Warwick Green Posted November 20, 2006 Report Posted November 20, 2006 But in a country like this one I still don't know how many Muslims actually support the teachings of the extremist Islamic groups. Well, after reading the happenings in Britain (please refer to the other topic "British Muslims groomed to Kill at the rest of the world section, especially the article I've posted, Piggybacking On Terror In Britain), I have changed my views...dramatically. I hope to see the west take a strong stand. Tolerance is not for those who seek not to tolerate others...but also seek to destroy. The west had been generous in opening its doors....but its way of life should not be jeopardized, nor its citizens be endangered by doing so. Not in our own soil! Only those who truly wish to partake of the freedom and the way of life that we offer should be welcome to stay. Those who seek to change our way of life by every means possible, should not be welcomed by us. I don't know if our Muslim clerics are as bad as some. One in the UK (now in jail awaiting deportation to the US) used to tell his congregation that they had a holy obligation to kill a Jew before they die. The UK allowed him to preach that without talking action. Now I fully believe in the freedom of speech and am opposed to "hate speech" laws. But this is over the edge. If a Muslim preacher did that here we should charge him exhorting people to commit a crime. Quote
Black Dog Posted November 21, 2006 Report Posted November 21, 2006 A shift in tolerance! A defiance! Of what? Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
jbg Posted November 21, 2006 Report Posted November 21, 2006 The burqa issue could be about more than a dress code issue. Whether you agree with it or not, I think the motivation behind it has more to do with the face being covered than making an actual statement against Islam. There could be a man under there with a gun. You could conceal anything, and this is scary if you work in a bank. In a lot of cases the burqa is like a ninja suit complete with a baliklava. That's why it doesn't have to be an an all-or-nothing approach. Let them by all means wear a burqa walking down the street but when it comes to going into a business establishment perhaps other rules need to apply. I see nothing wrong with requiring people who want the benefits of living in the West to become Westerners. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
betsy Posted November 21, 2006 Report Posted November 21, 2006 A shift in tolerance! A defiance! Of what? Islam! But anyway, don't take my word for it. It's just my own personal take. For all you know, they just don't like anything similar to balaclava. Quote
bradco Posted November 21, 2006 Report Posted November 21, 2006 "You may not know it...and others may scoff at it...but no one can deny the fact that the way of life we enjoy now, is derived from the Judeo Christian values!" really? I think most of our rights come from the liberal tradition, with roots in enlightenment thought. from wikipedia: "an intellectual upheaval overturned the accepted belief that mysticism and revelation are the primary sources of knowledge and wisdom—which was blamed for fomenting political instability" "In this view, the Enlightenment represents the basis for modern ideas of liberalism against superstition and intolerance." "The Enlightenment is held, in this view, to be the source of critical ideas, such as the centrality of freedom, democracy and reason as being the primary values of a society" Quote
bradco Posted November 21, 2006 Report Posted November 21, 2006 Betsy, I am quite confused how you can go from arguing that parents must have the right to kill their children through second hand-smoking to arguing that the state must dictate that women are not allowed to wear Burquas. Is this perhaps cherry picking rights for yourself and denying towards a population (Muslims) that you dislike? What happened to your passionate claim that we must respect freedoms? Quote
betsy Posted November 21, 2006 Report Posted November 21, 2006 Betsy, I am quite confused how you can go from arguing that parents must have the right to kill their children through second hand-smoking to arguing that the state must dictate that women are not allowed to wear Burquas. Is this perhaps cherry picking rights for yourself and denying towards a population (Muslims) that you dislike? What happened to your passionate claim that we must respect freedoms? Eh? I'm quite confused about your statement. What's smoking got to do with burquas? Do they hide cigarettes under those blasted thingy? Well I'll be darned.....it never did occur to me that THAT could be the reason why they decided to ban the burquas! Quote
JerrySeinfeld Posted November 21, 2006 Report Posted November 21, 2006 The bottom line is: this is fun to watch the left in this quagmire :) How can a group whose membership used to burn bras, then defend the burqa? Haha - let's see how the left reconciles it's championing of women's rights with the mysoginistic ways of fundamentalist islam. Quote
Drea Posted November 21, 2006 Report Posted November 21, 2006 The "bra burning" in the 60s was a symbolism. Women symbolically threw away their "retraints". Some women in the 60s chose to keep their "bras" (restraints). No one banned them from wearing them! Quote ...jealous much? Booga Booga! Hee Hee Hee
JerrySeinfeld Posted November 21, 2006 Report Posted November 21, 2006 The "bra burning" in the 60s was a symbolism.Women symbolically threw away their "retraints". Some women in the 60s chose to keep their "bras" (restraints). No one banned them from wearing them! Fair enough. However I don't see the burqa having many side beauty benefits Quote
betsy Posted November 21, 2006 Report Posted November 21, 2006 The bottom line is: this is fun to watch the left in this quagmire :)How can a group whose membership used to burn bras, then defend the burqa? Haha - let's see how the left reconciles it's championing of women's rights with the mysoginistic ways of fundamentalist islam. LIBERATION! Let 'er rip, girls! Rip those burquas off yer heads! Quote
Borg Posted November 22, 2006 Report Posted November 22, 2006 Maybe Muslim women should revolt and burn their Burkhas (or at least the veil) Interesting comment - but it will never happen - not if they value their health. Borg Quote
Borg Posted November 22, 2006 Report Posted November 22, 2006 I see nothing wrong with requiring people who want the benefits of living in the West to become Westerners. Agreed - but anything that even appears "intolerant" will be fought tooth and nail by the lefties. Tolerance may in fact become our downfall. Borg Quote
scribblet Posted November 24, 2006 Report Posted November 24, 2006 Agreed, especially as tolerance invariably become intolerance. I can't resist posting this, its a letter in today's National Post National Post Published: Friday, November 24, 2006 Re: Wearing A Niqab Is Not A Big Deal ... , Letter to the editor, Nov. 23. G. Epema's letter on female covering in Islam is misdirected. Such covering is only symptomatic of male sexual psychosis. Christianity and Judaism have also gone through it (some sects within each still suffer from it). The real issue is the inability of men to control their sexual desire. In current Islam, this is manifest in the ejaculatory machine-gun bursts that photo-journalism, to depict Islam's otherness, has made a fetish. Aberrant behaviour elsewhere, such as infibulation and honour killings, further demonstrates the psychosis. Treat the symptom as such. It is no consolation that, in the West, the remnant psychosis is only rape. At least a woman is free to dress as she wants, protect her genitals and speak her mind. name removed for privacy © National Post 2006 Whoa...... okay guys, any comments - Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
Saturn Posted November 24, 2006 Report Posted November 24, 2006 I would support a ban on headdress. I had friends in high-school, who would remove their headdress when they got to school but had to put it on when they left to go home. What they said about it was: "I hate this damned thing but my parents make me wear it." I think that a ban would give them an excuse not to wear it despite their parents' wishes. The reality is that a lot of young muslim women are forced to wear it against their wishes. So it isn't a matter of choice anyway. Quote
JerrySeinfeld Posted November 24, 2006 Report Posted November 24, 2006 Agreed, especially as tolerance invariably become intolerance. I can't resist posting this, its a letter in today's National Post National Post Published: Friday, November 24, 2006 Re: Wearing A Niqab Is Not A Big Deal ... , Letter to the editor, Nov. 23. G. Epema's letter on female covering in Islam is misdirected. Such covering is only symptomatic of male sexual psychosis. Christianity and Judaism have also gone through it (some sects within each still suffer from it). The real issue is the inability of men to control their sexual desire. In current Islam, this is manifest in the ejaculatory machine-gun bursts that photo-journalism, to depict Islam's otherness, has made a fetish. Aberrant behaviour elsewhere, such as infibulation and honour killings, further demonstrates the psychosis. Treat the symptom as such. It is no consolation that, in the West, the remnant psychosis is only rape. At least a woman is free to dress as she wants, protect her genitals and speak her mind. name removed for privacy © National Post 2006 Whoa...... okay guys, any comments - Not to mention the phallic symbols which dominate muslim cities. The burqa is a shocking symbol of female subserviancy. Anyone (including delusional, denying or simply AFRAID muslim women) who says otherwise is kidding themselves. Quote
Black Dog Posted November 24, 2006 Report Posted November 24, 2006 Not to mention the phallic symbols which dominate muslim cities. yeah, we westerners don't have anything like that. The burqa is a shocking symbol of female subserviancy. Anyone (including delusional, denying or simply AFRAID muslim women) who says otherwise is kidding themselves. Be that as it may, that's beside the point. The real question is to what degree the state should be legislating individual dress. the burqa is a symbol of female oppression, but ultimately, that's not for the state to decide. Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
JerrySeinfeld Posted November 24, 2006 Report Posted November 24, 2006 yeah, we westerners don't have anything like that Haha - I knew you'd bring up the calgary tower or the CN tower and actually believe you've brought something new and intersting to the discussion. Gee I never thought of that Kudos for trying. Man, you smart But until we make women dress in burqas from head to toe, shoot women in soccer stadiums as punishment for adultery, sentence them to gang rape, excuse rape as the woman's fault, allow women's hair and teeth to fall out from a lack of sunshine on their faces, I think your "western tall buildings" example rings a bit hollow as a symbol of oppression of women. Quote
Black Dog Posted November 24, 2006 Report Posted November 24, 2006 Haha - I knew you'd bring up the calgary tower or the CN tower and actually believe you've brought something new and intersting to the discussion. Gee I never thought of that Kudos for trying. Man, you smart So it occurred to you before you made your comment about Islamic phallic symbols that it was invalid, yet you made it anyway. Huh. But until we make women dress in burqas from head to toe, shoot women in soccer stadiums as punishment for adultery, sentence them to gang rape, excuse rape as the woman's fault, allow women's hair and teeth to fall out from a lack of sunshine on their faces, I think your "western tall buildings" example rings a bit hollow as a symbol of oppression of women. Uh, I know it's too much to ask for you to keep track of other people's arguments, but could you at least keep track of your own? The letter writer above said the burqa was a symbol of oppression of women and Muslim male sexual neurosis. You tacked on the phallic symbol thing. However, unless the existence of phallic symbols in the west is evidence of western makle sexual neurosis, their existence dispoves your thesis. Phallic symbols are simply objects that look like penises. If you're going to use terminology in a debate, at least make sure you know what it means beforehand. Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
JerrySeinfeld Posted November 24, 2006 Report Posted November 24, 2006 Haha - I knew you'd bring up the calgary tower or the CN tower and actually believe you've brought something new and intersting to the discussion. Gee I never thought of that Kudos for trying. Man, you smart So it occurred to you before you made your comment about Islamic phallic symbols that it was invalid, yet you made it anyway. Huh. But until we make women dress in burqas from head to toe, shoot women in soccer stadiums as punishment for adultery, sentence them to gang rape, excuse rape as the woman's fault, allow women's hair and teeth to fall out from a lack of sunshine on their faces, I think your "western tall buildings" example rings a bit hollow as a symbol of oppression of women. Uh, I know it's too much to ask for you to keep track of other people's arguments, but could you at least keep track of your own? The letter writer above said the burqa was a symbol of oppression of women and Muslim male sexual neurosis. You tacked on the phallic symbol thing. However, unless the existence of phallic symbols in the west is evidence of western makle sexual neurosis, their existence dispoves your thesis. Phallic symbols are simply objects that look like penises. If you're going to use terminology in a debate, at least make sure you know what it means beforehand. awww - now you're getting all pissy because I illustrated to you the OBVIOUS difference between symbols of male domination and opression and abuse of women in a muslim society, and a simple tall building in a western city. and if you can't see the link between opression of women, giant phallic symbols and burqas, I simply feel sorry for you. Quote
Black Dog Posted November 24, 2006 Report Posted November 24, 2006 awww - now you're getting all pissy because I illustrated to you the OBVIOUS difference between symbols of male domination and opression and abuse of women in a muslim society, and a simple tall building in a western city. Why are tall buildings in Muslm societies symbls of female oppression, but not those in western societies (or any other society for that matter)? Hmm? You're arguing there's some intrinsic quality in the buildings in Muslim societies that make them symblos of female oppression. So what is it? and if you can't see the link between opression of women, giant phallic symbols and burqas, I simply feel sorry for you. All I see is a whopping great logic trainwreck. Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
JerrySeinfeld Posted November 24, 2006 Report Posted November 24, 2006 awww - now you're getting all pissy because I illustrated to you the OBVIOUS difference between symbols of male domination and opression and abuse of women in a muslim society, and a simple tall building in a western city. Why are tall buildings in Muslm societies symbls of female oppression, but not those in western societies (or any other society for that matter)? Hmm? You're arguing there's some intrinsic quality in the buildings in Muslim societies that make them symblos of female oppression. So what is it? and if you can't see the link between opression of women, giant phallic symbols and burqas, I simply feel sorry for you. All I see is a whopping great logic trainwreck. I know that is all you "see". That's your problem. Quote
Black Dog Posted November 24, 2006 Report Posted November 24, 2006 I know that is all you "see". That's your problem. Yup. I have a problem with poorly constructed, poorly defended arguments. I'm zany like that. Am I to assume from your lack of answers to my questions that you are bereft of any answers at all? Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
jbg Posted November 28, 2006 Report Posted November 28, 2006 I know that is all you "see". That's your problem. Yup. I have a problem with poorly constructed, poorly defended arguments. I'm zany like that. Am I to assume from your lack of answers to my questions that you are bereft of any answers at all? That cuts many ways, as I pointed out on another thread. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jefferiah Posted November 28, 2006 Report Posted November 28, 2006 Is everybody here Freudian? Phallic symbols, machine gun fetishes. Maybe not everything is always about sex. Quote "Governing a great nation is like cooking a small fish - too much handling will spoil it." Lao Tzu
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.