Progressives and Islam

[DogOnPorch]

Whatever else you want to call it we helped light and pour gasoline on the conflagration that's consuming the region and resulting in hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives lost. I think we've probably even triggered WW3 myself.

It's all our fault.

Not all our fault, but we share the blame indeed. You included by default.

It's MY fault...even better.

[?Impact]

The Quran is Mein Kampf enough...

Have you read either?

[DogOnPorch]

Have you read either?

Both, yes.

[eyeball]

It's all our fault.

Never said all at all.

It's MY fault...even better.

Just not all your's.

[DogOnPorch]

My fault...just not all my fault. Was my ol' Grans involved, too? A conspiracy, as it were?

Such is the the modern Progressive mind. Blaming anybody (and everybody) except the perpetrators.

9-11? Blame Boeing for making a quality aircraft....

This be why you are not to be taken seriously.

[eyeball]

Such is the the modern Progressive mind. Blaming anybody (and everybody) except the perpetrators.

The perpetrators of what? You don't even know what we're talking about.

Well you do but, you're not about to admit to anything whatsoever so...

Edited September 3, 2016 by eyeball

[DogOnPorch]

The perpetrators of what? You don't even know what we're talking about.

Well you do but, you're not about to admit to anything whatsoever so...

Again, you've become such a caricature that it is no longer possible to treat anything you say seriously.

[eyeball]

The only reason you can't treat it seriously is because you don't want to.

[DogOnPorch]

A question arises in another thread: Should there be a 'Right to Respect'?

I assume this to mean: Dog should be made to respect something he does not.

What's the "Progressive" take?

What's yours?

Edited September 4, 2016 by DogOnPorch

[Guest]

Nobody has a right to respect. Nobody has a right to not be offended.

[eyeball]

I'd be surprised to find there's anyone who would even expect respect from a regressive.

[DogOnPorch]

Nobody has a right to respect. Nobody has a right to not be offended.

That's my view, as well. But it's apparently not universal.

Edited September 4, 2016 by DogOnPorch

[Guest]

I'd be surprised to find there's anyone who would even expect respect from a regressive.

Certainly not respect for religious freedom, dress sense, sexual preference, or artistic ability, that's for sure

[dialamah]

A question arises in another thread: Should there be a 'Right to Respect'?

I assume this to mean: Dog should be made to respect something he does not.

What's the "Progressive" take?

What's yours?

You assume wrong, as usual. What I said was that you are entitled to the respect of not being assumed to be a rapist because you are a man and men carry out 99% of all rapes. In the same way, individual Muslims are entitled to the respect of not being assumed to be backwards savages merely because they are Muslim.

[Guest]

You assume wrong, as usual. What I said was that you are entitled to the respect of not being assumed to be a rapist because you are a man and men carry out 99% of all rapes. In the same way, individual Muslims are entitled to the respect of not being assumed to be backwards savages merely because they are Muslim.

This puts me mind of the furore over racial stereotyping. If a woman is raped and cannot identify her attacker, perhaps because she is in a coma, should the police assume initially that the attacker is either male or female, and assign resources accordingly?

[DogOnPorch]

You assume wrong, as usual. What I said was that you are entitled to the respect of not being assumed to be a rapist because you are a man and men carry out 99% of all rapes. In the same way, individual Muslims are entitled to the respect of not being assumed to be backwards savages merely because they are Muslim.

No such right exists.

Although, as I've alluded, blasphemy laws might be a practical way for someone like yourself to get someone like me to respect Islam.

Hit me where it hurts...the pocketbook. Or worse...jail time. I'd quickly learn to show the required respect.

[dialamah]

No such right exists.

Although, as I've alluded, blasphemy laws might be a practical way for someone like yourself to get someone like me to respect Islam.

Hit me where it hurts...the pocketbook. Or worse...jail time. I'd quickly learn to show the required respect.

You could be correct, "Right to Respect" isn't what I'm describing. What term would you use to explain the concept that I cannot assume you are a rapist just because you are male? Would you use the same term to explain the concept that I cannot assume you are barbaric and savage just because you are Muslim and/or come from a Muslim country? If not, what term would you use?

[dialamah]

This puts me mind of the furore over racial stereotyping. If a woman is raped and cannot identify her attacker, perhaps because she is in a coma, should the police assume initially that the attacker is either male or female, and assign resources accordingly?

Why would the resources be assigned differently depending on the gender of the attacker? But aside from that, that's a good question. I'm guessing they would generally assume a male attacker if there was evidence of vaginal or anal penetration; on the other hand, if there such evidence, there would also likely be DNA evidence identifying the gender. But interesting question.

[DogOnPorch]

You could be correct, "Right to Respect" isn't what I'm describing. What term would you use to explain the concept that I cannot assume you are a rapist just because you are male? Would you use the same term to explain the concept that I cannot assume you are barbaric and savage just because you are Muslim and/or come from a Muslim country? If not, what term would you use?

This is a false argument. A variation of No True Scotsman.

Islam is barbaric.

[dialamah]

This is a false argument. A variation of No True Scotsman.

Islam is barbaric.

It wasn't an argument, it was a question in good faith. I think part of treating people with respect is not assuming things about them because of how they look or dress, and/or not treating them as less than based on how they look/dress. I believe this is part of our Canadian values. That is what I mean by 'right to respect'. However, I'm failing to get my point across even with people who do not knee-jerk opposition to every thing I say, so I thought I'd try a different tact.

There are some barbaric practices in Middle Eastern culture.

[Guest]

Why would the resources be assigned differently depending on the gender of the attacker? But aside from that, that's a good question. I'm guessing they would generally assume a male attacker if there was evidence of vaginal or anal penetration; on the other hand, if there such evidence, there would also likely be DNA evidence identifying the gender. But interesting question.

The question is not, "why would the resources be assigned differently depending on the gender of the attacker?", but rather, should the resources be assigned based on assumptions about the attacker?

[dialamah]

The question is not, "why would the resources be assigned differently depending on the gender of the attacker?", but rather, should the resources be assigned based on assumptions about the attacker?

I would expect resources would be assigned based on the crime. Assumptions about the gender (race?) of the attacker would be irrelevant to the assigned resources, wouldn't they?

[Guest]

I would expect resources would be assigned based on the crime. Assumptions about the gender (race?) of the attacker would be irrelevant to the assigned resources, wouldn't they?

Not if I were in charge of a rape investigation.

[dialamah]

Not if I were in charge of a rape investigation.

Way off-topic, but this is intriguing - I can see assigning a female officer rather than a male officer to a raped women. But other than that, I am trying to imagine how an assumption of gender (or race) of the perpetrator would result in assign different 'resources' to catching him (or her); perhaps neighborhood-demographic-friendly cops for interrogation of witnesses? Perhaps I am too progressive and Islamist to get it. Answer at your peril, I'm sure there's a moderator lurking ...

[Guest]

Way off-topic, but this is intriguing - I can see assigning a female officer rather than a male officer to a raped women. But other than that, I am trying to imagine how an assumption of gender (or race) of the perpetrator would result in assign different 'resources' to catching him (or her); perhaps neighborhood-demographic-friendly cops for interrogation of witnesses? Perhaps I am too progressive and Islamist to get it. Answer at your peril, I'm sure there's a moderator lurking ...

I would assign all resources to the task of catching a male suspect, and direct them to ignore any women they might see in the course of their investigation. Unless such women might be of assistance in the apprehension of the male suspect. I would insist on this course of action until something happened to change my mind.

Edited September 4, 2016 by bcsapper