as to why there was lots of water running through my office ceiling lights. A good example of why its good to know the language - "sorry I knocked over this bucket of soapy water whilst cleaning the bathroom" would have been nice, but I got a lot of head shaking, a few shruggs, a puzzled look and "no no English".


Andy

_________________
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,000MHz, 256 GB Samsung 830, 500-GB 7K500, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr, PC is super quiet :o
Server, 6-TB RAID-5 array, + 2 x 2-TB backup drives, 380W Enermax Pro82+, 4x very quiet fans, positive pressure only, no exhaust fans
Living Room PC, 3500+, 2-GB RAM, HD501LJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 1:16 pm 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 3302
Location: Essex, England
I have another question to God.

Why did you let this idiot post this video on youtube, in response to the second video linked from Pat Condell.

If you God existed, you would have stopped that video being posted, maybe even stopped the video camera from working.

My favourite part of the video (please just put up with the random mumblings and question dodging until you get to 3:16), I wont quote you the line itself as that will be spoiling it for you, but I do urge you to watch the Video by Pat Condell that his is a direct response to.

Nutcase and Itiot that God failed to stop before he posted this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rGsnfFN ... re=related

In response to this by Pat Condell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEtfdzNAE74

Also please enjoy the rest of Pat's selection, I suggest watching from the bottom up (oldest first).

http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell#p/u


Andy

_________________
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,000MHz, 256 GB Samsung 830, 500-GB 7K500, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr, PC is super quiet :o
Server, 6-TB RAID-5 array, + 2 x 2-TB backup drives, 380W Enermax Pro82+, 4x very quiet fans, positive pressure only, no exhaust fans
Living Room PC, 3500+, 2-GB RAM, HD501LJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 5:00 pm 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 6:02 pm
Posts: 749
I'd like to ask God if he had a hangover the day he created England, or more precisely, if he planned the people who settled there to be this stupid. If it was just a joke for the rest of us to laugh at, I understand, but it is a bit overkill to say the least.

There is so much wrong there, it's hard to even know where to start.

Take the language. Someone evil (I think God himself) must have invented this retarded language. There are so many exceptions and rules, it's utter diabolical to expect people to use it effortlessly, let alone without error - no wonder there are so many of them who can't. Or maybe it's not the language, it's just them.
Pronounciation:
Weight - height.
Steak - speak.
Beef - beer.
In writing:
You're - your.
Well, you know the list.

Police. Nowadays things have improved a little bit, but how on earth did they think a Bobby would be taken seriously with that hat? On the day they designed that hat, God must have picked this one, mocking every policeman in that poor country.

Politics. The people living there are stubborn enough to cling to the Pound, and stupid enough to back up Bush into going to war.

I don't know which is worse: if God exists, is he doing this to us on purpose - or if God doesn't exist, meaning the poor sods living there don't even have an excuse for themselves.
In this light, it's beyond pathetic that some of those who are living there don't acknowledge the existence of God. The one they can lay all the blame on - doesn't exist. Stupid retards.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 5:09 pm 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 3302
Location: Essex, England
Quote:
I'd like to ask God if he had a hangover the day he created England, or more precisely, if he planned the people who settled there to be this stupid. If it was just a joke for the rest of us to laugh at, I understand, but it is a bit overkill to say the least.

There is so much wrong there, it's hard to even know where to start.

Take the language. Someone evil (I think God himself) must have invented this retarded language. There are so many exceptions and rules, it's utter diabolical to expect people to use it effortlessly, let alone without error - no wonder there are so many of them who can't. Or maybe it's not the language, it's just them.
Pronounciation:
Weight - height.
Steak - speak.
Beef - beer.
In writing:
You're - your.
Well, you know the list.

Police. Nowadays things have improved a little bit, but how on earth did they think a Bobby would be taken seriously with that hat? On the day they designed that hat, God must have picked this one, mocking every policeman in that poor country.

Politics. The people living there are stubborn enough to cling to the Pound, and stupid enough to back up Bush into going to war.

I don't know which is worse: if God exists, is he doing this to us on purpose - or if God doesn't exist, meaning the poor sods living there don't even have an excuse for themselves.
In this light, it's beyond pathetic that some of those who are living there don't acknowledge the existence of God. The one they can lay all the blame on - doesn't exist. Stupid retards.


Wow, that a powerful rant, I assume you are a little drunk (I am).

Presubably you will remember to edit your post in the morning when you realise the randomness of what you have written in regards to the subject, otherwise it was quite an interesting piece (or was that peace).


Andy

PS: I will remove all of the crap that I just quoted if you remove the crap, or we can just change the subject entirely and talk about language and other random mumblings.

_________________
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,000MHz, 256 GB Samsung 830, 500-GB 7K500, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr, PC is super quiet :o
Server, 6-TB RAID-5 array, + 2 x 2-TB backup drives, 380W Enermax Pro82+, 4x very quiet fans, positive pressure only, no exhaust fans
Living Room PC, 3500+, 2-GB RAM, HD501LJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 5:49 pm 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 6:02 pm
Posts: 749
andyb wrote:
Wow, that a powerful rant, I assume you are a little drunk (I am).

Presubably you will remember to edit your post in the morning when you realise the randomness of what you have written in regards to the subject, otherwise it was quite an interesting piece (or was that peace).


Andy

PS: I will remove all of the crap that I just quoted if you remove the crap, or we can just change the subject entirely and talk about language and other random mumblings.

Oh dear.
I hope I haven't insulted you or hurt your feelings?

Not drunk here, just playing a little advocate of the devil (or God...?).
Ofcourse, all I wrote is made up to ridicule you in the worst way, just like Pat Condell is doing to other people (but he means it, or he's just very inconsiderate).

What if Pat Condell made funny little movies about England, instead of God and religion? Would they still be funny, or just insulting to the people whos religion/deity/country is being ridiculed?

You are calling someone an idiot for something he firmly believes in.
How does it feel to be put into a position like that?

My post will not be edited because it served its purpose quite well, I think.

If you think my post wasn't funny, maybe you understand why Pat Condell's movies aren't either.
They are without respect.


[PS, for good order, I consider myself an atheist, so my feelings aren't hurt by Pat in any way. I just think it's bad taste and doesn't serve a very helpful function]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 6:10 pm 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 3302
Location: Essex, England
Quote:
Oh dear.
I hope I haven't insulted you or hurt your feelings?


Not at all, I just assumed that you were drunk.

Quote:
Not drunk here, just playing a little advocate of the devil (or God...?).


You must have done a fantastic job, you were very believable.

Quote:
Ofcourse, all I wrote is made up to ridicule you in the worst way, just like Pat Condell is doing to other people (but he means it, or he's just very inconsiderate).


But lacking in Pat's humour I notice.

Quote:
What if Pat Condell made funny little movies about England, instead of God and religion? Would they still be funny, or just insulting to the people whos religion/deity/country is being ridiculed?


You should watch them all, I did, I winced at some of the things he said, but only because they are true, and out government is weaker than warm marshmallow.

Quote:
You are calling someone an idiot for something he firmly believes in.


I am not.......... oh who am I kidding, yes, every single thing Pat has said I agree with. If he said it, I will agree to it, the only difference is that he is a better speaker than I am, so I trust his judgment better than my own.

Quote:
How does it feel to be put into a position like that?


Ah, this one I dont needs Pat help with at all, please explain your particular slur, on the freedom of thought, the freedom of speech, the freedom of identity. I would love to know your response to those three, as they are "My Holy Trinity".

Quote:
My post will not be edited because it served its purpose quite well, I think.


Fine, as you wish.

Quote:
If you think my post wasn't funny, maybe you understand why Pat Condell's movies aren't either.
They are without respect.


No, sorry, I still dont find anything funny in your post, (maybe I am more sober than I thought).

Quote:
[PS, for good order, I consider myself an atheist, so my feelings aren't hurt by Pat in any way. I just think it's bad taste and doesn't serve a very helpful function]


So why are you acting like a crazy unthinking religion nut.?


Andy

_________________
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,000MHz, 256 GB Samsung 830, 500-GB 7K500, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr, PC is super quiet :o
Server, 6-TB RAID-5 array, + 2 x 2-TB backup drives, 380W Enermax Pro82+, 4x very quiet fans, positive pressure only, no exhaust fans
Living Room PC, 3500+, 2-GB RAM, HD501LJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 8:22 pm
Posts: 2465
Location: London
Andy,

We seem to have lost the bit where I had hoped you would explain what personal experiences make you fearful of Islam. I find it's better to have personal experience rather than relying on some vague or externally acquired idea of Them.

andyb wrote:
Quote:
I did read this article earlier this year: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8038398.stm


As you may have "observed" in the past, many questionnaires are manipulated by the very wording of the questions that are asked, that is why 2 questionnaires taken at the same time asking the same question, but with different wording will result in dramatically different answers.

And I totally reject that questionnaire for two simple reasons. 1, it was funded by "The Coexist Foundation", guess what their message is about, guess how they manipulated their queswtions to get the answers they wanted. 2, the front page of their website has quotes from "The Muslim Council of Britain", who say things like this, among many others.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/content/mus ... -statement


That is your choice, just be aware that it's making you look increasingly paranoid. I'm not sure they've manipulated this survey just to convince Andy they're not a threat so that they can quietly set up another caliphate in Britain, or maybe just to try to open people's eyes so they stop getting treated like an existential threat? I mean, the data released by this ideologically suspect Coexist Foundation says three-quarters of British Muslims identify with British institutions, what else would you like them to say, "Richard Dawkins is our only g*d"? "British beer is the best beer in the world"?

andyb wrote:
Quote:
And excuse me for saying, but your points about women's rights ring a bit hollow with a bikini calendar at work. I guess supporting the right to get almost naked for money is halfway there.


You obviously decided to forget an important part of that sentence, choice. If that was a photo of someone who didnt want to be there, and didnt want to get paid (because its their job) they simply wouldnt, but they choose to be there, so your point of womens rights to be photographed wearing a bikini and printed by the thousand is their right. Many Ninja's simply dont get the right to choose what they wear, unless they choose to offend hundreds of people by walking around in public in disguise..


I don't want to get all feminist here, but the level of emphasis the Muslim world as a whole places on modesty, subservience, and whatever else the burqa symbolizes is at most comparable, and at least probably smaller, than the level of emphasis the contemporary Western culture places on women being "sexy". Which -- guess what -- you support and further with your n00dz calendar.

I definitely agree that outright forcing, under implied if not spoken threat of violence, of the burqa on women is unacceptable. But the real world is not as black and white and you might find that for a large amount of these women it is a choice like wearing heels to work is a choice for women in the West. (If I find anything offensive, it's the effect high heels have on otherwise healthy legs, but that's another topic.) It's what everyone else does and what you are expected to do.

I also don't buy your argument that "hundreds" are offended by a single woman walking around in a burqa, you may get offended and some feminists might, others will notice and feel uneasy when they wonder if wearing it was really the woman's choice, the vast majority of people won't give a damn just like they don't give a damn about anyone else they meet on their daily routines.

Seeing another's face is not a human right and it is not a foundation of today's society, you are after all talking to me without having seen mine. I believe I've asked this previously in the forum: would you require me to keep my head up while passing you in the street?

andyb wrote:
Quote:
Turn the other cheek, treat others as you would like to be treated, not how they treat you. Those are pretty well established in Western culture. I don't suppose preaching one thing and doing another will be terribly effective.


Thats really funny, its as much an unwritten rule as anything else, what do you do when your playing a game of cards by the rules, and someone else uses their own rules, I presume you continue to loose every game, but I assume you will still be smiling at the end.


Unwritten rule my ass, it's a central message of Christianity (the real, uncorrupted kind), and even I am going to admit Christian values had immense influence on shaping the Western culture and English culture in particular to this argument.

It is true that historically cultures that haven't applied it have fared better, and often much better. I guess it comes down to the question of whether you as Us want to at all costs win against Them in an attempt to stay unchanged in some forever-state, or whether you want to be a good person.

andyb wrote:
Quote:
andyb wrote:
they know we are so nice that we will allow them to walk down the street, and even into banks in disguise, and we let them because some idiots in power dont have the balls to say NO. If I walked into a bank wering a hockey mask (or any other disguise) I would be refused service and no doubt the silent alarm would be pressed and I would be arrested in short order.


What about walking about into an office in a yarmulke -- should you be asked to remove it? Why or why not?


Yes you should when you are wearing it over your face with a few tiny holes so you can barely see and breathe. Or how about wearing 27 pairs of sunglasses neatly arranged to cover your whole face, maybe a potato sack, or a hollowed out pumpkin.

You know my point is valid, and yours was just silly, all you need to do now is admit that it was. Note that I never mentioned headscarfs of any designation, because they dont cover your whole face, thus you are not in disguise.

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


But wait! You can hide a small handgun under a yarmulke. Security risk! You are justifying your biases and prejudices by vague references to security and disguises and what you take for human dignity.

I don't believe walking around with a ski mask on is a crime, so while walking into a bank might get the police called, they would not charge you with anything if you don't pull out a gat and ask for the cash. (From the few bits I hear every now and then from England, if you keep doing it over and over you might get slapped with an Asbo though?) As for getting the police called on you in a ski mask but not on a woman in a burqa, yeah, that's called risk assessment, you can't call security on absolutely everyone that looks even slightly suspicious, and it is more common for women to walk around in burqas with peaceful purposes than it is for men to walk around in ski masks.

Not to mention considering the geographic origin of the people in question I highly doubt the dress allows the woman to "barely see and breathe", but I'm just going to assume you're exaggerating to somehow strengthen your argument there.

Oh and also, I will decide what I know, and not you, thanks.

andyb wrote:
Quote:
Most of these vary from reasonable (laws) to somewhat questionable (supporting teams, really? Really? That's what makes one English?), but the languages bit is downright idiotic.


At last a sensible point, and indeed a compliment.

If I moved to Canada for example, I would choose to support Canada and England, not just England, and Canada first (I would have had a good reason to move there). My children would have to support Canada, as they would be Canadian, but my Gopher chooses to Support Pakistan, and not England even though he was born here, he seemingly favours the country his parent left rather than the country he was born in, his friends were born in, and where he has lived in his whole life. Dont you think that he has a bit to much of a grip on a country that he visits on holiday, do you support the USA in sporting events (presuming you have gone on holiday in the USA).


That is still, to me, attaching entirely too much weight to something of, in the end, negligible importance. I mean, honestly, you are arguing about what team someone supports.

See, however, below.

andyb wrote:
Yes I agree that "suggesting" that people shouldnt be taught their parents language by their parents in their own home is just as silly as wanting to kill all homosexuals for what they want to do in their own home, and I belive that you are right, it should be no more than a suggestion.

But there are some parts of some countries that are so insular that they dont even speak their country's language at all, they dont need to because they brought their whole country with them, just fostering such things will not help integration (remember I said that was key).


Forbidding teaching of foreign languages is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, period. Encourage or force integration all you want, it is not mutually exclusive with speaking the parents' language.

andyb wrote:
Its not a great feeling when I walk into a shop and find half of the staff are speaking to each other in a foreign tongue, and every one of them was plainly born here. That is simply rude, and it is a very common practice that simply pushes people apart rather than together. Do you think that it is rude for people to speak together right in front of you (about you perhaps), knowing full well that you dont have a clue what they are saying (about you).


Actually, I've had a fair share of such experiences, going to a school with a large proportion of both East Asian and South Asian students. I do think this might be an issue of getting used to it. When I first encountered this, yeah it was a bit of a weird feeling, but if you don't assume They are against you you get used to it. It's still a bit annoying, especially when people are speaking loudly, but annoyances are part of the deal we call a society, and I get annoyed by Canadians speaking perfect English more often. I don't think speaking exclusively or predominantly non-official is that good of a thing, and I'm not friends with a lot of them, but ultimately we all have personal backgrounds and act accordingly. I don't believe any sort of perfect unity with people all together can be achieved. There will always be someone different, otherwise we might as well start outlawing slang and both mohawk and skinhead hairstyles.

As an aside, only a small minority of them would be unwilling to switch to English if I asked them to. But, unless I need something, why? If you hear two people talking in English, understanding the words but lacking the context, do you butt in and ask what they're talking about? When overhearing two specialists talking in jargon, do you demand they translate into terms a layperson can understand for you?

From personal experience, I speak non-English (sometimes a mix of English and non-English) with my sister, and quite frankly if someone asked me to stop I'd tell them off. We are having a conversation between ourselves, not concerning you (I have more interesting things to talk about than you, thanks) and if you cannot understand it then it is not my problem. If a third person is involved, we'd definitely switch, but I understand why people speak the language they've always spoken to someone.

She's the only person in this town I talk to in non-English FWIW, assuming internet-speak-infested slang I use with some friends still counts as English. I'd still tell you off.

andyb wrote:
Quote:
I fully intend on teaching my children, if I ever have any, both languages I speak currently in addition to the local language of wherever we are living at the time. I categorically reject the notion that this would make me a bad immigrant.


I assume you speak English and French as you are Canadian, in the same way that many countries around the world often use 2 languages. And I would not be surprised to know that if you moved to another country that spoke neither English or French that you would learn the local lingo, but I would expect you to be polite enough to teach your children the local lingo as their primary language, and not to talk in foreign around people who have no idea on what was being said.


Actually, as you've probably figured from my previous answer, English and French are not the two languages in question. As a point of interest, the wondrous Statcan tells us only 17.4% of the Canadian population are actually able to speak both official languages. (Wikipedia's got a pretty decent amount of IMO interesting stats extracted.)

See above regarding "talking in foreign". I believe in politeness, but not in bending over backwards.

In the end, I think there is a fundamental difference between us on this issue, and one I suspect comes from our backgrounds and experiences. I have come to see moving between countries sort of like a bigger version of moving cities. When you move to a different city, do you drop the hometown team you've supported since boyhood like a hot potato and become the greatest fan of the new local? Like I said, integration is very important, and I wouldn't go around telling people that everything was better in the old city. Defeats the point among other problems. But to me moving countries doesn't mean completely switching teams. I'll talk local to the best of my abilities and I would take the time to learn about the new country. But I will not blindly assume everything new is better, I will buy the old ethnic food every now and then (especially if I were to move to England, no offense), and no, I won't start using the new language when talking with someone I've always spoken the old one with, people who want to eavesdrop on a private conversation be damned.

andyb wrote:
Quote:
Take the effort and find out. You might be surprised.


Judging by the height and the drool, I would go for 3 years old.


Right then, that might be a problem, same way talking to a three year old child of English-only-speaking parents might. The way you phrased it had me thinking she was 10 or 15 or something, at which point you should indeed have English skills. A lot of the immigrant kids will pick up the language effectively when they first go to daycare or kindergarten, so there's still time for her. (I do agree kids should be sent to at least truly bilingual schools, if not schools mostly in local language.)

_________________
Thinkpad X200 – aging fan, T60p – Core Duo whine :(
Nothing endures but change


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 5:41 am 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 3302
Location: Essex, England
Quote:
We seem to have lost the bit where I had hoped you would explain what personal experiences make you fearful of Islam. I find it's better to have personal experience rather than relying on some vague or externally acquired idea of Them.


As I said I have no direct fear of Islam except for the erosion of our freedoms and rights, which is one of the many thinks that Islam is all about, its wants to dominate us, it wants to impose Sharia on us, it wants to either convert us, enslave us or kill us. And it quite simply states all of that several times in the Quran.

And right now here in Britain, and other parts of Europe Islamofascists are doing exactly that with the help of our own government. Sharia has already got its foot in the door, our human rights have already been changed so as to not offend the sensibilities of muslims.

Simply put, I fear the change that we have already seen continuing, there are only 3 roads from here, nothing else changes, we claim back those rights we gave away, or we lose more rights to Islamofascists, and their pathetic spineless supporters.

Quote:
That is your choice, just be aware that it's making you look increasingly paranoid. I'm not sure they've manipulated this survey just to convince Andy they're not a threat so that they can quietly set up another caliphate in Britain, or maybe just to try to open people's eyes so they stop getting treated like an existential threat? I mean, the data released by this ideologically suspect Coexist Foundation says three-quarters of British Muslims identify with British institutions, what else would you like them to say, "Richard Dawkins is our only g*d"? "British beer is the best beer in the world"?


I would like them to give us our rights back, and stop being so crazy about silly little things like pictures of a sick barbaric paedophile, that result in thousands of vile threats of pain, torture, murder, and actual deaths that arose from that whole pathetic incident.

I want those muslime preachers to stand up, and say, "it's only a picture, dont threaten to murder thousands of people for that, its not right". But they dont, instead they want an inquiry into the London bombings because they simply dont believe that it was Islamic terrorists that caused devestation, they think that it was someone else. The Imams have a huge responsibility, but give nothing for the respectibility of their pathetic violent religion.

Quote:
I don't want to get all feminist here, but the level of emphasis the Muslim world as a whole places on modesty, subservience, and whatever else the burqa symbolizes is at most comparable, and at least probably smaller, than the level of emphasis the contemporary Western culture places on women being "sexy". Which -- guess what -- you support and further with your n00dz calendar.


I agree, they are polar opposites, and somewhere nearer the middle might be better for everyone, but the reality is how it is right now.

Quote:
(If I find anything offensive, it's the effect high heels have on otherwise healthy legs, but that's another topic.) It's what everyone else does and what you are expected to do.


I totally agree with that, I dont find a single thing attractive about high heels, and it actually causes many medical conditions.

Quote:
I also don't buy your argument that "hundreds" are offended by a single woman walking around in a burqa, you may get offended and some feminists might, others will notice and feel uneasy when they wonder if wearing it was really the woman's choice, the vast majority of people won't give a damn just like they don't give a damn about anyone else they meet on their daily routines.


I dont know a single person (except probably my Gopher, I will ask him on Saturday) that is NOT offended by people covering their faces. So by my calculation I expect the vast majority of people where I live find it offensive.

Quote:
Seeing another's face is not a human right and it is not a foundation of today's society, you are after all talking to me without having seen mine. I believe I've asked this previously in the forum: would you require me to keep my head up while passing you in the street?


Actually I believe that anyone who constantly hides their face is hiding a lot more than their face - this is the main reason why people dont trust "hoodies" or rather the people hiding in the shadows their hoods provide.

Bank robbers who wear balaclavas, and of course all of those screaming hate filled idiots who wear tea towels over their faces to shield them from prosecution whilst threatening violence and murder on the streets of Britain.

So its not just about being able to see someones face, its about to being in disguise, we live in a country where it is customary to take of your hat (or hood) when you enter a building, so covering your face to the general public all of the time seems creepy, and I find it very offensive.

Quote:
Unwritten rule my ass, it's a central message of Christianity (the real, uncorrupted kind), and even I am going to admit Christian values had immense influence on shaping the Western culture and English culture in particular to this argument.


Aha, so you agree that it is a rule that we hold dearly, why would you or anyone else continue to hold onto that rule when others ignore it, and simply abuse the freedom that you have granted them, and give you nothing in return.

Quote:
But wait! You can hide a small handgun under a yarmulke. Security risk! You are justifying your biases and prejudices by vague references to security and disguises and what you take for human dignity.


You can hide a handgun in almost any item of clothing, but how many items of clothing make you very hard to identify - all of the ones that cover your face, a Yarmukle does not.

Quote:
That is still, to me, attaching entirely too much weight to something of, in the end, negligible importance. I mean, honestly, you are arguing about what team someone supports.


I obviously put a greater amount of importance on that than you do, but really its just a simple way to show allegiance to the country that you live in, if you dont show allegiance then you obviously dont like the place, so why are you there.? Thats what it really boils down to, patriotism - few people agree with everything that their government does, but you should at least be patriotic to the country where you live, some people simply arent.

Quote:
Forbidding teaching of foreign languages is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, period. Encourage or force integration all you want, it is not mutually exclusive with speaking the parents' language.


If someone really wants to fit in to the country that they live in, they need to speak the language(s), and their children also need to do that, but I constantly see evidence that some people simply dont care about that, if their child cannot speak English very well then they are going to be at a disadvantage, and that is not the way to integrate.

Quote:
Actually, I've had a fair share of such experiences, going to a school with a large proportion of both East Asian and South Asian students. I do think this might be an issue of getting used to it. When I first encountered this, yeah it was a bit of a weird feeling, but if you don't assume They are against you you get used to it. It's still a bit annoying, especially when people are speaking loudly, but annoyances are part of the deal we call a society, and I get annoyed by Canadians speaking perfect English more often.


That is an interesting point, but I specifically used to example of a shop. The purpose of that example is that you are there to buy something, its their job to help you, and make you feel welcome.

May people simply dont because they see your looking for something, and continue to talk about whatever they are talking about instead of helping you. If they were talking in English it would be just as rude, but as they would know you can follow their conversation they usually dont, and instead usually help you. Therefore the difference is the language, it is simply being used instead of English so they can continue the conversation and not help their customer.

Quote:
From personal experience, I speak non-English (sometimes a mix of English and non-English) with my sister, and quite frankly if someone asked me to stop I'd tell them off. We are having a conversation between ourselves, not concerning you (I have more interesting things to talk about than you, thanks) and if you cannot understand it then it is not my problem. If a third person is involved, we'd definitely switch, but I understand why people speak the language they've always spoken to someone.


Which is why I used the examply of a shop, if it is a personal conversation in a public (or private) place they can speak whatever language they please.


Andy

_________________
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,000MHz, 256 GB Samsung 830, 500-GB 7K500, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr, PC is super quiet :o
Server, 6-TB RAID-5 array, + 2 x 2-TB backup drives, 380W Enermax Pro82+, 4x very quiet fans, positive pressure only, no exhaust fans
Living Room PC, 3500+, 2-GB RAM, HD501LJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 9:13 am 
Offline
Friend of SPCR

Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:47 pm
Posts: 867
Location: Phoenix, AZ
andyb wrote:
I have another question to God.

Why did you let this idiot post this video on youtube, in response to the second video linked from Pat Condell.

If you God existed, you would have stopped that video being posted, maybe even stopped the video camera from working.


I know that "free will" has been posted many times in this thread, but you must have missed it. The answer is free will. God gave man free will to either do good, evil, or do nothing at all.

_________________
Phenom 1090T / 9800GTX+ / Antec P180 / Seasonic S12-600


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 10:14 am 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 3302
Location: Essex, England
Quote:
I know that "free will" has been posted many times in this thread, but you must have missed it. The answer is free will. God gave man free will to either do good, evil, or do nothing at all.


Not everyone has free will, but not everyone has been brainwashed at a young age to do only what some ancient text tells them to do, and not to think for themselves - therefore many people simply dont have "free will".


Andy

_________________
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,000MHz, 256 GB Samsung 830, 500-GB 7K500, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr, PC is super quiet :o
Server, 6-TB RAID-5 array, + 2 x 2-TB backup drives, 380W Enermax Pro82+, 4x very quiet fans, positive pressure only, no exhaust fans
Living Room PC, 3500+, 2-GB RAM, HD501LJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 5:42 pm 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 6:02 pm
Posts: 749
andyb wrote:
Quote:
Ofcourse, all I wrote is made up to ridicule you in the worst way, just like Pat Condell is doing to other people (but he means it, or he's just very inconsiderate).


But lacking in Pat's humour I notice.

The one you called an idiot doesn't appreciate Pat's humour.
It's in the eye of the beholder, and you don't like the kind of humour that is insulting to you.


andyb wrote:
If he said it, I will agree to it, the only difference is that he is a better speaker than I am, so I trust his judgment better than my own.

You trust someone else's judgement better than your own?
I'm not a great speaker either but I will form my own opinion.


andyb wrote:
Quote:
How does it feel to be put into a position like that?


Ah, this one I dont needs Pat help with at all, please explain your particular slur, on the freedom of thought, the freedom of speech, the freedom of identity. I would love to know your response to those three, as they are "My Holy Trinity".

Freedom of thought: anyone can have their own thoughts. No one is harmed, insulted or damaged by thought of another human.

Freedom of speech: it's funny that something one holds so dear, makes one so rigid towards other opinions.
I think freedom of speech should have certain ground rules like respect. But once I threw them overboard, you asked if I were drunk and suggested I edited the crap out next morning.
All of a sudden, you didn't seem to like freedom of speech that much anymore.

Freedom of identity: shall I just kick this one in? The word burqa has already been mentioned, you can fill in the gap.


andyb wrote:
Quote:
If you think my post wasn't funny, maybe you understand why Pat Condell's movies aren't either.
They are without respect.


No, sorry, I still dont find anything funny in your post, (maybe I am more sober than I thought).

So, it's funny if other people get ridiculed, but it's not funny if you are ridiculed?

Ofcourse the issue is not if it's funny or not. The real issue is respect, and what lack of it does to one's feelings.


andyb wrote:
Quote:
[PS, for good order, I consider myself an atheist, so my feelings aren't hurt by Pat in any way. I just think it's bad taste and doesn't serve a very helpful function]


So why are you acting like a crazy unthinking religion nut.?

Sigh...


andyb wrote:
As I said I have no direct fear of Islam except for the erosion of our freedoms and rights, which is one of the many thinks that Islam is all about, its wants to dominate us, it wants to impose Sharia on us, it wants to either convert us, enslave us or kill us. And it quite simply states all of that several times in the Quran.

Culture rubs off on eachother. The muslims who are in parliament here, the writers, stand up comedians, the more intellectual part came here for a reason. Some have been oppressed and actually welcome Western culture. Most of them practice Islam in a very modest way.

In order to change law to (or shift it towards) Sharia law, they would have to be quite religious.
There are two things worth mentioning: muslim population here is only 5%, so even if all these were very strict practitioners, they will never get a majority to push legislation.
[Shock fact: in UK, muslims form 2.7% of total population]
And two: the muslims in parliament push integration and are actively looking for solutions in order to get this done.
By these two (I suspect there are more) it's simply not possible for muslims to impose Sharia law here, nor do they want to.

If there is a threat, it's not from the muslims living here, but over there.


andyb wrote:
Sharia has already got its foot in the door, our human rights have already been changed so as to not offend the sensibilities of muslims.

Freedom of religion is a basic right in most, if not all Western countries. Discrimination based on one's religion is prohibited in most, if not all Western countries.
It's not a law of the last decade or so, just to not offend muslims.


andyb wrote:
and of course all of those screaming hate filled idiots who wear tea towels over their faces to shield them from prosecution whilst threatening violence and murder on the streets of Britain.

That was the word I was looking for a few posts back.
Wilders was suggesting "tea towel taxes" (damn, it even alliterates in English).


andyb wrote:
I obviously put a greater amount of importance on that than you do, but really its just a simple way to show allegiance to the country that you live in, if you dont show allegiance then you obviously dont like the place, so why are you there.?

Supporting a football team to show allegiance to a country? Really...

On Top Gear, the 3 were looking for a single British Leyland car that was built properly. They couldn't really find one. They must simply hate where they live, but rumours don't suggest they are moving to Italy.

Do you expect all immigrants to like marmite too?




In the end, or let's say in 50 years time, how do you see England?

No matter what direction legislation takes, immigrants will still enter the country you live in. They will bring parts of their culture, their language, food etc.

I can think of 1 more freedom to your holy trinity: freedom to live where you want. Maybe this is a utopia, maybe you don't agree that it is a freedom everyone should have.

But extrapolating what we all see, people will disperse all over the world. Do you think it's possible to prevent this?

The question much more important than "how can we hold on to the culture we have" (which, again, has been dynamic throughout our history, in every country) is:
"how do we go about living with eachother".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:48 am 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 3302
Location: Essex, England
Quote:
The one you called an idiot doesn't appreciate Pat's humour.
It's in the eye of the beholder, and you don't like the kind of humour that is insulting to you.


I still dont know what "humour" you are referring to, and I dont remember any insults coming my way.

Quote:
You trust someone else's judgement better than your own?


Sometimes, yes. Do you trust some text from a book that was written long after JC had died, and think that is better than your own, its a fairytale - and many better ones have been written.

Quote:
I'm not a great speaker either but I will form my own opinion.


No you wont, your opinion would be affected by your brainwashing.

Quote:
Freedom of thought: anyone can have their own thoughts. No one is harmed, insulted or damaged by thought of another human.


Unless you "think" that you have freedom of thought, but your brainwashing has its roots so deep in your psyche that you really dont have the freedom of thought.

Quote:
I think freedom of speech should have certain ground rules like respect.


I respect your religion about as much as I do the choice of your PC components - and no more than that - religion does not require more than the bare minimum of respect.

Quote:
But once I threw them overboard, you asked if I were drunk and suggested I edited the crap out next morning.
All of a sudden, you didn't seem to like freedom of speech that much anymore.


I was just trying to be civil, otherwise anyone who reads that post will just assume that you had hit the bottle, so I gave you the option to remove that post, and for me to remove the quote of your post so that people dont think that you were just being silly (or drunk) - I was doing it for your benefit not mine.

And yes freedom of speech has not suddenly been dropped by me, we are both speaking (typing/reading) freely.

Quote:
Freedom of identity: shall I just kick this one in? The word burqa has already been mentioned, you can fill in the gap.


If someone choses to cover their entire face from everyone but their husband (those poor children are included), and they are not hideously ugly, or muslim, or brought up by muslims, or married to a muslim then yes. Otherwise no, they dont have an identity, they have had an identity stamped upon them.

Quote:
So, it's funny if other people get ridiculed, but it's not funny if you are ridiculed?


Ridicule me, you can, its called freedom of speech (within the rules of the forum of course).

Quote:
Ofcourse the issue is not if it's funny or not. The real issue is respect, and what lack of it does to one's feelings.


Religion does not deserve any special level of respect, I respect dogs who are busting to take a crap, but hold it in until they get to the forest before releasing the crap, more than I do religion - at least the dog is smart.

Quote:
Sigh...


Thats a very relaxed answer. Actually its not an answer at all.

Quote:
Culture rubs off on eachother. The muslims who are in parliament here, the writers, stand up comedians, the more intellectual part came here for a reason. Some have been oppressed and actually welcome Western culture. Most of them practice Islam in a very modest way.


And I respect them for keeping their religion to themselves, but if (when) they try to change more laws that discriminate against others then they will lose every scrap of respect I have for them currently.

Quote:
In order to change law to (or shift it towards) Sharia law, they would have to be quite religious.
There are two things worth mentioning: muslim population here is only 5%, so even if all these were very strict practitioners, they will never get a majority to push legislation. [Shock fact: in UK, muslims form 2.7% of total population]
And two: the muslims in parliament push integration and are actively looking for solutions in order to get this done.
By these two (I suspect there are more) it's simply not possible for muslims to impose Sharia law here, nor do they want to.


Shock Fact: You are very wrong.

Sharia law is here in the UK right now, and what it covers (divorce, and low level home issues) is fully backed by UK law. What that means is that during a divorce for example a womans worth is half that of the man.

That is wrong, and that is being imposed upon muslim women, and it is now totally legal in the UK.

Quote:
Freedom of religion is a basic right in most, if not all Western countries. Discrimination based on one's religion is prohibited in most, if not all Western countries.
It's not a law of the last decade or so, just to not offend muslims.


There is now very little difference between freedom of speech, and freedom of speech when talking about religion. Simply put, laws have been tweaked and nudged so that the freedom of speech is now worth less when talking about religion. And I belive that freedom of speech is worth significantly more than freedom of religion (which I dont disagree with). Also there is a large difference between discrimination against a religion vs freedom of religion.

My dislike of people covering their faces in public has nothing to do with religion, simply because muslim women who are forced to cover their faces in public do so because of the threat of violence, and because they have been brainwashed - covering a woman totally is not in the Quran anywhere, therefore it has nothing to do with Islam, therefore anyone can say anything they want about it.

But why cant I stand up and say that Islam is an intollerant hate-filled religion who's very words dictate to the followers of that sick book that they must kill all homosexuals, and jews, and must either convert, enslave or kill everyone all infidels (everyone else). Its true, but some people are trying to change the laws in some countries so that you cant say that.

You can preach hate, but you cant preach against hate - what a load of bullshit. The simple message of Fitna was for Muslims to remove all of those messages of hate and violence in Quran, and practice the religion that is left in the book - not the one that tells its followers to kill people by the million (it will be a much shorter book, likewise if you did the same to the bible, but it wouldnt be filled full of hate).

Free speech is the only non-violent answer to violence, and some people dont want you to even have that.

Quote:
That was the word I was looking for a few posts back.
Wilders was suggesting "tea towel taxes" (damn, it even alliterates in English).


Would potato sack be less offensive, bedsheet perhaps.? But that is beside the point, you havent mentioned those hate mongering twats who have tried to hide behind man-made textile cloth designed in various patterns and colours to suit their taste, whilst threatening millions with mass murder. What about those sick people, does it make taht all OK because I used the phrase "tea towel".?????

Quote:
Supporting a football team to show allegiance to a country? Really...


It is one of the numerous signs of alliegance, and that is undeniable (also swap the word football for anything else that is competetive and pitted against other nations).

Quote:
On Top Gear, the 3 were looking for a single British Leyland car that was built properly. They couldn't really find one. They must simply hate where they live, but rumours don't suggest they are moving to Italy.


An interesting point with a few flaws, note they werent testing Rolls Royce cars. And they would even be able to compare it to a Fiat of the same age as they would be an orange pile of rust on the ground by now. So do they really hate where they live, I dont think so, and I do believe that your point does not prove anything except that British Leyland made some really crap cars.

Quote:
Do you expect all immigrants to like marmite too?


You must have missed the advertising campaign. I expect aussies to hate Marmite and love Vegimite, and vice versa (for all of those persons who dont land in the hate camp). It could be used as a symbol of loyalty for both contries, thanks for pointing that out :)

Quote:
In the end, or let's say in 50 years time, how do you see England?


With a smaller land mass, with an even higher population, and even older population, and %15+ muslim population, with all of the loss of freedoms and morality that will be likely to ensue.

Quote:
I can think of 1 more freedom to your holy trinity: freedom to live where you want. Maybe this is a utopia, maybe you don't agree that it is a freedom everyone should have.


I think that it is a ridiculous idea, that has been poorly thought out, otherwise a lot of people would simply move in with the Pope in his huge palace.

Quote:
The question much more important than "how can we hold on to the culture we have" (which, again, has been dynamic throughout our history, in every country) is:
"how do we go about living with eachother".


There is only one way, slow, careful integration without changing where you now live to be the same as where you came from. Its the people who are moving to a new place that have to change, not the people who already live there, not the rules, laws, freedoms, and customs that need to change.

Again I will say that I have no problem with people coming here to live, work, and breed, but they need to become more like us, and fit into what already exists rather than the other way round.

If I went to Saudi Arabia, and I was female I would expect to have to cover myself all of the time (protection against rape, stoning and murder), I expect that someone who comes here from saudi arabia fits in to our society (not likely to be raped, and stoned to death for not covering herself up), but some dont, and I find it offensive that they think our country is as vile and disgusting as theirs - if they didnt they would not be covering themselves - they would look normal, and be treated as normal - but they are simply excluding themselves from society.


Andy

_________________
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,000MHz, 256 GB Samsung 830, 500-GB 7K500, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr, PC is super quiet :o
Server, 6-TB RAID-5 array, + 2 x 2-TB backup drives, 380W Enermax Pro82+, 4x very quiet fans, positive pressure only, no exhaust fans
Living Room PC, 3500+, 2-GB RAM, HD501LJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:12 pm 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 6:02 pm
Posts: 749
andyb wrote:
Quote:
The one you called an idiot doesn't appreciate Pat's humour.
It's in the eye of the beholder, and you don't like the kind of humour that is insulting to you.


I still dont know what "humour" you are referring to, and I dont remember any insults coming my way.

You find Pat funny, and the 1 movie in reply to it makes it obvious that it is insulting to some. Even without that movie, it's pretty straight forward that it is meant to be insulting.

No insults coming your way? Maybe I should have tried harder...
Why did you ask me to edit my post then? It's not enough if you simply disagree with my comments, I was just excercising my freedom of speech.


andyb wrote:
Quote:
You trust someone else's judgement better than your own?


Sometimes, yes. Do you trust some text from a book that was written long after JC had died, and think that is better than your own, its a fairytale - and many better ones have been written.

Do I trust some text... No. Finally something we agree on.
So, is Pat the equivalent of the bible to you? I can't understand why anyone would trust someone else's judgement over their own, simply because he is a better speaker.


andyb wrote:
Quote:
I'm not a great speaker either but I will form my own opinion.


No you wont, your opinion would be affected by your brainwashing.

Proof please. This one is pretty funny indeed.
You seem to know a great deal about me, so please enlighten me which specific outside influences caused me to be brainwashed.
Somehow, I get the impression that you think I'm religious, and that's why I am supposedly brainwashed.
You assume too much. Proof?


andyb wrote:
Quote:
Freedom of thought: anyone can have their own thoughts. No one is harmed, insulted or damaged by thought of another human.


Unless you "think" that you have freedom of thought, but your brainwashing has its roots so deep in your psyche that you really dont have the freedom of thought.

Anyone who thinks he's got freedom of thought, does have it.
It is not up to other people to decide if I think I have freedom of thought. My thoughts are my own, and if I think I can think whatever I want, that's it.
Maybe you don't see how subjective this really is. "Happiness" for example: in third world countries people can be just happy by having enough food and water, and a place to stay. For some of us to be happy, we need a flatscreen, a big car and whatnot. Who are we to say that someone is unhappy with only food, water and a roof over their heads? Only they can decide if they are.


andyb wrote:
Quote:
I think freedom of speech should have certain ground rules like respect.


I respect your religion about as much as I do the choice of your PC components - and no more than that - religion does not require more than the bare minimum of respect.

I already said I consider myself an atheist. This is not a religion, it's the absence of it.

If you believe in freedom of speech, you have to accept that there are those who think different from you. You will respect their opinion and not ridicule them.
If not, you should be saying "I believe in freedom of speech, but only when I'm talking", it's the egotistical form of this freedom.


andyb wrote:
Quote:
But once I threw them overboard, you asked if I were drunk and suggested I edited the crap out next morning.
All of a sudden, you didn't seem to like freedom of speech that much anymore.


I was just trying to be civil, otherwise anyone who reads that post will just assume that you had hit the bottle, so I gave you the option to remove that post, and for me to remove the quote of your post so that people dont think that you were just being silly (or drunk) - I was doing it for your benefit not mine.

Thanks for that. I don't mind if people think I wrote something when I was drunk, sometimes it even helps writing things down, but most of the times it's just funny.
The post was just meant to make a point, but it's hard to take it across if someone never gets insulted. The problem I have with the style of Pat's talk is that it is deliberately insulting, some don't see that or don't find that as important as I do.


andyb wrote:
Quote:
Freedom of identity: shall I just kick this one in? The word burqa has already been mentioned, you can fill in the gap.


If someone choses to cover their entire face from everyone but their husband (those poor children are included), and they are not hideously ugly, or muslim, or brought up by muslims, or married to a muslim then yes. Otherwise no, they dont have an identity, they have had an identity stamped upon them.

There is a long way to go for human rights in the world, I agree. While some females who turned muslim and are unrecognisable by choice, most women probably didn't choose this.
People can shave their head - maybe just because they didn't like that bald spot, but some time ago you might have been labelled a skinhead, and people could assume you were a right extremist.
The way you look doesn't define your identity, the human mind just works in a way that it puts people in boxes: "he is a this, and she is a that" - just by looking at them. Truth is, to be able to tell who a person is, you have to dig just a little deeper.


andyb wrote:
Quote:
Ofcourse the issue is not if it's funny or not. The real issue is respect, and what lack of it does to one's feelings.


Religion does not deserve any special level of respect, I respect dogs who are busting to take a crap, but hold it in until they get to the forest before releasing the crap, more than I do religion - at least the dog is smart.

Well again, I agree. Perhaps a case of mistaken identity :wink:
Still I think it's a fine line between respecting someone to a bare minimum, and discriminating or insulting someone.


andyb wrote:
Quote:
Sigh...


Thats a very relaxed answer. Actually its not an answer at all.

There's not much to say. Despite my efforts, you keep sounding like someone who disrespects anyone who believes in a religion.
You can say many things about prime minister Balkenende, for example that he is deeply religious, but you can't say he is a crazy unthinking religion nut. I'm pretty sure he would say it's disrespectful and insulting, and "that's not the way we treat eachother in this country" (the last quote only makes sense to Dutch people I guess).


andyb wrote:
Quote:
Culture rubs off on eachother. The muslims who are in parliament here, the writers, stand up comedians, the more intellectual part came here for a reason. Some have been oppressed and actually welcome Western culture. Most of them practice Islam in a very modest way.


And I respect them for keeping their religion to themselves, but if (when) they try to change more laws that discriminate against others then they will lose every scrap of respect I have for them currently.

You mean UK doesn't have a law prohibiting disrcimination in its constitution...?


andyb wrote:
Quote:
In order to change law to (or shift it towards) Sharia law, they would have to be quite religious.
There are two things worth mentioning: muslim population here is only 5%, so even if all these were very strict practitioners, they will never get a majority to push legislation. [Shock fact: in UK, muslims form 2.7% of total population]
And two: the muslims in parliament push integration and are actively looking for solutions in order to get this done.
By these two (I suspect there are more) it's simply not possible for muslims to impose Sharia law here, nor do they want to.


Shock Fact: You are very wrong.

Sharia law is here in the UK right now, and what it covers (divorce, and low level home issues) is fully backed by UK law. What that means is that during a divorce for example a womans worth is half that of the man.

That is wrong, and that is being imposed upon muslim women, and it is now totally legal in the UK.

I stand corrected.


andyb wrote:
But why cant I stand up and say that Islam is an intollerant hate-filled religion who's very words dictate to the followers of that sick book that they must kill all homosexuals, and jews, and must either convert, enslave or kill everyone all infidels (everyone else). Its true, but some people are trying to change the laws in some countries so that you cant say that.

I think you just did. It's just curious that while muslims have to do all these things, they only make up 2.7% of UK population. Maybe they are just really bad at doing what they're told, or maybe they are practicing freedom of thought, and they're thinking it's not such a good idea to do so.

I've been in Morocco a few months for a school project, and what I saw had nothing to do with the stereotype you're describing. These people are very kind, extremely hospitable and just go about their everyday business like anyone else. And they pray on a cloth facing Mekka.
From what you're saying, it's amazing that I came back alive after living there for 4 months.

Another curious thing is, 2.7%... Couldn't it be that people have to adjust to seeing people wearing burqas - the way you make it sound (I could be misinterpreting) is that streets are crowded with women in burqas, while statistically speaking only 1 in a 100 is wearing one.


andyb wrote:
Quote:
On Top Gear, the 3 were looking for a single British Leyland car that was built properly. They couldn't really find one. They must simply hate where they live, but rumours don't suggest they are moving to Italy.


An interesting point with a few flaws, note they werent testing Rolls Royce cars. And they would even be able to compare it to a Fiat of the same age as they would be an orange pile of rust on the ground by now. So do they really hate where they live, I dont think so, and I do believe that your point does not prove anything except that British Leyland made some really crap cars.

You'd have to agree that someone rooting for a Lada, while making fun of British Leyland, wouldn't be showing allegiance to the UK if they lived there. I was making it easy - showing allegiance for the UK where cars are concerned is pretty easy as there are no better cars than Aston Martins.


andyb wrote:
Quote:
I can think of 1 more freedom to your holy trinity: freedom to live where you want. Maybe this is a utopia, maybe you don't agree that it is a freedom everyone should have.


I think that it is a ridiculous idea, that has been poorly thought out, otherwise a lot of people would simply move in with the Pope in his huge palace.

Heh... you caught me off guard there :wink:


andyb wrote:
Quote:
The question much more important than "how can we hold on to the culture we have" (which, again, has been dynamic throughout our history, in every country) is:
"how do we go about living with eachother".


There is only one way, slow, careful integration without changing where you now live to be the same as where you came from. Its the people who are moving to a new place that have to change, not the people who already live there, not the rules, laws, freedoms, and customs that need to change.

But these have changed throughout history. You'd be in a real culture shock if you lived in any country 100+ years ago. Women weren't allowed to vote in the UK until 20th century (as I get it, this was a complex and gradual process).
I just thought of this: perhaps integration would have been a lot easier if they started it a century ago - both local and immigrant women would have slim rights at the time.


andyb wrote:
If I went to Saudi Arabia, and I was female I would expect to have to cover myself all of the time (protection against rape, stoning and murder), I expect that someone who comes here from saudi arabia fits in to our society (not likely to be raped, and stoned to death for not covering herself up), but some dont, and I find it offensive that they think our country is as vile and disgusting as theirs - if they didnt they would not be covering themselves - they would look normal, and be treated as normal - but they are simply excluding themselves from society.

It's a process. Slowly they will be influenced by Western culture, I do understand that it's hard to adjust to a culture shock like this if generations before you have lived the same way. It just takes time, I believe in freedom and that it will take the lead in the end.consideration, you will block all form of dialogue.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 3:01 am 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 3302
Location: Essex, England
Quote:
Do I trust some text... No. Finally something we agree on.


So your NOT religious then.?

Quote:
I can't understand why anyone would trust someone else's judgement over their own


I assume you never go to the doctor then, why would you, your own judgment is better.

Quote:
Proof please. This one is pretty funny indeed.
You seem to know a great deal about me, so please enlighten me which specific outside influences caused me to be brainwashed.
Somehow, I get the impression that you think I'm religious, and that's why I am supposedly brainwashed.
You assume too much. Proof?


If you are not religious, then why do you stick up for religion.?

Quote:
For some of us to be happy, we need a flatscreen, a big car and whatnot. Who are we to say that someone is unhappy with only food, water and a roof over their heads? Only they can decide if they are.


It is relative, if we took you to a 3rd world country and you suddenly only had enough food and water, you would not be happy, if we took somone from the 3rd world country and put them in your current situation, they would be happy - but right now I suspect they are merely content.

Quote:
If you believe in freedom of speech, you have to accept that there are those who think different from you. You will respect their opinion and not ridicule them.


Give respect where respect is due, religion demands respect, but none is actually due. I dont care if someone goes home from a days work and spends 4 hours worshipping thin air, so long as they dont try to inflict such nonsense on me, and dont try to change my life because of their unfounded beliefs.

Quote:
The problem I have with the style of Pat's talk is that it is deliberately insulting, some don't see that or don't find that as important as I do.


I am quite sure it is deliberately insulting, but that is exactly what religion does to millions of people every day, it insults them, and it is deliberate.

Quote:
People can shave their head - maybe just because they didn't like that bald spot, but some time ago you might have been labelled a skinhead, and people could assume you were a right extremist.
The way you look doesn't define your identity, the human mind just works in a way that it puts people in boxes: "he is a this, and she is a that" - just by looking at them. Truth is, to be able to tell who a person is, you have to dig just a little deeper.


I agree, but stereotypes are part of the human condition, and if someone fits that stereotype then they are a big step closer to being part of what that stereotype dictates. If I see a woman in disguise, then I immediately think that she is oppressed and is not allowed to think for herself, I might be wrong, but it is unlikely.

Quote:
Still I think it's a fine line between respecting someone to a bare minimum, and discriminating or insulting someone.


Most of the world population who are discriminated against on religious grounds are done so by other religious people, because their religion tells them to.

Quote:
Despite my efforts, you keep sounding like someone who disrespects anyone who believes in a religion.


You are almost correct, I really feel sorry for most of them, but I hate their parents for never giving them the choice of free thought.

Quote:
You can say many things about prime minister Balkenende, for example that he is deeply religious, but you can't say he is a crazy unthinking religion nut.


He might be religious because he is a vote whore, or he might actually be religious, at which point he is crazy simply because he has been brainwashed, and has not yet broken free.

Quote:
I'm pretty sure he would say it's disrespectful and insulting, and "that's not the way we treat eachother in this country" (the last quote only makes sense to Dutch people I guess).


My Prime Minister is also a nut, but no where near a nutty as as Tony bLiar, who heavily influenced government policy because he actually is an unthinking religion nut.

Quote:
You mean UK doesn't have a law prohibiting disrcimination in its constitution...?


What constitution....... We dont have a single written document that we call the constitution, our constitution IS all of the rules and laws of the land, so in a way muslim men are now legally allowed by the UK constitution to discriminate against women.

Bullshit isnt it - now I guess you might understand why I really dont like Islamofascists, those who empower them, and those who just let it slide.

Quote:
Maybe they are just really bad at doing what they're told, or maybe they are practicing freedom of thought, and they're thinking it's not such a good idea to do so.


Most I expect simply ignore the evil that is within the Quran, and concentrate opn the nice bits, but there are literally thousands of muslims in this country who preach hatred, and want to murder people because of what their book says. These are the people who are simply not capable of thought, or moderation.

Quote:
Couldn't it be that people have to adjust to seeing people wearing burqas


In some countries (Saidi Arabia) men are legally allowed to rape a woman who is not covered up, therefore the Burqa is a bit of cloth that allows/disallows rape, so any woman I see wearing one gives credence to rape.

Quote:
But these have changed throughout history. You'd be in a real culture shock if you lived in any country 100+ years ago. Women weren't allowed to vote in the UK until 20th century (as I get it, this was a complex and gradual process).


Yes, many people are finding it a culture shock at the rate it is happening right now. But womens rights are still improving, not as fast as some would like, and much faster than many Islamofascists would like.

Quote:
I just thought of this: perhaps integration would have been a lot easier if they started it a century ago - both local and immigrant women would have slim rights at the time.


It did, but then it was slow and gradual, in recent years 600,000+ people came to our country in a single year, thats much more than the entire population of Liverpool, that worries lots of people, me included.

Quote:
It's a process. Slowly they will be influenced by Western culture, I do understand that it's hard to adjust to a culture shock like this if generations before you have lived the same way.


Influenced from afar rather than within, but their culture is affecting my country from within, not just whats on the TV.


Andy

_________________
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,000MHz, 256 GB Samsung 830, 500-GB 7K500, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr, PC is super quiet :o
Server, 6-TB RAID-5 array, + 2 x 2-TB backup drives, 380W Enermax Pro82+, 4x very quiet fans, positive pressure only, no exhaust fans
Living Room PC, 3500+, 2-GB RAM, HD501LJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 8:22 pm
Posts: 2465
Location: London
andyb wrote:
Quote:
We seem to have lost the bit where I had hoped you would explain what personal experiences make you fearful of Islam. I find it's better to have personal experience rather than relying on some vague or externally acquired idea of Them.


As I said I have no direct fear of Islam except for the erosion of our freedoms and rights, which is one of the many thinks that Islam is all about, its wants to dominate us, it wants to impose Sharia on us, it wants to either convert us, enslave us or kill us. And it quite simply states all of that several times in the Quran.


I didn't think I would have to do this, but have you actually read the Bible? How many Christians you know would support nuking San Francisco from the orbit, Sodom-style? How many Jews you know think that a child cursing his parents actually deserves the death penalty (Leviticus 20:9), to bring up just one of the numerous notorious Leviticus examples?

Point being that the book may well say it, but the vast majority of its worshipers of any religion do not hold, care for, or agree with the more extreme parts.

andyb wrote:
I would like them to give us our rights back


What rights have "They" taken away from "You"? The right to offend others with generalized, mostly incorrect statements? The right for you to not get divorced under sharia law? The right to see everyone's face, except for the heavily bearded, the hoods, and others are doing nothing illegal?

andyb wrote:
I want those muslime preachers to stand up, and say, "it's only a picture, dont threaten to murder thousands of people for that, its not right". But they dont, instead they want an inquiry into the London bombings because they simply dont believe that it was Islamic terrorists that caused devestation, they think that it was someone else. The Imams have a huge responsibility, but give nothing for the respectibility of their pathetic violent religion.


I agree that would be nice, but let's be frank -- apologies and moderation of extreme behaviour are rare in all religions and secular organizations, so picking on one religion for this is rather selective.

Anyway, perhaps you wish they'd say something like this?

"Both the Sudanese government and the media must refrain from using Islam and Islamic principles to legitimise this fiasco, which may result in the unjust conviction of an innocent person, and which will only lead to the promotion of Islamophobia and further demonisation of Islam." (Islamic Human Rights Commission)

"This is a disgraceful decision and defies common sense. There was clearly no intention on the part of the teacher to deliberately insult the Islamic faith. The children in Ms Gibbons’ class and their parents have all testified as to her innocence in this matter. We call upon the Sudanese President, Umar al-Bashir, to intervene in this case without delay to ensure that Ms Gibbons is freed from this quite shameful ordeal." (Muslim Council of Britain)

"The Ramadhan Foundation urges the Sudanese Authorities to immediately release Gillian Gibbons as she has not set out deliberately to offend or demonise Islam and Muslims. This matter is not worthy of arrest or detention and her continued detention will not help repair the misconceptions about Islam."

andyb wrote:
Quote:
I don't want to get all feminist here, but the level of emphasis the Muslim world as a whole places on modesty, subservience, and whatever else the burqa symbolizes is at most comparable, and at least probably smaller, than the level of emphasis the contemporary Western culture places on women being "sexy". Which -- guess what -- you support and further with your n00dz calendar.


I agree, they are polar opposites, and somewhere nearer the middle might be better for everyone, but the reality is how it is right now.


Wait, what's the answer here? By definition the reality is how it is right now, but does that make either of Western or Muslim attitudes right? How are you justifying ripping into the Muslim attitudes if the Western ones are no better?

andyb wrote:
Quote:
I also don't buy your argument that "hundreds" are offended by a single woman walking around in a burqa, you may get offended and some feminists might, others will notice and feel uneasy when they wonder if wearing it was really the woman's choice, the vast majority of people won't give a damn just like they don't give a damn about anyone else they meet on their daily routines.


I dont know a single person (except probably my Gopher, I will ask him on Saturday) that is NOT offended by people covering their faces. So by my calculation I expect the vast majority of people where I live find it offensive.


Okay, that's unexpected, I guess you live in an easily offended place.

andyb wrote:
Quote:
Seeing another's face is not a human right and it is not a foundation of today's society, you are after all talking to me without having seen mine. I believe I've asked this previously in the forum: would you require me to keep my head up while passing you in the street?


Actually I believe that anyone who constantly hides their face is hiding a lot more than their face - this is the main reason why people dont trust "hoodies" or rather the people hiding in the shadows their hoods provide.


Of course they are -- the question is why do you feel entitled to see whatever it is they wish to hide. If they are not doing anything illegal, what is the problem? Would you rather a scifi place where everyone's thoughts are visible?

Are you placing your "right" to not be offended by someone covering up their face higher than others' "right" to not be offended by cartoons depicting a prophet as a terrorist?

andyb wrote:
Quote:
Unwritten rule my ass, it's a central message of Christianity (the real, uncorrupted kind), and even I am going to admit Christian values had immense influence on shaping the Western culture and English culture in particular to this argument.


Aha, so you agree that it is a rule that we hold dearly, why would you or anyone else continue to hold onto that rule when others ignore it, and simply abuse the freedom that you have granted them, and give you nothing in return.


Of course I agree. The point of a rule is that it applies in all conditions. Applying "treat the others as you would like to be treated" only when it is advantageous to you makes about as much sense as respecting a ceasefire only as long as you don't have ammo, or respecting freedom of speech as long as everyone agrees with you.

Your comparisons with poker are interesting but irrelevant since poker is a game which you can win. Life isn't, everyone loses in the end, at least until someone shakes a lot of things up by coming up with a magical anti-aging drug.

andyb wrote:
Quote:
But wait! You can hide a small handgun under a yarmulke. Security risk! You are justifying your biases and prejudices by vague references to security and disguises and what you take for human dignity.


You can hide a handgun in almost any item of clothing, but how many items of clothing make you very hard to identify - all of the ones that cover your face, a Yarmukle does not.


It's not really an item of clothing, but facial hair or lack thereof can change how someone looks pretty effectively. Why not require everyone to be clean shaven so they can't rob a bank with a bushy beard, shave, trim their eyebrows, and look vastly different? How about cosmetic surgery taken to Michael Jackson-like extremes? Dying your hair? Where do you draw the line?

andyb wrote:
really its just a simple way to show allegiance to the country that you live in, if you dont show allegiance then you obviously dont like the place


"If you love me, you will let me put it in" is a tactic used by 15 year old boys, but perhaps not as suitable for other purposes.

Do you think it is not possible to deeply love a country without parading the fact around?

andyb wrote:
Quote:
Forbidding teaching of foreign languages is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, period. Encourage or force integration all you want, it is not mutually exclusive with speaking the parents' language.


If someone really wants to fit in to the country that they live in, they need to speak the language(s), and their children also need to do that, but I constantly see evidence that some people simply dont care about that, if their child cannot speak English very well then they are going to be at a disadvantage, and that is not the way to integrate.


Great, we agree then.

andyb wrote:
That is an interesting point, but I specifically used to example of a shop. The purpose of that example is that you are there to buy something, its their job to help you, and make you feel welcome.

May people simply dont because they see your looking for something, and continue to talk about whatever they are talking about instead of helping you. If they were talking in English it would be just as rude, but as they would know you can follow their conversation they usually dont, and instead usually help you. Therefore the difference is the language, it is simply being used instead of English so they can continue the conversation and not help their customer.


A couple of points:

1) in any language, that is customer service fail, and your duty as a customer in an ideal market dreamed of by economists is to turn around and walk out.

2) I have seen Canadians do the exact same thing to Canadians while talking in English, and it is somewhat notorious for Poles to do this to Poles while talking in Polish, so I am having a hard time believing language is somehow a key part of this. Rude people are rude in any language.

3) some businesses actually do not want some customers. It is insulting when you are on the other end, but try walking into a Benz or R-R dealership wearing torn-up dirty clothes, or even a tracksuit. If you are lucky, the salespeople will just carry on their previous conversation, if you are not so lucky, you will be removed from the premises.

andyb wrote:
Which is why I used the examply of a shop, if it is a personal conversation in a public (or private) place they can speak whatever language they please.


Okay, thanks. That's now how I read your original post, and why I objected:

andyb wrote:
I would expect you to be polite enough to teach your children the local lingo as their primary language, and not to talk in foreign around people who have no idea on what was being said.


I read this as including private conversations too.

andyb wrote:
Quote:
I can think of 1 more freedom to your holy trinity: freedom to live where you want. Maybe this is a utopia, maybe you don't agree that it is a freedom everyone should have.


I think that it is a ridiculous idea, that has been poorly thought out, otherwise a lot of people would simply move in with the Pope in his huge palace.


Are you actually that thick, or are you just playing? Freedom to live where you want means that I can buy or rent in a fair market transaction a home next to you without asking your permission, not that I can invade yours.

_________________
Thinkpad X200 – aging fan, T60p – Core Duo whine :(
Nothing endures but change


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 10:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:37 am
Posts: 395
Location: London
I think the discussion has become ridiculous.
There doesn't appear to be the slightest consent, so why still trying so hard ?

I'm not surprised at all about the outcome so far. You guys have to agree to disagree at one point.

It kind of reminds me on the question of what color is the best one ?
Why participating in something you just cannot argue about ? People like quiri & spookmineer are constantly trying to anyway.

Gosh, would you get a life please ?

Thank you


PS: Another great YouTube videoclip about this subject
The other videos of NoStampCollector are worth to watch as well by the way.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 10:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 8:22 pm
Posts: 2465
Location: London
Hi Cov,

don't you have anything better to do than telling others what to discuss?

Sincerely,
--Jarek

P.S. Green is the best colour.

_________________
Thinkpad X200 – aging fan, T60p – Core Duo whine :(
Nothing endures but change


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 10:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:37 am
Posts: 395
Location: London
Hi Jarek aka qviri,

you misunderstand my point, but how come I'm not surprised about that ?

With kind regards
Michael

PS: Blue is the best color.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 10:39 am 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 3302
Location: Essex, England
Quote:
I think the discussion has become ridiculous, simply because people are talking at cross purposes, misunderstanding each other, and straying from the point to make their own have more value and meaning.


I also agree with that sentiment, this is obviously a subject that has people so divided that there will never be agreement.

However there are still a few points I would like to re-itterate, and ask peoples opinions on in a classic questionaire fashion.

My idea is to ask very specific questions, therefore very specific answers are the only outcome (and the answers will be 1, 2, 3, 4, (strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree)). Then we can really see if our actual points of view are really as different as they seem, because I actually believe we will agree on more points than we disagree on.


Andy

_________________
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,000MHz, 256 GB Samsung 830, 500-GB 7K500, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr, PC is super quiet :o
Server, 6-TB RAID-5 array, + 2 x 2-TB backup drives, 380W Enermax Pro82+, 4x very quiet fans, positive pressure only, no exhaust fans
Living Room PC, 3500+, 2-GB RAM, HD501LJ


Last edited by andyb on Fri Nov 27, 2009 11:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 11:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:37 am
Posts: 395
Location: London
Another warm recommendation of mine ...

Image

YouTube

But please be aware, he might offend you :twisted:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 11:52 am 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 3302
Location: Essex, England
Lets have some fun with some very specific questions, I have created 2 Areas, and 2 scenarios per area, and 5 question per area/scenario, so in total there are 20 questions. The answers in each scenarion (by area) are identical, only the scenario has changed.

As these are specific, please only answer (if you want to play of course) each question numbered from Q1 - Q20 with Answers A, B, C, D Which are A, Strongly agree, B agree, C disagree, D, strongly disagree.

Please dont add anything else except the appropriate letter indicating your answers, we can discuss our relevent answers afterwards, and why we put them down.

---

Area 1, Parents and the childs school, teaching only 1 religion to children as the gospel (for want of a better word) is wrong, abuse, and brainwashing.

---

Area 1 Scenario 1.

If a child is taught a single religion by their parents from a young age, and forced to attend said religions "holy" place of worship on a regular basis, forced to read out of their holy book regulary, forced to pray regulary, and forced to follow the expectaions of said religion RE: not consuming certain things, not working at certain times, wearing certain things etc, and taught said religion to be 100% accurate, correct, and perfect in every way. The child attends and always has attended a single faith school, where teaching said faith is a daily occurance.

Q1, it is a form of brainwashing.

Q2, it is child abuse (therefore a violation of human rights - I am sure we all agree on that terminoligy, i.e. child abuse = a violation of human rights).

Q3, it stunts the childs ability to think freely (including the ability to think freely about said religion).

Q4, do you consider it wrong in an open free society such as the one you live in.

Q5, would (do) you treat your children in such a manner.

---

Area 1 Scenario 2.

If a child is told about a single religion by their parents from a young age, suggested they attend said religions "holy" place of worship a few times a year, suggested they read out of their holy book occasionally, suggested they pray occasionally, suggested they follow the expectaions of said religion RE: not consuming certain things, not working at certain times, wearing certain things etc, and taught said religion in a casual non forceful, and open minded manner. The child attends and always has attended a standard generic public school, where teaching all faiths is a weekly occurance.

Q6, it is a form of brainwashing.

Q7, it is child abuse (therefore a violation of human rights - I am sure we all agree on that terminoligy, i.e. child abuse = a violation of human rights).

Q8, it stunts the childs ability to think freely (including the ability to think freely about said religion).

Q9, do you consider it wrong in an open free society such as the one you live in.

Q10, would (do) you treat your children in such a manner.

---

Area 2, Scenario 1, the Burqa (the disguise, or whatever else you want to call it), and the reasons why it is worn.

A person who's parents have grown up akin to Area 1, Scenario 1, moved from Saudi Arabia to your country, had a child whom they have brought up akin to Area 1, Scenario 1. We are talking about their child who is female and aged 18, and wears a Burqa at all times when she is is public in places where she has been told she is not allowed to be seen by any men she is not directly related to. She lives in an area with few muslims (say half the respective muslim population by percentage of your country) whom are mostly native to the area (3rd+ generation).

Specifically RE: the Burqa wearing habit.

Q11, she has been brainwashed by her upbringing, and cant think of any other option but to wear the burqa.

Q12, she wears it because she is fearful of rape, and it is her protection.

Q13, she wears it because her upbringing has taught her that it is expected of her.

Q14, she wears it because it identifies her as a muslim more than a headscarf would, and she wants to stand out as a muslim.

Q15, she feels that if she was not wearing it non-muslims would treat her more with more respect and she would feel more aproachable by others, and she has seriously considered to stop wearing it when she goes to University (College) next year when her parents cant stop her (different city, 100 miles away).

---

Area 2, Scenario 2, the Burqa (the disguise, or whatever else you want to call it).

A person who's parents have grown up akin to Area 1, Scenario 2, moved from Saudi Arabia to your country, had a child whom they have brought up akin to Area 1, Scenario 2. We are talking about their child who is female and aged 18, and wears a Burqa at all times when she is is public in places where she has been told she is not allowed to be seen by any men she is not directly related to. She lives in an area with few muslims (say half the respective muslim population by percentage of your country) whom are mostly native to the area (3rd+ generation).

Specifically RE: the Burqa wearing habit.

Q16, she has been brainwashed by her upbringing, and cant think of any other option but to wear the burqa.

Q17, she wears it because she is fearful of rape, and it is her protection.

Q18, she wears it because her upbringing has taught her that it is expected of her.

Q19, she wears it because it identifies her as a muslim more than a headscarf would, and she wants to be identified as a muslim by all

Q20, she feels that if she was not wearing it non-muslims would treat her more with more respect and she would feel more aproachable by others, and she has seriously considered to stop wearing it when she goes to University (College) next year when her parents cant stop her (different city, 100 miles away).


Andy

_________________
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,000MHz, 256 GB Samsung 830, 500-GB 7K500, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr, PC is super quiet :o
Server, 6-TB RAID-5 array, + 2 x 2-TB backup drives, 380W Enermax Pro82+, 4x very quiet fans, positive pressure only, no exhaust fans
Living Room PC, 3500+, 2-GB RAM, HD501LJ


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 358 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 12  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group