waldo Posted August 21, 2015 Report Posted August 21, 2015 Just curious - how long do you intend to go back and forth with someone who obviously doesn't engage in good faith and is driven to conflate Islamic fundamentalism/radicalism with Islam-at-large while drawing false delineations between culture and religion as they pertain to shaping society? again, the bad faith and conflation of, as you say, 'radical Islam/Islam-at-large'... is yours; on full display in the opening post.
waldo Posted August 21, 2015 Report Posted August 21, 2015 It is a cultural practice. And it's barbaric. Doesn't mean it's an assessment of the entire culture. This is really getting tedious. If it wasn't a cultural practice you'd be fine calling it barbaric? why do you continue to avoid answering the simple request asking you to list the cultures you're projecting upon... and the communities within those cultures... and how you differentiate barbarism for persons living within those communities... since you choose to project that barbarism upon the entire culture, upon the entire communities within those cultures, upon the entire populace within those communities? Perhaps you should take a permanent break from your tedium, hey!
cybercoma Posted August 22, 2015 Report Posted August 22, 2015 When you do it and ban reporters and will not talk about why what was said or promised, it makes people wonder. It shows not just Justin but the party itself is not ready. Do you honestly think there's some secret plot where Trudeau supports Islamism? This is one of the most insane things I've heard on this forum.
waldo Posted August 22, 2015 Report Posted August 22, 2015 Are you seriously suggesting the CBA isn't a left-wing organization, and that lawyers aren't an overwhelmingly left-wing bunch? I'm quite satisfied to read your reactions... to see how you wigged out... to see you bite as I let the line out! I did not know the "overwhelmingly leftist" bench, prosecution, defense and academia fall into your sights!
waldo Posted August 22, 2015 Report Posted August 22, 2015 Do you honestly think there's some secret plot where Trudeau supports Islamism? This is one of the most insane things I've heard on this forum. the media weren't allowed in... who knows what secret plot was being hatched... in member PIK's imagination!
kraychik Posted August 22, 2015 Author Report Posted August 22, 2015 Do you honestly think there's some secret plot where Trudeau supports Islamism? This is one of the most insane things I've heard on this forum. Trudeau clearly panders to Islamism. He has chastised Harper for describing "Islamicism" as a national security threat. He panders to, and (insincerely) prays with radical Muslims, and is courting their support. He has defended the wearing of niqabs and suggested that calling for their banning under certain circumstances amounts to a sort of "War on Women". Nobody is pushing a Manchurian Candidate Narrative about him being a secret agent of the Muslim Brotherhood, so spare us the straw man argumentation.
Boges Posted September 8, 2015 Report Posted September 8, 2015 (edited) why do you continue to avoid answering the simple request asking you to list the cultures you're projecting upon... and the communities within those cultures... and how you differentiate barbarism for persons living within those communities... since you choose to project that barbarism upon the entire culture, upon the entire communities within those cultures, upon the entire populace within those communities? Perhaps you should take a permanent break from your tedium, hey! What don't you get about us saying that the act is barbaric? It's not a projection on the culture and/or religion of people who do these things. If a Canadian WASP practiced this it would be equally barbaric. It just so happens that in some cultures around the world that these things are culturally acceptable. In Canada it's not, In Canada many see it as barbaric. The pamphlet is highlighting such things. Could "unacceptable" be more a more tactful approach? perhaps. But I reject the implications or racism when a government says that mutilating a woman's genitals or killing a woman for dishonouring her family is abhorrent and barbaric behaviour. Edited September 8, 2015 by Boges
waldo Posted September 8, 2015 Report Posted September 8, 2015 What don't you get about us saying that the act is barbaric? It's not a projection on the culture and/or religion of people who do these things. If a Canadian WASP practiced this it would be equally barbaric. It just so happens that in some cultures around the world that these things are culturally acceptable. hey! How did this thread get resurrected... you're not member Shady... it was his status update! In any case, I'd suggest you re-read the thread as you've apparently (certainly not purposely... uhhh, right) laid down a rather all too obvious strawman! No one (including the Liberal leader) disputed the acts as being 'barbaric'... perhaps you should start with my first reply to the OP where the clear distinction is drawn to the wording within that Harper Conservative government brochure/pamphlet. Most definitely the acts are not the focus of that wording/statement... the raised concerns are to how the association is made to culture. Since you have now stated, "it's not a projection (sic) on the culture and/or religion", then you and JT are in clear agreement! Good on ya, member 'Boges'... good on ya!
Scotty Posted September 8, 2015 Report Posted September 8, 2015 sure you did... you attempted to play it off against culture! Your comment is there... I quoted it... and replied to it. Would you like me to re-quote it? Hey Waldo, do you think honor killing and female circumcision are barbaric? It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Guest Posted September 8, 2015 Report Posted September 8, 2015 They most definitely are barbaric. I can't imagine, for the life of me, why anyone would want to spare the feelings of those who don't think so.
waldo Posted September 8, 2015 Report Posted September 8, 2015 They most definitely are barbaric. I can't imagine, for the life of me, why anyone would want to spare the feelings of those who don't think so. it doesn't help the merits of your comment if you're going to simply drop in without having actually followed the thread. The emphasis, per the original Harper Conservative brochure/pamphlet wording, has never been on the acts... the emphasis has always been on how the word was improperly attached to a culture.
Scotty Posted September 8, 2015 Report Posted September 8, 2015 it doesn't help the merits of your comment if you're going to simply drop in without having actually followed the thread. The emphasis, per the original Harper Conservative brochure/pamphlet wording, has never been on the acts... the emphasis has always been on how the word was improperly attached to a culture. It was attached to the acts. Period. End of story. The politically correct became affronted as THEY attached it to a culture. Unless you're saying that such acts are the common culture of mideast Muslims, of course... It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Guest Posted September 8, 2015 Report Posted September 8, 2015 it doesn't help the merits of your comment if you're going to simply drop in without having actually followed the thread. The emphasis, per the original Harper Conservative brochure/pamphlet wording, has never been on the acts... the emphasis has always been on how the word was improperly attached to a culture. I always do that. I work. If they identified a culture they could simply reword it to say "anyone at all". But keep the barbaric. After all, it is barbaric. And really, anyone at all who does it is barbaric.
Smallc Posted September 9, 2015 Report Posted September 9, 2015 it doesn't help the merits of your comment if you're going to simply drop in without having actually followed the thread. The emphasis, per the original Harper Conservative brochure/pamphlet wording, has never been on the acts... the emphasis has always been on how the word was improperly attached to a culture. It's pretty bad when you're arguing against calling honour killing barbaric.
WestCoastRunner Posted September 9, 2015 Report Posted September 9, 2015 It's pretty bad when you're arguing against calling honour killing barbaric. Honour killing is called domestic violence in the western part of this world. There is no difference and Canada has plenty of marital killings. I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
Smallc Posted September 9, 2015 Report Posted September 9, 2015 Honour killing is called domestic violence in the western part of this world. There is no difference and Canada has plenty of marital killings. Yeah and we don't often celebrate those either, do we (and no, they aren't the same thing)? What's your point?
On Guard for Thee Posted September 9, 2015 Report Posted September 9, 2015 They most definitely are barbaric. I can't imagine, for the life of me, why anyone would want to spare the feelings of those who don't think so. Think of it however suits you just don't use that language in a document you will hand to all immigrants.
WestCoastRunner Posted September 9, 2015 Report Posted September 9, 2015 Yeah and we don't often celebrate those either, do we (and no, they aren't the same thing)? What's your point? They are exactly the same thing and my point is as Waldo pointed out is that honour killing is attached to Muslims when in reality, it should be called domestic violence. Domestic violence or honour killings should be attached to the perpetrators not a culture. I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
Smallc Posted September 9, 2015 Report Posted September 9, 2015 They are exactly the same thing and my point is as Waldo pointed out is that honour killing is attached to Muslims when in reality, it should be called domestic violence. Domestic violence or honour killings should be attached to the perpetrators not a culture. Honour killings have a specific set of motivational requirements that are not present in the overarching term domestic violence (which no one here is trumpeting).
WestCoastRunner Posted September 9, 2015 Report Posted September 9, 2015 Honour killings have a specific set of motivational requirements that are not present in the overarching term domestic violence (which no one here is trumpeting). Requirements? Ok, here we go: a) man snuffs out partner because she had an affair man snuffs out partner because she wants a divorce Would you call these honour killings or domestic violence? I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
Guest Posted September 9, 2015 Report Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) Think of it however suits you just don't use that language in a document you will hand to all immigrants. Why not? It will only offend those who don't deserve not to be offended. Edited September 9, 2015 by bcsapper
Guest Posted September 9, 2015 Report Posted September 9, 2015 Requirements? Ok, here we go: a) man snuffs out partner because she had an affair man snuffs out partner because she wants a divorce Would you call these honour killings or domestic violence? I'd call them barbaric.
On Guard for Thee Posted September 9, 2015 Report Posted September 9, 2015 Why not? It will only offend those who don't deserve not to be offended. I've already stated my case o this. It's offensive language to put into a government document, for no tangible effective purpose.
Guest Posted September 9, 2015 Report Posted September 9, 2015 I've already stated my case o this. It's offensive language to put into a government document, for no tangible effective purpose. But the tangible effective purpose is to show people that we think such behaviour is barbaric! Such a purpose can only be achieved by stating such. Unacceptable sounds like, spitting, or something.
On Guard for Thee Posted September 9, 2015 Report Posted September 9, 2015 But the tangible effective purpose is to show people that we think such behaviour is barbaric! Such a purpose can only be achieved by stating such. Unacceptable sounds like, spitting, or something. Then have your preacher put the word into you sunday morning sermon if you like. It will have no valuable effect in a government pamphlet. Nurder is illegal in this country and has been for quite some time. I suspect most immigrants know that. How many honor killings do you actually think there are here? Hint...about 1 a year. And they are prosecuted just like a drunk white guy who beats the old lady to death because she screwed around on him.
Recommended Posts