|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 8:48 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Adventurer, sanity would be giving those ham-bagging boys a stern talking to. Calling it a hate crime is beyond insane.
We are fukced if sensitivity and feelings are more important than reasonable applications of criminal law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Is the following hate speech?
�Muslims are the vilest of animals��
�Show mercy to one another, but be ruthless to Muslims�
�How perverse are Muslims!�
�Strike off the heads of Muslims, as well as their fingertips�
�Fight those Muslims who are near to you�
�Muslim mischief makers should be murdered or crucified� |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Either you're black or you're not. That's the reality of America. Where's there a middle ground? |
Stupid *beep* comment. Totally irrelevant. |
Nope, that's the choice.
| Quote: |
| You assume racism in a race. That is racist. |
I assume racism in the world.
| Quote: |
And your attempt to link pc with immigration reform is pathetic at best. Immigration reform ended a racist policy of excluding non-whites. This is not PC.
You might want to do some digging into this. |
So sayeth the non-American.
You preach against multi-culturalism, Political Correctness, and Muslim immigration. If there's an iota of consistency to your ideas, there's no way in hell you'd have supported the 1965 Amendment.
Another voice that finds the obvious link between PCism, multiculturalism, and 3rd world immigration:
http://www.vdare.com/pb/time_to_rethink.htm
| Quote: |
The Great Immigration Lull was ended dramatically by the 1965 Immigration Act. Typical of so many Great Society reforms, it was passed amid much moralizing rhetoric and promptly had exactly the opposite of its advertised effect.
U.S. immigration policy was not transformed without debate. There was a debate. It just bore no relationship to what subsequently happened. In particular, staunch defenders of the national-origins quota system, like the American Legion, allowed themselves to be persuaded that the new legislation really enacted a sort of worldwide quota, no longer skewed toward Northern Europe�a policy easily caricatured as "racist" in the era of the civil-rights movement�but still restricting overall immigration to the then-current level of around 300,000. |
You might want to read this book. He sounds right up your alley.
http://www.amazon.com/Path-National-Suicide-Immigration-Multiculturalism/dp/0936247126
| Quote: |
| The Path to National Suicide has nothing to do with the "immigration industry," but explains how, due to liberal ideology, our borders were opened in 1965, and how the resulting transformation of America's ethnic composition helped fuel the ideology of multiculturalism which ultimately means the end of America as a nation. |
Free copy found here:
http://www.jtl.org/auster/
| Quote: |
| Originally published in 1990, this 90-page booklet is the first and still the most important work on the cultural effects of open immigration. It shows how the non-discriminatory 1965 Immigration Act led to unprecedented and radical changes in America�s historic ethnic and racial composition, how those changes have led in turn to the weakening and delegitimization of America�s historic culture and national identity, and how that loss of identity, combined with cowardly and wrong-headed fears of seeming �racist,� have kept the white majority from resisting their country�s ongoing dissolution. Mr. Auster�s argument played a crucial role in making the cultural consequences of non-Western immigration a topic of mainstream debate. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
vdare is a white supremacist site. If that is where you get your opposing views from it is really no wonder that your world is one resting on the dichotomy of the "liberal agenda" and "bad".
But, to hold your hand through this, I'll enlighten you.
I would be more supportive of some muslim immigration if multicultural assumptions and policy did not dominate my country. Take away the welfare/social programs and racist PC double standards and I think all will be quite ok.
Remember? Democracy, multiculturalism or democracy. Pick any two. (from Steyn). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
But I answered your stupid question, and now you answer mine.
| BJWD wrote: |
Is the following hate speech?
�Muslims are the vilest of animals��
�Show mercy to one another, but be ruthless to Muslims�
�How perverse are Muslims!�
�Strike off the heads of Muslims, as well as their fingertips�
�Fight those Muslims who are near to you�
�Muslim mischief makers should be murdered or crucified� |
Is it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
happeningthang
Joined: 26 Apr 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 2:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ooh, ooh. Can I play too?
Is this hate speech?
If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from Allah... Then all Islam will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.
Cherry picking quotes from pre medieval books doesn't really make your case BJWD, and it doesn't make blanket assumptions or harassment of people OK either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| vdare is a white supremacist site. If that is where you get your opposing views from it is really no wonder that your world is one resting on the dichotomy of the "liberal agenda" and "bad". |
And Lawrence Auster? His articles sound like your laundry list. Obviously, the connection between multiculturalism and 3rd world immigration exists.
| Quote: |
But, to hold your hand through this, I'll enlighten you.
I would be more supportive of some muslim immigration if multicultural assumptions and policy did not dominate my country. Take away the welfare/social programs and racist PC double standards and I think all will be quite ok. |
And which country is "my country"? We're talking about America. Last I heard, you weren't an American.
| Quote: |
| Remember? Democracy, multiculturalism or democracy. Pick any two. (from Steyn). |
Umm, democracy and democracy? I figured you were PWD.
Anyways, given that the 1965 Immigration Amendments gave us both immigration and multiculturalism, I can't see how it is consistent with your position. Please read through your conservative blogs and see what they have to say about it. I can't imagine many, if any at all, will come out in full support of the 1965 Amendments. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| happeningthang wrote: |
Cherry picking quotes from pre medieval books doesn't really make your case BJWD, and it doesn't make blanket assumptions or harassment of people OK either. |
Yes, it does. Quite well actually. It very properly demonstrates a clear double standard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
And which country is "my country"? We're talking about America. Last I heard, you weren't an American.
|
I said "my country" because I'm speaking about my country. You brought up the USA in an attempt to move the conversation away from something you are unable to discuss to something you felt you could. Away from PC and towards USA related topics. It is a rather odd style of argumentation, this good-by-association that you attempt.
| Quote: |
Anyways, given that the 1965 Immigration Amendments gave us both immigration and multiculturalism, I can't see how it is consistent with your position. |
You just don't get it. There is a sharp difference between different people from different cultures existing under one roof and an official government policy that attempts to keep their cultures distinct.
In addition, PC and immigration are near 100% unrelated. PC is a tool to shut people up. It is the case that the tool has been used to quiet squawking about immigration but that does not in and of itself make the tool valid, does it? In other words, if I use a hammer to smack open "X's" head to shut him up, and shutting him up is most certainly a good thing, does that make smacking people in the head with a hammer an inherently good thing?
| Quote: |
Please read through your conservative blogs and see what they have to say about it. I can't imagine many, if any at all, will come out in full support of the 1965 Amendments. |
So, I post about a faux hate-crime and then OH asks why only white men complain about PC. Now you want to equate PC with everything you feel is 'good' and expect me to defend that which you feel is 'bad' and if I don't want to you take that as evidence that you have made your case about PC. I don't know if they teach you this style of argumentation in English teacher training school, but it does not fly in the real world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| happeningthang wrote: |
Cherry picking quotes from pre medieval books doesn't really make your case BJWD, and it doesn't make blanket assumptions or harassment of people OK either. |
The real interesting thing is that now, with people like huff, dd etc etc, criticizing the hate in the koran is considered anti-islam/hate/islamophobia. Do you see the double standard?
Their religion, like all others, teaches, very clearly, to hate. But I can say what I want about the Christians or the OT, no problem. But for me to point the reality of the koran out is hate.
Just for the reference:
Sura (8:55) - Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve
Sura (48:29) - Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves
Sura (9:30) - And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah... Allah (Himself) fights against them. How perverse are they!
Sura (8:12) - I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them
Sura (9:123) - O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness
Sura (5:33) - The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| In addition, PC and immigration are near 100% unrelated. |
Find me an anti-PC, anti-multicultural writer who extols the 1965 Immigration Amendments. Just one and I'll concede that they aren't 100% related. But for every one you find, I can probably find 10 who do link the three together. I've already provided 3.
| Quote: |
| The real interesting thing is that now, with people like huff, dd etc etc, criticizing the hate in the koran is considered anti-islam/hate/islamophobia. Do you see the double standard? |
First, I never called your criticism of the Koran islamophobic. It's your assumption that all Muslims are literal interpreters of the Koran that I find islamophobic.
Second, do you understand context? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
Adventurer, sanity would be giving those ham-bagging boys a stern talking to. Calling it a hate crime is beyond insane.
We are fukced if sensitivity and feelings are more important than reasonable applications of criminal law. |
Now that I can agree with. At least, you are saying they shouldn't pick on those kids and should be talked to and told to be civil and apologize or something and leave it at that. I would say the person who did this should come forward and apologize to these young men. Now, if someone in the street starts yelling racist stuff and is an adult, then I would have little sympathy for the fellow. What would you say to that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
A few more examples linking political correctness with immigration policy. Are you sure you don't want to rethink your stance on the 1965 Amendments? You're the only anti-PC, anti-multicuturalist I've found who also praises the 1965 Immigration changes.
http://www.truthinmedia.org/truthinmedia/Bulletins2002/5-2.html
| Quote: |
| As for the immigrants or non-white Americans among our readers, we urge you to refrain from engaging an auto-pilot response to non-PC (politically correct) articles - and accuse the author of racism. First, because this article has been written by an immigrant. As was Peter Brimelow�s bestseller, by the way. Second, because racism is what our government is practicing, and to which this writer is objecting. Third, because racism is what the countries sending the greatest number of immigrants to America are actually practicing. |
| Quote: |
| Step two is to close the floodgates. The Immigration Act of 1965, for example, must be repealed immediately. No more anti-European racial or country quotas. Zero immigration may be a nice ultimate goal, but in the meantime, immigration should be allowed strictly on a case by case basis, using proven economic needs of specific indigenous business sectors as guideposts. Only highly-skilled immigrants who can either support themselves, or entrepreneurs who can create additional jobs, should be allowed in. |
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4991
| Quote: |
| Born of liberal ideology, the 1965 bill abolished the national origins quota system that had regulated the ethnic composition of immigration in fair proportion to each group's existing presence in the population. In a misguided application spirit of the civil rights era, the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations saw these ethnic quotas as an archaic form of chauvinism. Moreover, as Cold Warriors facing charges of "racism" and "imperialism," they found the system rhetorically embarrassing. The record of debate over this seismic change in immigration policy reveals that left-wingers, in their visceral flight to attack "discrimination," did not reveal the consequences of their convictions. Instead, their spokesmen set out to assuage concerned traditionalists with a litany of lies and wishful thinking. |
http://www.npg.org/newsltr/2005/fall05.html
| Quote: |
| But what really worries me right now is how much Congress will compromise on many of these issues in their rush to find a "quick fix" that is also "politically correct." In doing so, they could very easily set our nation on a terribly destructive course that will only feed the flow of more and more immigrants in the coming years. As noted historian Otis L. Graham, Jr. makes clear in the accompanying NPG Forum Paper, Congress had the best of intentions in passing the Immigration Act of 1965. However, what they really did was set the stage for four decades of mass immigration. |
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/08/fade_to_brown.php
| Quote: |
| Of all the unfortunate legislation to emerge from the so-called Civil Rights Era, none has been more harmful than the 1965 Immigration Act (technically, the amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, or the Hart-Celler Act of 1965). |
| Quote: |
| The post-1965 changes would shock the architects of America�s earlier immigration policies, which were intended to keep America white and culturally cohesive. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Immigration and political correctness linked a couple more times.
http://www.capsweb.org/newsroom/opinion_releases/cromer_fence.html
| Quote: |
| Indeed, the reaction by some of my friends and colleagues has splayed open to the bone just how intellectually bankrupt many self-declared progressives can be when franticly clinging to politically correct orthodoxy on the issues of illegal immigration and overpopulation. |
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21890
| Quote: |
| Apart from its politically correct function of diminishing the Anglo-Saxon Americans of the pre-Ellis Island period and their descendants, the "nation of immigrants" motto is meaningless in practical terms. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yawarakaijin
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| BJWD wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| Labeling it a hate crime was probably excessive |
A chunk of ham placed on a table being labeled a hate crime is "probably" excessive? |
Depending on the context. From the story, it sounds like bullying. But I wasn't there, and neither were you.
| Quote: |
| Beating the *beep* out of a muslim for being a muslim is a hate crime. Got that? |
What about the pig's head?
Is burning crosses a hate crime?
| Quote: |
| A simple talking to, to both sides, would have sufficed. |
Yes, writing a newspaper article was an excessive reaction. As is all of the conservative backlash. Pot, kettle, black. |
Are you now equating cross burning with putting ham on a table? Again, no sense of proportion. We keep coming back to this with you. Proportion.
But to answer your question, no. The mere act of burning a cross is not a hate crime. If you burn a cross on someone else's property it is a property crime. If you do it on your own property it is free speech. Disgusting, hate filled, horrible free speech. Free speech protects the jerks as much as it does anyone else.
Nice try about it being just a "conservative backlash". The POLICE are investigating it as a hate crime and some loser "anti-hate" group is on the case as well.
This, is our brave new future. |
Would that not depend on who you are? From your point of view burning a cross is worse? In what way? The African-American is more traumatized? It somehow infers a more impending danger to one's physical self?
I imagine a black family surrounded by whites while a cross is burned isn't any more or less intimidated than a group of Somali kids who have pork intentionally placed infront of them while surrounded by non-muslim
kids.
I believe the thrust of calling it a hate crime was the intention rather than the actual means/method. It was meant to offend and intimidate.
Now, you could just label the offenders dumb kids and call in an inappropriate joke. How would you react if a bunch of 13 year old kids burned a cross on a black family's lawn? Call it a immature prank?
Label it what you want. Hate crime, bullying, or prank, but the kids involved need to be shown their action was wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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 vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
