|
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: Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:20 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| BJWD wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| My extreme dislike for islam is informed, carefully reasoned and open for full debate. No fear in me |
Anyone who has spent 10 minutes or so reading your posts knows this is not true. Why do you not see it? |
When I slam Christians, nobody argues. If I slam islam, it goes on for pages and pages. This is why you have the impression that I dislike islam more. It is a protected topic. We all agree about the other religions. |
No we don't, that's just a vocal minority. Somebody did a thread about this very subject and the religious outnumber the nonreligious. The majority just don't care to debate. |
Fair enough. But why the kid-gloves for the muslims? Why adopt a crucial element of shiria law and render islam beyond forceful, if rude, criticism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
| If someone started a thread arguing that Christians who bomb abortion clinics in the USA pose such a grave threat to law and order that they should have their Miranda rights revoked, you would probably see quite a few non-Christian liberals defending the Christians. |
Then again, maybe some of us would not. I have no problem treating such Christains as "terrorists" -- as indeed they are. |
Well, I guess that might be a topic for another thread, but I am curious if you would go to the point of denying them their constitutional rights. And if so, why stop with people designated as terrorists? Your average serial killer poses at least as great a threat to public safety as does your average clinic bomber. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Well, I guess that might be a topic for another thread, but I am curious if you would go to the point of denying them their constitutional rights. And if so, why stop with people designated as terrorists? Your average serial killer poses at least as great a threat to public safety as does your average clinic bomber. |
Now we are getting into unique constituents of our population -- very, very uncommon situation.
But yes, however. Charlie Manson and co. or Jeff Dahmer? You reference them and those like them, no...?
Police officers ought to shoot to kill. Save the taxpayers the trouble of trying them. They are irredeemable and pose a clear and present danger to all of us. Twisted humans.
As far as the clinic bombers: I see no reason to protect their citizenship when they have gone so far against society as to murder doctors and patients in their religious crusade. Have no idea what good that would do, but I would respond with force to such acts. Life in prison; no appeal.
And BJWD: Edward Said made Arabs and Muslims off-limits. Only a racist imperialist would even talk about them. This is the current which has indoctrinated many here... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| But why the kid-gloves for the muslims? |
Huh? Look, I probably qualify as one of the "Muslim apologists" on this board. Here's a little tune I wrote in Uni to amuse some drinking companions, and which I have no hesitancy about posting on this board...
Rajneer the Muslim reindeer
doesn't gamble drink or smoke
and how he treats his women
really is a bloody joke!
All of the other reindeers
think his faith's a bloody sham.
They like to torment Rajneer
by tossing at him bits of ham!
Then one sunny Ramadan
Allah came to say..
"Rajneer with your faith so bright
won't you kill Rushdie tonight?"
The all the Muslims loved him
as they shouted out with joy...
"Rajneer the Muslim reindeer,
may your every child be a boy!"
Anyway, it seemed funny when we were all drunk at the bar. The point is, I'm obviously not offended by it, and I doubt you'll find too many Dave's posters coming on here and saying that they are.
(and yes, I realize Rajneer is not a Muslim name, but that somehow just adds to the deliberate offensiveness of the poem.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nice work.
You aren't on the top of my list for dave's dhimini of the year, btw. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
As far as the clinic bombers: I see no reason to protect their citizenship when they have gone so far against society as to murder doctors and patients in their religious crusade. Have no idea what good that would do, but I would respond with force to such acts. Life in prison; no appeal.
|
Umm, sure. Life in prison, no appeal. But that doesn't entail taking away their citizenship, as you imply.
| Quote: |
But yes, however. Charlie Manson and co. or Jeff Dahmer? You reference them and those like them, no...?
Police officers ought to shoot to kill. Save the taxpayers the trouble of trying them. They are irredeemable and pose a clear and present danger to all of us. Twisted humans.
|
I think the only justification for "shoot-to-kill" would be if the guy poses an immediate threat to someone around him. But assuming that Dahmer doesn't have a gun, isn't holding a kinife up to anyone's throat, and the cops are already in close enough proximity to make an arrest, I see no call for "shoot-to-kill."
As for saving the taxpayer money: again, why stop at serial killers and terrorists? Wife-murderers cost a lot of money to try and house as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| I think the only justification for "shoot-to-kill" would be if the guy poses an immediate threat to someone around him. But assuming that Dahmer doesn't have a gun, isn't holding a kinife up to anyone's throat, and the cops are already in close enough proximity to make an arrest, I see no call for "shoot-to-kill." |
Hmm.
No, Dahmer evinced no handgun. But he did have a houseful and refrigerator full of human body parts -- that he ate when he was hungry, I understand. He kidnapped/raped/killed hundreds. Silence of the Lambs is a Disney film compared to Dahmer's life.
| On the other hand wrote: |
| As for saving the taxpayer money: again, why stop at serial killers and terrorists? Wife-murderers cost a lot of money to try and house as well. |
You are expanding it further than I do.
I agree that what I propose is harsh and, ultimately, not practical -- let alone compatible with the American Constitution. Thus I propose it here in never-never-land rather than in my state's senate, where I would likely vote against such a proposal. So I can easily cede your point. 
On the other hand, your observance of legal niceties leaves us with bombed clinics, dead doctors and patients, and serial killers like Manson getting cable television, law libraries, healthcare, and three squares a day while many law-abiding, non-serial killer, non-abortion-bombing citizens go without such ameneties...
Last edited by Gopher on Sat Mar 17, 2007 11:19 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| On the other hand, your observance of legal niceties leaves us with bombed clinics, dead doctors and patients |
I fail to see how not reading a clinic-bomber his rights upon arrest would have makes it more likely for other people to blow up clinics.
| Quote: |
| and serial killers like Manson getting cable television, law libraries, healthcare, and three squares a day while many law-abiding, non-serial killer, non-abortion-bombing citizens go without such ameneties... |
If you don't like Manson getting cable TV and healthcare from the prison system, then the solution is to promote use of the death penalty. Which has not traditionally been held as an a priori violation of the constitution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| I fail to see how not reading a clinic-bomber his rights upon arrest...makes it more likely for other people to blow up clinics. |
Hard to measure.
But I would propose that many American criminals, including the abortion-clinic bombers, wrap themselves up in the Constitution and are thus emboldened whereas in, say, harsher criminal justice systems, they might not be so emboldened to act and act again -- or immitate someone else who has blown up an abortion clinic, for example, and not been gunned down by responding police. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 1:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Coming back to the video...The problems at Concordia were not born from the geopolitical factors that were at hand 5 years ago. They appear to be, but when you scratch the surface you find that they were a product of the students's own immaturity and overblown sense of self-importance. Once the students learn to think for themselves, they'll stop being pawns. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 2:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
But I would propose that many American criminals, including the abortion-clinic bombers, wrap themselves up in the Constitution and are thus emboldened whereas in, say, harsher criminal justice systems, they might not be so emboldened to act and act again -- or immitate someone else who has blown up an abortion clinic, for example, and not been gunned down by responding police.
_________________ |
Yeah, that's just what every criminal thinks of, before violence. "Man, I have the constitution to protect me,so I can do whatever I see fit."
You know nothing of the criminal mind and I am glad you aren't policing our streets......
that is pure balderdash and pontification. Come down to reality. The Constitution is an afterthought. You should know it, and I know it too..
Not to mention, the constitution is not meant to justify/protect evil but to protect those who are not evil but could be accused by those like you who'd seek to erode its prominent position in the pantheon of western decency....
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
| Coming back to the video...The problems at Concordia were not born from the geopolitical factors that were at hand 5 years ago. They appear to be, but when you scratch the surface you find that they were a product of the students's own immaturity and overblown sense of self-importance. Once the students learn to think for themselves, they'll stop being pawns. |
The students are not the only ones at fault. The administration is also at fault. They also took pretty much a stand with right wing Zionists. That seemed pretty obvious. They didn't want to upset B'nai Brith. Heck, professor Sheinberg who was a head at the history department was a big whig in B'nai Brith. They didn't care about upsetting the Arab students, making excuses to clamp down on their activities long before the riots. It is not like the administration was objective. I mean they even accused a Jew of hurting a security guard when I knew this guy (bless his soul), and he would never, ever hurt a fly. He was just a harmless Bundist.
Also, as someone mentioned Israel Asper who was not acting like a true Canadian was firing Canadian reporters who would be critical of Israel.
A Canadian reporter has the right to be critical of Arab governments or Israel. Fascist censorship is unacceptable. Asper and Netanyahu's group chose to go to Concordia. Fanatical Arabs like those who used violence
in the protest and right wing Israelis don't contribute to a clean Canada.
They could have gone elsewhere. It seems like it was a provocation for the right wing Israeli crowd to show they have some certain chutzpah over the vocal SPHR (Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights) group. Hillel felt intimidated by their presence. Hillel got suspended, which I disagreed with personally, because they were recruiting for the Israeli Defence Forces on a Canadian campus which is a violation of Canadian law. The CSU used that as an excuse to disband them. I think maybe they went too far. Some on the CSU board had Jewish names and were on the Left including a past president, I believe, and thought Hillel went too far with that and shut them down. At least, that is what was said. So the talk of anti-Semitism doesn't work, maybe the CSU was overzealous, but why should anyone be recruiting Canadians for the IDF on a campus. If you want to volunteer for the IDF you can go to Israel. There is no problem with that.
I am against all fanatics in Canada.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 4:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
| Quote: |
But I would propose that many American criminals, including the abortion-clinic bombers, wrap themselves up in the Constitution and are thus emboldened whereas in, say, harsher criminal justice systems, they might not be so emboldened to act and act again -- or immitate someone else who has blown up an abortion clinic, for example, and not been gunned down by responding police.
_________________ |
Yeah, that's just what every criminal thinks of, before violence. "Man, I have the constitution to protect me,so I can do whatever I see fit."
You know nothing of the criminal mind and I am glad you aren't policing our streets......
that is pure balderdash and pontification. Come down to reality. The Constitution is an afterthought. You should know it, and I know it too..
Not to mention, the constitution is not meant to justify/protect evil but to protect those who are not evil but could be accused by those like you who'd seek to erode its prominent position in the pantheon of western decency....
DD |
The constitution is supposed to ensure that there is justice, that there is accountability. The King of England was not accountable to the colonists and parliament would not listen. People have to be able to be address their grievances. As far as those who are criminals, the intention is not to protect them but to ensure justice is done. Is that what you mean? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaganath69
Joined: 17 Jul 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here we go again. Whilst BWJD is calm and reassured in his argument, which I think is flawed, you can't argue this subject on this board because you have the likes of jinju, barking mad as he is from inhaling his film-processing chemicals, uttering the same bigotry over and over.
What it boils down to is this, and OH has said it already. Islam is far from a monolithic force that seeks to destroy the West, or anything. Yes, there are nasty, reactionary currents within the religion, but they are far from obtaining hegemony.
The documentary itself, whilst interesting, was about as one-sided as these things come. That is not to say I agree with the woolier members of the student left whose tactics of obstruction and emotive howling down of dissent I am all too aware of (did my time as a student rep), but it cast members of the pro-Palestine and anti-war movement as bigots by creating a series of straw men and non sequitors. You only had to look to the side-blurb on the youtube page to see the accusations of a Wahab-Saudi-Funded group; well why was this not discussed in the documentary? That was as disgraceful as the anti-war protester's anti-semetic sign. Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia both stink. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| People have to be able to be address their grievances. As far as those who are criminals, the intention is not to protect them but to ensure justice is done. Is that what you mean? |
That in a nutshell is what I meant. Justice, in the fashion that is of truth and not power, influence and institution. Small j.
I believe in "legal nicities" though I wouldn't call them that at all. I would call them the codes of the civilized.
Some others just like to parade power for powers sake. Or step around human norms to get to a greater good. I think they should keep that in the bedroom.
DD |
|
| 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
