Show profile
Link to this post
In reply to post ID 2596
France has made the wearing of hijabs (a muslim womens headscarf) illegal.....that's all i've got :P
And other silly things...
User title: I can haz cheezburgrz?
Member since Aug 2009 · 23 posts · Location: Samford, QLD, Australia
Group memberships: Citizens, Members
Member since Aug 2009 · 23 posts · Location: Samford, QLD, Australia
Group memberships: Citizens, Members
In reply to post ID 2597
No I haven't seen it but I will,
And I know the regular people are not the problem. But on that it’s not their problem either. But it dam well should be, by telling them unless you stop YOUR people from attacking us, we will simply let you rot. Make it their problem because it is.
And as I said down the bottom, incentive as well as disincentive is the key. A lot of the kids are indoctrinated because the radical schools offer food and shelter if they attend the school. As a lot of the people are poor, they have to send their kids there. Education is the first key, but there is a line. Your suggestions are valid and 100% correct, but there is a time when enough is enough.
Our soldiers fight for our freedom every dam day and they also fight for the freedom of the non radical Muslims. Do they thanks us, appreciate that as a country we want to help. Nope, they just get to hear how another stay missile killed a family, sad but heavily bias. If you bite the hand that is feeding you; fear retribution. Stepping up the pressure is going to have to be an option soon, we are losing the war. It will end in horrible bloodshed if measures are not taken and all angles explored.
And I know the regular people are not the problem. But on that it’s not their problem either. But it dam well should be, by telling them unless you stop YOUR people from attacking us, we will simply let you rot. Make it their problem because it is.
And as I said down the bottom, incentive as well as disincentive is the key. A lot of the kids are indoctrinated because the radical schools offer food and shelter if they attend the school. As a lot of the people are poor, they have to send their kids there. Education is the first key, but there is a line. Your suggestions are valid and 100% correct, but there is a time when enough is enough.
Our soldiers fight for our freedom every dam day and they also fight for the freedom of the non radical Muslims. Do they thanks us, appreciate that as a country we want to help. Nope, they just get to hear how another stay missile killed a family, sad but heavily bias. If you bite the hand that is feeding you; fear retribution. Stepping up the pressure is going to have to be an option soon, we are losing the war. It will end in horrible bloodshed if measures are not taken and all angles explored.
In reply to post ID 2598
"Unless you question God, you can't really believe in him." Source of the quote is (somewhat ambiguously) attributed here:
http://forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/lofiversion/index.…
The context is in the American television show The West Wing, which shot a controversial scene in the National Cathedral in the United States. The President, in a particularly difficult personal conflict, makes an impassioned complaint against a God he's spent his whole life believing in, and in a show of defiance lights a cigarette and stubs it out on the floor of the chapel. There was all kinds of worry among the producers and studio staff about how the scene would be received, or even if they would be allowed to film it. But a priest who was present as a guest of one of the actors was reportedly quite excited about the scene and the way it showed the complexities of religious belief. It's one of the most discussed parts of the show, some ten years after it was first broadcast.
Parents and authority figures who tell you not to question religious beliefs are missing the point, and are likely trying to protect the power of an institution rather than foster a healthy value system. Different religions address it in different ways, but the Ibrihimic religions in particular espouse the concept of free will. Individuals can and must question what they are taught, up to and including the existing of a supreme being, because that's what they are supposed to do. How can there be creativity and plurality if we don't allow for that possibility in our reasoning? People who lack the ability and willingness to take that step and question God are either fearful or uninformed, and if you're clueless and afraid then you're not in a position to help others, or otherwise contribute to society. The smartest ministers, the sharpest rabbis, the most enlightened muftis I know would all agree that there's no point in having mindless zombie zealots.
http://forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/lofiversion/index.…
The context is in the American television show The West Wing, which shot a controversial scene in the National Cathedral in the United States. The President, in a particularly difficult personal conflict, makes an impassioned complaint against a God he's spent his whole life believing in, and in a show of defiance lights a cigarette and stubs it out on the floor of the chapel. There was all kinds of worry among the producers and studio staff about how the scene would be received, or even if they would be allowed to film it. But a priest who was present as a guest of one of the actors was reportedly quite excited about the scene and the way it showed the complexities of religious belief. It's one of the most discussed parts of the show, some ten years after it was first broadcast.
Parents and authority figures who tell you not to question religious beliefs are missing the point, and are likely trying to protect the power of an institution rather than foster a healthy value system. Different religions address it in different ways, but the Ibrihimic religions in particular espouse the concept of free will. Individuals can and must question what they are taught, up to and including the existing of a supreme being, because that's what they are supposed to do. How can there be creativity and plurality if we don't allow for that possibility in our reasoning? People who lack the ability and willingness to take that step and question God are either fearful or uninformed, and if you're clueless and afraid then you're not in a position to help others, or otherwise contribute to society. The smartest ministers, the sharpest rabbis, the most enlightened muftis I know would all agree that there's no point in having mindless zombie zealots.
I dunno man, I think you're exposing your ignorance here. Do you follow Afghan war journalism at all? Your summary of an intensely complicated issue does justice to no part of it.Quote by kinkas:Do they thanks us, appreciate that as a country we want to help. Nope, they just get to hear how another stay missile killed a family, sad but heavily bias. If you bite the hand that is feeding you; fear retribution.
Update: Check out War is Boring. That link is the Afghanistan category, and provides some very interesting insights from both sides of the fight there.
Kendrick: I saw that episode, it was fantastic. Surprised to find it's been ten years already, wow.
Honestly, I think any religious leader who encourages his flock to question their faith is like a con artist encouraging you to check up on the things he's telling you. By telling you to do so, he's alleviating your skepticism and relying on your probable failure to actually do it. "He must be telling the truth, 'cause he encouraged me to check up on it!"
They may not want mindless drones, so they're getting uncritical thinkers. I don't know if that's better by a huge margin.
Quote by The_Bunny:France has made the wearing of hijabs (a muslim womens headscarf) illegal.....that's all i've got :P
France is kind of divided over the issue, as we should all be. Freedom to dress as you like is one thing, but freedom to dress in a manner that suggests repression of your rights is hard to swallow. The choice between allowing freedom and allowing intensely distasteful displays like burkas and nazi posters is not one I relish making.
Because I am an intellectual shit-stirrer who likes to know where the boundaries are so I can rub against them, I prefer to choose freedom.
But I would still prefer the abolition of asshattery if it were possible.
BLEARGH
This post was edited 2 times, last on 2010-04-25, 10:11 by I dunno man, I think you're exposing your ignorance here. Do you follow Afghan war journalism at all? Your summary of an intensely complicated issue does justice to no part of it.
I do not follow Afghan journalism and I only took that country as an example as it is well known. Although I am not up to date I can tell you 100%, if I started a religious sect here in Australia that threatened severe violence if people didn't do as I say, everyone in this country would want me in jail or out of the country. They understand as I am part of their country, I am their problem. That said, I do understand a lot of moderate Muslims are doing the same by joining the army and helping out, but it isn't enough, there society is dysfunctional and split. The immense indoctrination and hate breeding is too intense in these countries for peaceful resolution.
My solution, although general, provides a start for a solution when the problem is getting out of control. Take Iran, prime example. The whole country is under the control of a religious homicidal leader. There are very few peaceful resolutions possible, an embargo has been effective with Iran so when the time comes I have no doubt it will work with other countries. A lot of these countries are heading this way, we are losing the war. Any loss of human life is unacceptable but realistically they are at a stage where they have the power to control vast amounts of the country and their influence is growing.
My Ideas are extreme and I reserve them for extreme conditions. But it’s heading the way of all out war. The Pakistan government was letting the Taliban govern its provinces and America had to go help push them out, displacing millions and killing thousands. It’s getting really serious; the US generals are telling us it’s a losing battle. Action has to be taken. If my ignorance lies anywhere it’s in my solution not the gravity of the situation.
And let today as it is Anzac day be a reminder that freedom comes at a price. Evil men are still out there and they will continue to take the lives of innocent people. Our soldiers who protect us from them on a daily basis pay this price of freedom, its owed to them something is done, so their efforts are not in vain.
To use your example:
You just started an extreme religion and you've taken control of your block, your town, and your region by force 'cause you have all the guns. No one supports you, and they dare not speak against you. You demanded women wear long dresses at all times and you shot the first twenty who resisted. Your mud hut serfs just wanna eat, but you've denied food deliveries to anyone who doesn't praise you as the rightful ruler. Now you're brainwashing their children and sending them out to blow up your enemies. You shoot any who resist, you stone any who step out of line, your men cut off the noses and ears of women who disrespect them 'cause you've given them absolute power.
Your enemies are now sitting at home at their computers demanding sanctions against a bunch of mud hut villagers 'cause YOU are a psychopath with a bunch of guns.
How, exactly, is that gonna help the situation? You're still gonna eat, you're still gonna have guns, and you're still gonna have control over your villagers. Your enemies meanwhile have affected your life in a ways so small you don't even realize they've happened until you hear about it on CNN.
Of course it's a loser's battle: you're trying to defeat people who have nothing left to lose, who own nothing but rocks, a goat, and an old Russian rifle. Your enemies have only one solution: more guns, more bombs.
Go watch Charlie Wilson's War. It's a great movie, and it does illustrate one very good reason Afghanis are angry with The West.
You just started an extreme religion and you've taken control of your block, your town, and your region by force 'cause you have all the guns. No one supports you, and they dare not speak against you. You demanded women wear long dresses at all times and you shot the first twenty who resisted. Your mud hut serfs just wanna eat, but you've denied food deliveries to anyone who doesn't praise you as the rightful ruler. Now you're brainwashing their children and sending them out to blow up your enemies. You shoot any who resist, you stone any who step out of line, your men cut off the noses and ears of women who disrespect them 'cause you've given them absolute power.
Your enemies are now sitting at home at their computers demanding sanctions against a bunch of mud hut villagers 'cause YOU are a psychopath with a bunch of guns.
How, exactly, is that gonna help the situation? You're still gonna eat, you're still gonna have guns, and you're still gonna have control over your villagers. Your enemies meanwhile have affected your life in a ways so small you don't even realize they've happened until you hear about it on CNN.
Of course it's a loser's battle: you're trying to defeat people who have nothing left to lose, who own nothing but rocks, a goat, and an old Russian rifle. Your enemies have only one solution: more guns, more bombs.
Go watch Charlie Wilson's War. It's a great movie, and it does illustrate one very good reason Afghanis are angry with The West.
BLEARGH
You just summed up exactly what I said. My example was of here, where we do have the power to stop such things. But over there it is far to late, the society is to dysfunctional now to stop it on its own.
They do live in a fear and under the rule of oppressive people. We have tried methods that are usually effective, food, water, education and other aid, but it hasn't worked. Push is coming to shove, as you said they think they have nothing to lose. All I am saying is help, but when they bomb one of our schools, when they fly planes into city building and try to kill every man woman and child in our country. We retaliate, and by no means does that mean killing people, but we withdraw help. We have to show them we are there for them, but its conditional on them not killing us.
Also you give very little respect to the global market. These countries that are in civil war rely on foreign aid and willingness to trade to feed their people. The effects of this is well documents take any nation that can feed its people, it all rests on international finance and private property rights. You should read Adams Smiths "Wealth of Nations". The terrorists have missiles, tanks, weapons, explosives. They are bought on black markets, financed by companies off shore. They would dam well feel it.
They do live in a fear and under the rule of oppressive people. We have tried methods that are usually effective, food, water, education and other aid, but it hasn't worked. Push is coming to shove, as you said they think they have nothing to lose. All I am saying is help, but when they bomb one of our schools, when they fly planes into city building and try to kill every man woman and child in our country. We retaliate, and by no means does that mean killing people, but we withdraw help. We have to show them we are there for them, but its conditional on them not killing us.
Also you give very little respect to the global market. These countries that are in civil war rely on foreign aid and willingness to trade to feed their people. The effects of this is well documents take any nation that can feed its people, it all rests on international finance and private property rights. You should read Adams Smiths "Wealth of Nations". The terrorists have missiles, tanks, weapons, explosives. They are bought on black markets, financed by companies off shore. They would dam well feel it.
The thing about these countries is that the people in charge don't give a shit about what the majority of the plebs eat. It's part of the repression. When you're eating whatever pulp you can make out of whatever's lying around day-in, day-out and those in charge constantly tell you via state-controlled media "we have fuck all because the west imposes sanctions", it's believed and only allows the indoctrination to proliferate. They have more than is let on, it's exaggerated in our media in order to provide a justification to "get into 'em, fuck 'em up".Quote by Kinkas:Also you give very little respect to the global market. These countries that are in civil war rely on foreign aid and willingness to trade to feed their people. The effects of this is well documents take any nation that can feed its people, it all rests on international finance and private property rights. You should read Adams Smiths "Wealth of Nations". The terrorists have missiles, tanks, weapons, explosives. They are bought on black markets, financed by companies off shore. They would dam well feel it.
The point about black markets is odd to me. The point of a black market is that it's off the record. Economic sanctions wouldn't stop those in charge purchasing old weapons on the cheap from places that need the cash like N Korea and others that may be looking at eventual favourable long-term trade like China.
Picture this: economic sanctions are put in place on Afghans by the West until they get their shit in order. This doesn't happen as the people in charge are either in the pockets of the extremists or actually are them. Meanwhile, China, with it's ability to mass-produce cheap usable shit on a vast scale, cuts the Afghan leaders a deal: "Sup, homes, I heard you needed some guns/food/media support. How about we cut a deal where we help you out on the d/l and you give us what cash you have and a promise of future support against those damn wide-eyes?" Not so coincidentally, this is the same deal we made with these countries the first time around. Who do you think gave the Afghans and the Zimbabweans the resources to fight their initial set of oppressors not so long ago? Chalk up another undeveloped nation in the win column for China and cue another media-centric "well, we fucked it up again, let's start apportioning blame and making international secrets public in the name of selling copy" Western self-destruct.
"...either stop and think or fuck right off" (TheOutrider)
Vertigo....
The point of the sanctions if you read all my posts is to affect the government and the general population. The Sanctions would encompass a ban on international goods, and rejection of trade from the country. This is meant to portray a feel of international condemnation rather than attack. Granted most of these countries are so mixed up the effect would be hard to predict, though it’s a start. The point of that suggestion was to foster the idea of disincentive to attacking the West. Other ideas are much welcomed.
I have studied international Finance, Social Economics and various Macro-Economic courses at university all of which point to workings of a economy whether it is the legal or illegal one. So I of course know that things will get in. The point is to stop as much as you can. And you severely underestimate the role of International Finance. Osama Bin Laden was financed by his company, which is offshore. The money to buy weapons comes from, offshore. The drugs they smuggle out come from, offshore. The internet that they send their messages out on comes from, offshore. There is a reason why it worked with Iran. Countries rely on the outside world for trade and Finance. They need to trade for food and to sell their own goods for a living. What you are mainly missing here is the whole foreign investment though. Countries such as but not limited to Afghanistan get their infrastructure from loans from the World Bank. If the money stops coming so does all the specialist labour force and technology. Sanction hurt a lot. Look at any country that has experienced it or for that matter any country that was ever blockaded.
China.... It’s not as it is portrayed to you in popular western news. You have a very limited view if you think that is how it works. Granted they have little moral in helping out anyone who needs a weapon, but they do it for money not to get the WIDE EYES =O!!!! On that note, China will not play hardball atm, they are in economic boom and get all their resources from international trade. They know what happens if they challenge the UN.
The point of the sanctions if you read all my posts is to affect the government and the general population. The Sanctions would encompass a ban on international goods, and rejection of trade from the country. This is meant to portray a feel of international condemnation rather than attack. Granted most of these countries are so mixed up the effect would be hard to predict, though it’s a start. The point of that suggestion was to foster the idea of disincentive to attacking the West. Other ideas are much welcomed.
I have studied international Finance, Social Economics and various Macro-Economic courses at university all of which point to workings of a economy whether it is the legal or illegal one. So I of course know that things will get in. The point is to stop as much as you can. And you severely underestimate the role of International Finance. Osama Bin Laden was financed by his company, which is offshore. The money to buy weapons comes from, offshore. The drugs they smuggle out come from, offshore. The internet that they send their messages out on comes from, offshore. There is a reason why it worked with Iran. Countries rely on the outside world for trade and Finance. They need to trade for food and to sell their own goods for a living. What you are mainly missing here is the whole foreign investment though. Countries such as but not limited to Afghanistan get their infrastructure from loans from the World Bank. If the money stops coming so does all the specialist labour force and technology. Sanction hurt a lot. Look at any country that has experienced it or for that matter any country that was ever blockaded.
China.... It’s not as it is portrayed to you in popular western news. You have a very limited view if you think that is how it works. Granted they have little moral in helping out anyone who needs a weapon, but they do it for money not to get the WIDE EYES =O!!!! On that note, China will not play hardball atm, they are in economic boom and get all their resources from international trade. They know what happens if they challenge the UN.
I also feel that this conversation has moved out of the realms of Morality and Spirituality and into the realms of International Relations and Globalisation.
In reply to post #23
Did I? You said "Sanctions!" and I said "That's not going to change anything." Not least 'cause of the reasons vertigo describes. this post makes you sound a little jingoistic, and the kind of certitude you bring to this sort of intangible combat seems naive.Quote by kinkas:You just summed up exactly what I said.
There's no easy fix, there's no sure fix, there's just suffering and anger and a bunch of cunts with guns who very badly need something else to do. Like decompose messily under a harsh desert sun. =)
Topic changed to reflect subject shift. =DQuote by kinkas:I also feel that this conversation has moved out of the realms of Morality and Spirituality and into the realms of International Relations and Globalisation.
BLEARGH
Did I? You said "Sanctions!" and I said "That's not going to change anything." Not least 'cause of the reasons vertigo describes. this post makes you sound a little jingoistic, and the kind of certitude you bring to this sort of intangible combat seems naive.
Actually I said "Embargo" as a starter. On that, you know I was referring to your point on the scenario whereby they have no power as a society, I even went on to actually take time out of my argument to talk about how sanctions would change things.
As to my jingoism, that is a complete misuse of the word in any applicable sense. I do not consider myself superior nor do I think that any western country has a higher morale standing. I do believe in equal justice and the right for any human life to be respected. Thus why I want to help all innocent life and bring justice to those who disrespect it. We are dam lucky to live where we do and killing people is not right. I have only pointed out flaws and differences not placed a complex whereby western society are gods.
If you actually don't understand what economics encompasses then your statement is quite naive. Economics is a huge science, which focuses on human decision making. So every choice a human makes is under economics. There is extensive research into the Economics of poverty, war and terrorism. A lot of Economists have won noble prizes for their efforts on these social issues. Conscription was abolished in the US and many other countries due to the work of the Nobel Prize winning Economist, Milton Friedman. I am not a solider, though I do have an education that I can use to analyse a situation and give solutions that may fix a problem.
Finally, there is no easy fix. There is the best we can do. Nothing is perfect and that should always be remembered, there will always be problems, how big they are depends how we react to them.
Quote by Kinkas:As to my jingoism, that is a complete misuse of the word in any applicable sense. I do not consider myself superior nor do I think that any western country has a higher morale standing.
Forgive me, your words made it sound otherwise:
Quote by Kinkas:by telling them unless you stop YOUR people from attacking us, we will simply let you rot. Make it their problem because it is.
Our soldiers fight for our freedom every dam day and they also fight for the freedom of the non radical Muslims. Do they thanks us, appreciate that as a country we want to help. Nope, [...] If you bite the hand that is feeding you; fear retribution.
Strong words that bring to mind an American republican frothing at the mouth over 'those people'.
Quote by Kinkas:If you actually don't understand what economics encompasses then your statement is quite naive. Economics is a huge science, which focuses on human decision making. So every choice a human makes is under economics.
I'd like to know how you reached this conclusion.
Dictionary.com defines it thusly:
Quote by Dictionary.com:1. the science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, or the material welfare of humankind.
2. financial considerations; economically significant aspects: What are the economics of such a project?
If you believe that all human decisions can all be boiled down to economic decisions, then you might be right to consider it to be the study of decision making. I've never heard it described as such though, and I'd have to say it's a bit of a stretch.
BLEARGH
jingoism: Extreme nationalism characterized especially by a belligerent foreign policy; chauvinistic patriotism.
So pretty much I said if someone ELSE uses war against us we should leave them alone. Thereby because of their state of country they will do poorly. It is also a sensationalised statement for effect. It does not portray a warlike foreign policy or portray that we should invade them because we are superior. You are grasping at straws. Its an aggressive statement, nothing else.
So we defend our country and help them from an internal enemy. And they do not seem to appreciate it. Looks to me that we have tried to help them, and I am bitter over the lack of appreciation. Once again doesn't sound like. We are the best lets go invade their asses. As to the analogy, that is exactly what it is, an ANALOGY. Which means if you hurt us we will hurt you back. Once again, not some war slinging attitude. I have actually stated I don't want military action at all.
On the economics point, I am just disappointed. That was a low blow. You are completely wrong, you have merely uncovered a snippet of economics. Look up Microeconomics and the scarcity principle.
Stop attacking me. Actually come up with an argument relevant to the topic. Criticism of the commenter not the argument or rational is not debating.........
by telling them unless you stop YOUR people from attacking us, we will simply let you rot. Make it their problem because it is.
So pretty much I said if someone ELSE uses war against us we should leave them alone. Thereby because of their state of country they will do poorly. It is also a sensationalised statement for effect. It does not portray a warlike foreign policy or portray that we should invade them because we are superior. You are grasping at straws. Its an aggressive statement, nothing else.
Our soldiers fight for our freedom every dam day and they also fight for the freedom of the non radical Muslims. Do they thanks us, appreciate that as a country we want to help. Nope, [...] If you bite the hand that is feeding you; fear retribution.
So we defend our country and help them from an internal enemy. And they do not seem to appreciate it. Looks to me that we have tried to help them, and I am bitter over the lack of appreciation. Once again doesn't sound like. We are the best lets go invade their asses. As to the analogy, that is exactly what it is, an ANALOGY. Which means if you hurt us we will hurt you back. Once again, not some war slinging attitude. I have actually stated I don't want military action at all.
On the economics point, I am just disappointed. That was a low blow. You are completely wrong, you have merely uncovered a snippet of economics. Look up Microeconomics and the scarcity principle.
Stop attacking me. Actually come up with an argument relevant to the topic. Criticism of the commenter not the argument or rational is not debating.........
User title: I can haz cheezburgrz?
Member since Aug 2009 · 23 posts · Location: Samford, QLD, Australia
Group memberships: Citizens, Members
Member since Aug 2009 · 23 posts · Location: Samford, QLD, Australia
Group memberships: Citizens, Members
Quote by Kinkas:So we defend our country and help them from an internal enemy. And they do not seem to appreciate it. Looks to me that we have tried to help them, and I am bitter over the lack of appreciation. Once again doesn't sound like. We are the best lets go invade their asses.
We defended our country...FROM WHAT!?!? They attacked the US and the UK, no terrorism attacks in Australia, even when all the world leaders were here and security was lax (Chasers War scenario).
It seems to me that Australia has just gone along with what the US has told us to do for the past 9 years, not because our freedom was under attack, but because 3 planes crashed into shit while Uncle Sam sat there and twiddled his thumbs...or read a book upside down to children.
It's the exact same things as every other war, Australia has had no clear attack on them, yet we still go in because the UK or US has told us to. Our freedom, or assumed freedoms, that we hold have only come under attack by our own political parties (Internet Filtering, No you cannot look at small boobs because they look maybe a little like kiddie pr0n, etc.) not some terrorist groups based in the middle east.
Yes i think that there are terrorists, but no i do not think they are trying to destroy our "freedom", they dislike the US that attacks them and "frees" them from their oppressive rules (USA! USA! USA!), we're just bundled along with their threats because we're supporting the stupid US government...we're like one of their freaking franchises :P
Page:
We love UNB by Yves Goergen!