blue phil Posted August 12, 2005 Posted August 12, 2005 QUOTE baby daughters unwanted and abandoned That's the Chinese. 338338[/snapback] Hope I'm not being as pedantic and boring as your good self , Col , but isn't that a racist comment there - I'm glad I never generalise like that .
This thread is brought to you by theterracestore.com Enter code `BRFCS` at checkout for an exclusive discount!
blue phil Posted August 12, 2005 Posted August 12, 2005 A good example of "insulting the person who posted " rather than "addressing the post." 338508[/snapback] Now what was that 4 letter word you used to describe AESF when last you disagreed with him .....? Pot , kettle .......
colin Posted August 12, 2005 Posted August 12, 2005 Hope I'm not being as pedantic and boring as your good self , Col , but isn't that a racist comment there - I'm glad I never generalise like that . 338511[/snapback] Strange that you were silent when Theno accused Muslims of abandoning baby daughters but not for me when I did the same with the Chinese*. Who, by the way, are a nation not a race. * for which I hereby apologise if anyone thought that I was accusing all Chinese people of heading on a mission to eliminate all females.
blue phil Posted August 12, 2005 Posted August 12, 2005 I suppose you could argue that Muslim females are abandoned to a life of servitude and inequality from day one of their lives .....Or do you think they enjoy the same rights as Western females ? If you were born in a Muslim country , rather than a modern Western nation , what would you rather be - male or female ? And don't even mention any rights about sexual preference ...
Flopsy Posted August 12, 2005 Posted August 12, 2005 Id rather be in a western european country (can I avoid france?)
MCMC1875 Posted August 13, 2005 Posted August 13, 2005 (edited) Walking through Great Harwood yesterday, passed a fine pie shop in Town Gate, recommened! Edited August 13, 2005 by MCMC1875
colin Posted August 14, 2005 Posted August 14, 2005 Now what was that 4 letter word you used to describe AESF when last you disagreed with him .....> It was "ARSE" see my post page 14 for a fuller explanation. Still not got round to commenting on Theno's blanket condemnation of all Muslims yet?.
FourLaneBlue Posted August 14, 2005 Posted August 14, 2005 (edited) So if it is acceptable to argue that in the past Islam has been more advanced than Christianity (which at times it undoubtedly has ) , why then are you and your ilk so vehement in your criticism when people like myself and Theno point out the obvious and say that now Islam lags way , way behind Christianity in so many fields of human culture .....for eg , the acceptance of the principles of universal democracy , human rights , sexual and gender equality etc etc ? 338506[/snapback] Surely those could be laid at the door of a more secular state of society than 'Christianity'? While religious morality is all well and good as a backbone to a society, too heavy a theocratic leaning of any state serves to hold back progress. Your post seems to compare countries heavily influenced by Islamic government with those previously Christian countries that now have a secular system. It's debatable just how much credit Christianity on its own can take for that. Edited August 15, 2005 by FourLaneBlue
thenodrog Posted August 14, 2005 Posted August 14, 2005 (edited) It was "ARSE" see my post page 14 for a fuller explanation. Still not got round to commenting on Theno's blanket condemnation of all Muslims yet?. 338855[/snapback] Dunno about 'blanket condemnation'. Even I don't think all muslims are bad. But a religion that spawns so many fundamentalists and extremists around the world, who cause so much trouble and who carry out so many cruel and barbaric acts in the name of that religion must be terribly flawed and should be actively discouraged. My grouse is that this country in the last 40 odd years has done far too much to actively encourage the proliferation and growth of Islam. Absolutely no one can deny that we are now reaping the rewards of our well meaning but foolishly misguided liberal generosity. I've said ages ago on here that imo any religion which heavily promotes the theory of paradise and life after death is dangerous and recent events only serve to confirm this. I hope that clarify's my stance more accurately for you Colin, although I'm sure that you will find some way of putting a negative spin on it. . Edited August 14, 2005 by thenodrog
Flopsy Posted August 15, 2005 Posted August 15, 2005 We dont need to put a negative spin on it Theno - you do it yourself However - last time I checked Islam itself does not condone suicide or Martyrism (sp??) unfortunately its the men who tell others about it thats the problem. But Christianity and Hinduism all have their followers that aspouse fundamentalism and radicalism. Look at the ethnic troubles in India with the Hindu's attacking Mosques and the tit for tat attacks that follows, look at the sustained campaign against the indigenous peoples of south america and africa over the past 400 years by "Christians" using that well know Christian tool, genocide and biological warfare. (Smallpox infected blankets) all done in the name of god and jesus. (and cold hard cash). Has our wishy washy liberalism caused 4 blokes to spread themselves across our public transport system?? Possibly but more likely its prevented the troubles that France has been suffering with its migrant population. I feel that all Religion is insidious, (not sure whether that is the correct word but its a good un) it is usually devisive, ie you are either with us or agaisnt us and its not usually open to other opinions. Unfortunately Extreamism is exactly that, Extream, and Extreamist Islam does seem to be more barbaric and a couple of centurys behind us "advanced" westerners
thenodrog Posted August 15, 2005 Posted August 15, 2005 look at the sustained campaign against the indigenous peoples of south america and africa over the past 400 years by "Christians" using that well know Christian tool, genocide and biological warfare. 339107[/snapback] I do wish you'd stop referring to centuries past Flopsy. Their relevence to todays attitudes is minimal. Course the Westerners did awful things to natives all over the world but that was right and accepted at the time, I'm sure that nowadays everybody agrees that two wrongs do not make a right. Must we allow Islam 400 years to catch up or is it fair to try to move em along a bit quicker?
Flopsy Posted August 15, 2005 Posted August 15, 2005 Well start of 20th Century's slightly closer - but the civil war in Lebanon was only 20 years ago. But I havent argued that Islam shouldnt modernise, ive said some of Islam needs to modernise and most of it isnt because a large majority of muslims, especially in the west are secular, unfortunately we just hear about the loonies who like the new style of C4 waist coats and Rucksacks. And stuff that happened 400 years ago is still a good excuse for genocide in the Balkans and conflict in Norhtern Ireland. I mean a march celebrating a battle 300 years previously just to rub the neighbours noses in it is a bit OTT, but hey thats Northern Irish politics for you.
blue phil Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 Surely those could be laid at the door of a more secular state of society than 'Christianity'? While religious morality is all well and good as a backbone to a society, too heavy a theocratic leaning of any state serves to hold back progress. Your post seems to compare countries heavily influenced by Islamic government with those previously Christian countries that now have a secular system. It's debatable just how much credit Christianity on its own can take for that. 338962[/snapback] Fair point , FLB . Maybe a better term would have been" post - Christianity" . I wouldn't want to go back to a time when the church held real political power . Secularism has to be dominant and fairly soon , in the historical sense , the state will have to stand up to Islam or cave in to it . The two are incompatible .
Flopsy Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 Or stand up to extreamist Islam anyway, I believe that Islam as a whole isnt a threat just the "looney fringes" unfortunately they're the ones that try and get their way using force and violence. Instead of the CofE which uses the cunning tactic of high teas and cucumber sandwiches.
adopted scouser Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 ITN have just released pictures which show him wearing a thin denim jacket, and have CCTV pictures proving he didn't vault the barriers. Heightened security and only the day after the atrocities, but even still, the Met are up to their eyes on this one.
blue phil Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 So my initial suspicians that the good old British poice are a bunch of bungling , lying incompetents was quite near to the mark ...... When are the British people going to stop tolerating being lied to by the authorities ?
den Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 They never did tolerate being lied to Phil. Once all the facts are out, they'll make their mind up. Not yet.
blue phil Posted August 17, 2005 Posted August 17, 2005 They tolerated Blair's lies over Iraq and voted him back into office ! I suspect standards have slipped to such an extent that the average bloke in the street doesn't care anymore . Don't expect a single resignation over this relatively "minor" affairinvolving a Brazilian.......(Now if it'd been a so called British Asian killed ... )
Biddy Posted August 17, 2005 Posted August 17, 2005 (edited) There may be no high up resignations but it looks like there may be some criminal proceedings against the police that did the shooting. Edited August 17, 2005 by Biddy
den Posted August 17, 2005 Posted August 17, 2005 They tolerated Blair's lies over Iraq and voted him back into office !339667[/snapback] Which particular lie was that?
FourLaneBlue Posted August 18, 2005 Posted August 18, 2005 They tolerated Blair's lies over Iraq and voted him back into office ! 339667[/snapback] People don't generally vote governments out due to their foreign policy alone. If they think they will be better off financially under Labour they are likely to vote for them. Moan about Iraq all they like but most people will put their own pocket first.
thenodrog Posted August 18, 2005 Posted August 18, 2005 People don't generally vote governments out due to their foreign policy alone. If they think they will be better off financially under Labour they are likely to vote for them. Moan about Iraq all they like but most people will put their own pocket first. 339733[/snapback] Democracy is a lovely ideal but I'm beginning to think that its not always or necessarily the best system for the future good of the country.
Ewood Spark Posted August 18, 2005 Posted August 18, 2005 Democracy is a lovely ideal but I'm beginning to think that its not always or necessarily the best system for the future good of the country. 339745[/snapback] So which non-democratic model do you suggest we follow Theno .... a Taliban-style theocracy or a military junta?
blue phil Posted August 18, 2005 Posted August 18, 2005 Well definitely NOT the Marxist model that you support , ES ...
Recommended Posts