by Jacked Camry » Fri Jul 22, 2016 1:23 am
ali baba wrote:Hey JC I'm sorry for being aggro and rude. I'll try to calm down now.
That'd be nice. I was simply providing some minor input into a larger discussion. I have not claimed to have the answer nor have I claimed that Canada is Utopia. I have also noted that I'm not well-informed or knowledgeable about the European situation. Can we please get off of these stupid non-sequitor made-up issues you and Jock Jock seem to want to divert the discussion to?
ali baba wrote:Jacked Camry wrote:I see. How you came to that conclusion is beyond me, but okay, whatever.
Few people refer to influential opinion setters as leaders. Are columnists writing in the New York Times and Washington Post leaders? Do they direct the policies of the White House, Senate and Congress with their opinion pieces and editorials? Or is Obama the comander in chief, giving orders and commands?
The whole point of cells and lone wolves is to isolate each other and minimise contact so that if you are discovered other operatives are not. In order to work contact has to be minimised. What kind of plan did the leaders produce here- Yo pick up a sharp object, get on a train and start stabbing. It's hardly as sophisticated and intricate as 9-11 is it?
These people are not "influential opinion setters" - they're calling for Jihad and explicitly telling people that they should target innocent non-Muslims for violence. They're setting up networks of recruiters and preparing training materials and funding radical Imams etc. That's what I'm talking about. I understand how the cells/lone wolf thing works. These people get their ideas from those leaders, although not directly.
ali baba wrote:Jacked Camry wrote:I did not. I noted that we had done some things which seemed to work reasonably well. Indeed, thorough screening and not accepting single males was one of those things. I think you would probably be in favour of that, no? This is what we call an example of a different approach which appears to work in our country, and perhaps might also be applicable in others. That's all I said. But do ignore that and carry on with a hyperbolic tangent that in no way reflects what I wrote in a reasonable manner. Perhaps you'd like to insert another rant about our treatment of Native Americans here just to add to your "argument"?
Canada's circumstance in regards to Syria is vastly different to Europe's. The toothpaste is already out of the tube for many of the policies you successfully implemented and others were never viable. Australia also has strong borders and a harsh policy towards asylum seekers who arrive by boat but there's little chance of Europe being able to pursue similar policies.
Okay, there's a perfectly reasonable and logical response and counterpoint. Why was that so hard to do? Why did you have to go off into Quebecois and Native Americans and shit?
ali baba wrote:Jacked Camry wrote:My point was that when you spoke of not allowing new mosques, or Halal food, that these were specific rules that would only apply to Muslims presumably but not the general population. It's very difficult and can be unfair to have rules that are in place only for certain members of the populace. But you knew that of course, you're just continuing with the hyperbole.
To clarify. I'd like to ban inhumane treatment and slaughter of animals when it is practicable. No caged chickens, no to male chick slaughter, no to overcrowding, debeaking and many other husbandry practices. I would require stunning of all farmed animals and fish prior to slaughter and strict enforcement to ensure animals are killed swiftly and aren't sent into baths of boiling water whilst still alive. Like i said when I first brought it up my primary motivation is animal welfare, pissing off regressive, right wingers is a nice bonus though. I won't ban mosques because I can't be bothered writing another 300 hundred words exploring the nuance of my position.
That similarly sounds like a reasonable position to me. It wasn't what you sounded like before.
ali baba wrote:Jacked Camry wrote:If you believe this, and enough members of your democratic society believe this, then the laws are passed and accepted as standards and norms. That's what democracy is. It's not YOU deciding that YOU want to stop the way livestock are processed. But you knew this also of course. You just wanted to get another comment in on the awful practice of female genital mutilation so as to tar all Muslims with the most extreme beliefs of the minority. Yes, it's terrible. No, I'm not advocating for that to be allowed. Yes, you knew that.
I'll be more careful with MY choice of pronouns if you are going to jump down MY throat when I don't spell out every presupposition in the political process.
I like post-enlightenment post-feminist secular values. I dislike pre-enlightenment pre-feminist theocratic values. Hence I oppose mass migration of regressive, backwards populations into Europe.
Since there are billions of people around the world who would like to move to the UK we can afford to be discriminating. How about starting with the least violent people and working our way up?
Again, this is reasonable. I agree.
ali baba wrote:Jacked Camry wrote:Seems piercing the clitoris is a generally accepted practice these days among the younger generation, no? But of course that's not what we were talking about, we were talking about the more extreme version. And of course that is what I was advocating for, hence your very relevant parallel of foot binding. More trolling.
FGM is already illegal in the UK. Traveling out of the country for the op is illegal. Try again.
As far as I understand it, it's fairly common now for alternative young Western women to pierce their clitorii as both a fashion statement and because it can heighten sexual experience. I've seen photos showing this in some instances that, er, somehow found their way into my internet browser without my knowing anything about it. Must have been my 16yo son. Or something. That's what I was referring to. Not anything that would be considered FGM.
ali baba wrote:Jacked Camry wrote:Ah yes, the old Straw Man is duly trotted out for an airing. My point, of course, was that these religious practices have been established for a very long time as customs and traditions over centuries, hence have currency and meaning to those communities that is unquestionable and recognized. Yes, this provides more legitimacy than youthful liberal trends or fads. Certainly the standards and norms evolve over time in various societies, such that the more backward and incompatible practices are eliminated. That's just normal. I have no issues with allowing some but not all religious practices. That's for a country's courts and electorate to decide.
So it's a strawman and you agree with me. OK
My point was in regard to the one you raised that "drinking to excess, eating a vindaloo and puking is my longstanding tradition and culture, just like their religion is". So yes, it was a Straw Man, and no, I don't agree with you. At least unless you include "snogging and sleeping with a fat bird" in your belief system.
ali baba wrote:Jacked Camry wrote:Yes, I think religion is silly and will go the way of the Dodo. But for now, seems a majority of people believe in it and as they get to vote too, there's going to continue to be special dispensations for religious practices. Whatever. Go practice your own Atheist Jihad if you think it will make a difference, or do like most normal people and believe what you like and let others live their lives the way they prefer to.
Europe is a post enlightenment secular society where religion has been neutered and practicing it is akin to a hobby. Not so for Arabs and Muslims who murder people for taking the piss out of Mohamed. As I said and you ignored in a previous posts; people who want to live in an Islamic theocracy can go to one of the many already in existence and keep their toxic ideas and behaviours out of Europe.
I believe people should be allowed to worship what they want so long as what they do and advocate is within the bounds of societies' rules and norms. Being religious is, praying at a mosque is, following Muslim dietary practice is; wearing a full burqa, having multiple wives and advocating violence against non-believers in my opinion is not. So long as people stay within the bounds tolerated by the majority of their fellow countrymen, then there should be no issues with their religious beliefs and practices. When they go beyond, there should be consequences including expulsion and incarceration.
ali baba wrote:Jacked Camry wrote:Answer the question I posed if you want to be so clever. Do you consider Canada's election to be fraudulent or not reflective of the free choice of the Canadian people?
Acknowledge that 40% is not a majority and I'll consider pursuing this tangent until you insult for doing so. It's acceptable to jump from a jihad in Germany to immigration in Canada but bringing up Canada's other policies is a leap too far for you.
In strict mathematical terms, 40% is not a majority. Does that please you? Should I state further that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West or can we skip this and other pressing issues in our discussions? Does Germany have some issues with indigenous German population that the discussion of Canada's treatment of our native population becomes relevant somehow? Does Germany have a linguistic minority who have considered or attempted to vote on separation? Perhaps Alsace or something? I dunno.
Would you accept that the term "majority" can be used to refer to the side that wins an election that is widely agreed upon to have been representative and according to the rules? Or you're just a strict linguist that won't brook any slight variations in the use of language or something?
[quote="ali baba"]Hey JC I'm sorry for being aggro and rude. I'll try to calm down now.[/quote]
That'd be nice. I was simply providing some minor input into a larger discussion. I have not claimed to have the answer nor have I claimed that Canada is Utopia. I have also noted that I'm not well-informed or knowledgeable about the European situation. Can we please get off of these stupid non-sequitor made-up issues you and Jock Jock seem to want to divert the discussion to?
[quote="ali baba"][quote="Jacked Camry"]I see. How you came to that conclusion is beyond me, but okay, whatever.[/quote]
Few people refer to influential opinion setters as leaders. Are columnists writing in the New York Times and Washington Post leaders? Do they direct the policies of the White House, Senate and Congress with their opinion pieces and editorials? Or is Obama the comander in chief, giving orders and commands?
The whole point of cells and lone wolves is to isolate each other and minimise contact so that if you are discovered other operatives are not. In order to work contact has to be minimised. What kind of plan did the leaders produce here- Yo pick up a sharp object, get on a train and start stabbing. It's hardly as sophisticated and intricate as 9-11 is it?[/quote]
These people are not "influential opinion setters" - they're calling for Jihad and explicitly telling people that they should target innocent non-Muslims for violence. They're setting up networks of recruiters and preparing training materials and funding radical Imams etc. That's what I'm talking about. I understand how the cells/lone wolf thing works. These people get their ideas from those leaders, although not directly.
[quote="ali baba"][quote="Jacked Camry"]I did not. I noted that we had done some things which seemed to work reasonably well. Indeed, thorough screening and not accepting single males was one of those things. I think you would probably be in favour of that, no? This is what we call an example of a different approach which appears to work in our country, and perhaps might also be applicable in others. That's all I said. But do ignore that and carry on with a hyperbolic tangent that in no way reflects what I wrote in a reasonable manner. Perhaps you'd like to insert another rant about our treatment of Native Americans here just to add to your "argument"?[/quote]
Canada's circumstance in regards to Syria is vastly different to Europe's. The toothpaste is already out of the tube for many of the policies you successfully implemented and others were never viable. Australia also has strong borders and a harsh policy towards asylum seekers who arrive by boat but there's little chance of Europe being able to pursue similar policies. [/quote]
Okay, there's a perfectly reasonable and logical response and counterpoint. Why was that so hard to do? Why did you have to go off into Quebecois and Native Americans and shit?
[quote="ali baba"][quote="Jacked Camry"]My point was that when you spoke of not allowing new mosques, or Halal food, that these were specific rules that would only apply to Muslims presumably but not the general population. It's very difficult and can be unfair to have rules that are in place only for certain members of the populace. But you knew that of course, you're just continuing with the hyperbole.[/quote]
To clarify. I'd like to ban inhumane treatment and slaughter of animals when it is practicable. No caged chickens, no to male chick slaughter, no to overcrowding, debeaking and many other husbandry practices. I would require stunning of all farmed animals and fish prior to slaughter and strict enforcement to ensure animals are killed swiftly and aren't sent into baths of boiling water whilst still alive. Like i said when I first brought it up my primary motivation is animal welfare, pissing off regressive, right wingers is a nice bonus though. I won't ban mosques because I can't be bothered writing another 300 hundred words exploring the nuance of my position.[/quote]
That similarly sounds like a reasonable position to me. It wasn't what you sounded like before.
[quote="ali baba"][quote="Jacked Camry"]If you believe this, and enough members of your democratic society believe this, then the laws are passed and accepted as standards and norms. That's what democracy is. It's not YOU deciding that YOU want to stop the way livestock are processed. But you knew this also of course. You just wanted to get another comment in on the awful practice of female genital mutilation so as to tar all Muslims with the most extreme beliefs of the minority. Yes, it's terrible. No, I'm not advocating for that to be allowed. Yes, you knew that.[/quote]
I'll be more careful with MY choice of pronouns if you are going to jump down MY throat when I don't spell out every presupposition in the political process.
I like post-enlightenment post-feminist secular values. I dislike pre-enlightenment pre-feminist theocratic values. Hence I oppose mass migration of regressive, backwards populations into Europe.
Since there are billions of people around the world who would like to move to the UK we can afford to be discriminating. How about starting with the least violent people and working our way up?[/quote]
Again, this is reasonable. I agree.
[quote="ali baba"][quote="Jacked Camry"]Seems piercing the clitoris is a generally accepted practice these days among the younger generation, no? But of course that's not what we were talking about, we were talking about the more extreme version. And of course that is what I was advocating for, hence your very relevant parallel of foot binding. More trolling.[/quote]
FGM is already illegal in the UK. Traveling out of the country for the op is illegal. Try again. [/quote]
As far as I understand it, it's fairly common now for alternative young Western women to pierce their clitorii as both a fashion statement and because it can heighten sexual experience. I've seen photos showing this in some instances that, er, somehow found their way into my internet browser without my knowing anything about it. Must have been my 16yo son. Or something. That's what I was referring to. Not anything that would be considered FGM.
[quote="ali baba"][quote="Jacked Camry"]Ah yes, the old Straw Man is duly trotted out for an airing. My point, of course, was that these religious practices have been established for a very long time as customs and traditions over centuries, hence have currency and meaning to those communities that is unquestionable and recognized. Yes, this provides more legitimacy than youthful liberal trends or fads. Certainly the standards and norms evolve over time in various societies, such that the more backward and incompatible practices are eliminated. That's just normal. I have no issues with allowing some but not all religious practices. That's for a country's courts and electorate to decide. [/quote]
So it's a strawman and you agree with me. OK[/quote]
My point was in regard to the one you raised that "drinking to excess, eating a vindaloo and puking is my longstanding tradition and culture, just like their religion is". So yes, it was a Straw Man, and no, I don't agree with you. At least unless you include "snogging and sleeping with a fat bird" in your belief system.
[quote="ali baba"][quote="Jacked Camry"]Yes, I think religion is silly and will go the way of the Dodo. But for now, seems a majority of people believe in it and as they get to vote too, there's going to continue to be special dispensations for religious practices. Whatever. Go practice your own Atheist Jihad if you think it will make a difference, or do like most normal people and believe what you like and let others live their lives the way they prefer to.[/quote]
Europe is a post enlightenment secular society where religion has been neutered and practicing it is akin to a hobby. Not so for Arabs and Muslims who murder people for taking the piss out of Mohamed. As I said and you ignored in a previous posts; people who want to live in an Islamic theocracy can go to one of the many already in existence and keep their toxic ideas and behaviours out of Europe.[/quote]
I believe people should be allowed to worship what they want so long as what they do and advocate is within the bounds of societies' rules and norms. Being religious is, praying at a mosque is, following Muslim dietary practice is; wearing a full burqa, having multiple wives and advocating violence against non-believers in my opinion is not. So long as people stay within the bounds tolerated by the majority of their fellow countrymen, then there should be no issues with their religious beliefs and practices. When they go beyond, there should be consequences including expulsion and incarceration.
[quote="ali baba"][quote="Jacked Camry"]Answer the question I posed if you want to be so clever. Do you consider Canada's election to be fraudulent or not reflective of the free choice of the Canadian people?[/quote]
Acknowledge that 40% is not a majority and I'll consider pursuing this tangent until you insult for doing so. It's acceptable to jump from a jihad in Germany to immigration in Canada but bringing up Canada's other policies is a leap too far for you.[/quote]
In strict mathematical terms, 40% is not a majority. Does that please you? Should I state further that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West or can we skip this and other pressing issues in our discussions? Does Germany have some issues with indigenous German population that the discussion of Canada's treatment of our native population becomes relevant somehow? Does Germany have a linguistic minority who have considered or attempted to vote on separation? Perhaps Alsace or something? I dunno.
Would you accept that the term "majority" can be used to refer to the side that wins an election that is widely agreed upon to have been representative and according to the rules? Or you're just a strict linguist that won't brook any slight variations in the use of language or something?