Latest faith-based outrage.
 

Remember the Afghani Christian convert bullshit?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...ian/index.html

Well our friends from the more bellicose instantiation of desert monotheism are at it again.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapc...ist/index.html

Fuck Islam. And fuck anybody who can blather about how the U.S. is bringing freedom to the Middle East. This is freedom?

Drake

Everyone knows its about resources, freedom is just a bumper sticker...

QFT
I don't think "freedom" will ever be accomplished while cases like this are still happening.....the lack of tolerance disgusts me.

And if the US can sleep soundly at night deluding themselves they are bringing freedom, well, good for them.

I wrote and wanted to do a satirical stand up routine pointing out the various irregularities / fallacies / contradictions in Islam, but was talked out of it by friends. Why? Because you get murdered for having an opinion that does not conform with that of the Mullahs.

I doubt blowing the shit out of eachother has ever changed minds.

They will never bring freedom to the Middle East because they will fight for their beliefs and you can't change a mindset with bullets...you'll just make them more determined.

"We have found a witch! May we burn (him)?"

I'm a witch

I'm an Elf.

I'm a cthulhuoid.

Burn the witch.

Before everyone goes blasting the Afghani people, think about this -

It's their country, their religion, their rules. Who are you to dictate what you think is the proper way to run their country? If the majority of the people there are happy with killing people who convert from one religion to another who are you to say boo about it?

I mean, in America you can be put to death for a cadre of things. Every other first-world nation has abolished the death penalty, but not America. We look at Americans like they are some backwoods yokels everytime they talk about executing someone.

The reaction you have about the Afghan death penalty is the same we have here in Europe to the death penalty in general. Only in America do they think they know who to kill.

Don't kill people for this reason, only kill them when they do 'X'.

Then again, who is Europe to tell America who they can and can't execute? Americans seem pretty happy sticking needles in peoples arms and sending a few hundred thousand volts through them based on what THEY perceive is justice. It's ironic/funny/sad though to see them get all worked up when it happens in another country, based on someone elses laws, culture, and reasoning.

Another glaring contradiction is the fact the UK doesn't have a constitution. The UK claims to be a 'constitutional monarchy', which is their 'official' style of government, however they have no constitution. They also don't have freedom of speech nor do they have freedom of the press. You can be arrested and put in prison for life if you write something the government doesn't like. You can be sued for every penny you have if you print a story, true or not, that damages the reputation of someone.

So before everyone piles on and starts talking about what rights they still don't have in Afghanistan or Iraq, you should really look at the rights they don't have in your own allies. If people should be outraged, it's because America has teamed up with other nations who have pretty bad records on human rights among other things, and now claim to be bringing all sorts of 'freedoms' and what-not to the middle east - and those things the Americans are promising don't even exist in their allies countries.

Follow that thought. You're close to arriving at a coherent, honest opinion - one way or the other.

Put it this way:

Who are you to say boo to me saying boo? Your militant relativism is a double-edged sword. So you can wallow in your anomie, or you can apply a uniform standard.

I'm sure you can guess from my choice of terms which option I prefer, but both are honest. Of course, there's always the third choice, which is simply to be a complete fucking hypocrite, but I'm guessing that you don't like that idea any more than I do.

Drake

If that's what you really think, then why do you bitch like an emo brat every time the United States does something you consider off?

I rest my case.

But let's look at this "cadre" of things... Murder, ****, and treason. That's it.

I have Japan on the phone. They say you fail.

We do something about our problems, outsiders bitch about it. We do nothing, outsiders still bitch. Good thing that outsiders are irrelevent to our policies.

So, in other words, you look at us the way we look at you every time you open your mouths. Big deal.

So you're saying that you don't care. Then why do you bitch so much?!

Only outside of America do they thing they know how to run America...

So differentiating between different crimes is bad...

Yes, reporting on it is "getting worked up." Actually, you are the one getting worked up on everything America does that you perceive as "bad." You fucking hypocrite.

Out of the clear blue sky...

I think it's you who should look into that...

Yeah, like, oh, you know... those "every other first-world nations" that you earlier praised for having abolished capital punishment.

No, they claim to be trying. Big difference, there. And, at the same time, most Americans are telling the government to STFU about it, because we don't believe it.

Thats simple. When the US does it, it usually effects the rest of the world. They stone a person in the middle east, it doesn't effect me. The US decides to bomb some country they don't like and execute it's leader - that effects me.

When my country has to take in thousands of refugees from said country because their homes were destroyed by Americans, that effects me.

When I have to go protest almost monthly because the US is bringing arms through my country to drop on the aforementioned country, that effects me.

When I am arrested in my country at the behest of American authorities and put in prison without charge, that effects me.

Those are just a few of the reasons I have, if you need more just ask...

All of Europe, Australia, etc. all have banned it. You think Japan counts as a first world country?

You see my favouring of two systems as hypocritical, however, you must not be taking a few things into account.

It's like this -

In one country, they claim to have certain rights and are vocal about those rights. The reality is, they don't have those rights, and are actively taking away those rights while preaching the opposite.

In another country, they tell you what to do, and if you don't do it, they kill you. They don't claim to be protecting your rights. In fact, from birth you are taught the 'rules' and know what the law entails.

If America just came out and said they were a dictatorship run by corporations and that citizens have no rights, well, I wouldn't post as much about them. It's the fact that they say one thing then do another, all the while still claiming to support things they aggressively act against that bothers me.

It angers me to see people get outraged about something in another country that is happening in their own. 'Clean up your own backyard before talking about other peoples' or however that saying goes is basically how I feel about this.

People in America constantly putting down Arabic culture because that is what the government propaganda has put out there. First it was the Nazi's. Not saying they were good by any means, but if you Google the propaganda that was out there during the 1940's you will find stories about how they ate children and killed just for the sake of it. We knot today most of that was untrue - the Germans didn't do many of the things that those articles said. Then there were the Russians. During the cold war I remember news stories circulating about how evil they were - and how Russia was 'evil'. Today I know and live alongside many Russians. They aren't evil either.

Now its the Arabs. I live and work with these people as well. Contrary to what the western media portrays them as and they claims they level against them, they are nothing like the ones you hear about in stories like the one above.

Sure, if you switch your religon they will kill you. But thats their way of life. If you use a gun in a robbery in Texas, they will sentence you to death as well. No one in America says anything about this. It's merely a different culture with different rules. To demonise one group for doing something another group your a part of does just because of culture is blatantly racist. To take something like this out of context and use it as propaganda against a culture of people is also racist.

So it might look like a double standard, but I support honesty in government. Say what you mean and don't try to appear to be something you are not. Also, if your going to critisize another culture for certain acts, make sure you yourself are not engaging in more less the exact same acts.

No it doesn't. I'm an American, and I don't even claim that it affects me.

It's ironic that you say that. The fact is that since the war in Iraq began, the number of refugees trying to get into Ireland has gone down. Dramatically. The reason is because many of those refugees were coming from countries that are now part of the EU. Since Ireland is also part of the EU, that means those people are now automatically entitled to residency in Ireland. Even before that, though, the only reason they were going to Ireland is that since the 90s Ireland's economy has boomed. If it hadn't, those refugees would be going to other countries that have better economies.So, really, it's your country's own damned fault.

Apparently you don't know the situation in your own country.

But you don't have to. You choose to. Huge difference.

Which just begs the question, "What did you do to get arrested?" When I get arrested, I don't blame the police.

Your reasons are bullshit and uninformed.

Yes, I do. That may be because the world considers Japan First World.

By the way, Taiwan is also a First World Country which allows the death penalty.

IT does directl effect me, and those NOT in America when America goes bombing, per my last post. Of course it doesn't affect you - I said that as well. The average America has all but forgotten about the troops in Iraq right now - it no longer has any affect on their daily lives.

I said it before - if the average American is paying his bills and getting his kids to soccer practice, he/she could care less about anyone else in the world. Apathy is the word I'm looking for here.

Where did you hear this? Ireland is one of the largest recipint of refugees in Europe. Check the link in my Afghan thread about this - stats are there that prove it. Where exactly did you pull that bullshit out of yer ass? I mean seriously, you make broad claims that fit your argument, problem is you seem to pull this shit out of thin air, like this comment.

That is rich. Your saying because we do so well its our fault we have regugee from the country your bombing. That is rich.

By that line of reasoning, rich people who get robbed deserve it for having so much, and girls who dress provocatively deserve it. Is that what your saying here?

Do you even realize that the number of refugees trying to get into Ireland can go down and Ireland can still get the most per year? What you said does not refute my statement.

[quote]That is rich. Your saying because we do so well its our fault we have regugee from the country your bombing. That is rich.

No, you moron, I'm saying that instead of pointing the finger of blame at my country you should be giving your own a pat on the back.

And good job likening refugees to criminals. That's real compassionate of you.

Your the one pointing the finger at the refugees. Didn't have time to get links for you before, so here ye go...

http://www.village.ie/World/Africa/R...aq_and_Africa/

http://edition.cnn.hu/2001/WORLD/eur...land.refugees/

http://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/stats.html

http://www.britkid.org/si-refugees.html

Notice where our refugees from from - Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia. I know plenty of each as I live in a town of 5,000 - when you put a few hundred new people here of different origin, you notice them.

You also get to know them well and hear first hand accounts of whats happening. One thing they all have in common - they all lost their homes to American bombs. Thats the one thing they talk about often as well.

You complain about refugees moving into Ireland, so that means I'm pointing the finger? Just out of curiosity, how do you figure?

This article says that the number of refugees out of Iraq have increased. It does not say how that increase affects Ireland.

This article makes the same assertion I did earlier... that more refugees went to Ireland because of Ireland's improved economy, not because of an over-all increase in the number of refugees.

And on top of that, this article is from March 13, 2001. Which is before we invaded Afghanistan (which also means, needless to say, before we invaded Iraq). So those refugees leaving Afghanistan and Iraq were doing so for reasons other than what you claim.

This doesn't say anything new. In fact, this is one of the sources of my earlier comments.

And where, exactly, does this site get its statistics from?

Your first link doesn't say any such thing. Your second link says most of the refugees come from "Nigeria, Romania, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Libya and Algeria." Your fourth link says most refugees come from Nigeria, Somalia, Romania, Afghanistan, and Sudan. So you actually got two, there. And your fourth link says most refugees come from Nigeria, Iran, Russia. Which is interesting, when you consider that both the third and fourth links state that those facts both come from the same year (2005), and yet they disagree with each other. Obviously, one of them's wrong.

I have to call bullshit on this one. It is unlikely in the extreme that any given town or city would get refugees who all (or even mostly) lost their homes because of American military action. That's like saying that this year there will be 2,000 refugees going to Ireland, 500 of them are from Iraq, and they all coincidentally move to the same few blocks in Dublin.

(long)
 

Since this thread has been resurrected, I guess I'll go ahead and post another response, as I originally intended.

It's not the favoring of two systems so much, although I'll come on to that. It's your attitude that I have no business criticizing their practices, but it's your business to criticize my opinions. Based upon what? Because we happen to speak the same language? Or because our skin color is in the same range?

Plainly stated, your opinion is this: It's A-OK for them to carry out the death penalty for thoughtcrime, but it's unacceptable for me to voice an opinion on it. That's not a double standard. It's a complete intellectual and moral absconsion to la-la land.

Anyway, where did you come up with this idea of shattering your moral picture along geographic lines? It can't be found in basic human moral intuitions, logical extensions thereof, a philosophical tradition, or even something as trite as a holy book. It appears to be something you just made up out of whole cloth so that you could feel good about going crazy if a phone line is tapped without a warrant in one place, while out of the other side of your mouth praising people for the murder they commit in another.

The stance you are taking is not a liberal one. It is not in support of freedom, or human dignity, or anything like that. It exposes, rather than shelters the oppressed. You are a proponent of the death penalty for thoughtcrime. That makes you more of a fascist than any of the slightly rightish people you like to wrangle with here.

Really, pause and think about that. This is not rocket science. You are supporting people who kill others for having the wrong thoughts. We should prefer Halliburton, George W. Bush, and the resurrected Reverend Jerry Falwell all combined over what you're advocating, any day of the week.

Americans drone on about their rights disproportionately to what they actually have, to be certain. They have been nicely propogandized like that. But it remains the fact that they do have immeasurably more freedom than people living in most of the Middle East. Anyway, what does this have to do with anything? How does the state of things in America make what happens in the Middle East any better or worse? It's not like it's a contest or something.

Okay, well when you can produce an example of the United States executing its citizens for ceasing to do obeisance to the right invisible friend, get back to me. I'm educated in the law, but I must have missed that part of the U.S.C.

That's a little flippant, so let me give you a more serious answer in addition: Deal with distinct problems in their distinct capacities and in their own time. The hypocrisies of U.S. politicians and/or the U.S. electorate do not make unrelated outrages which occur in another part of the world any better or worse.

This is a recurring problem. You think in sides, not principles. In my choice of language and so forth when debating with you to this point I have always given you significant deference, mainly because I respect the fact that you are a genuine activist and not just a shit talker like me, but I am finally running just about out. The Orwellian dimensions of your politics have finally broken my back.

I must add my voice to what is already an effective consensus at Gothic.net - your thinking is deeply poisoned by anti-American sentiment. By now it's very clear how you work. America is evil. America usually finds itself on the wrong side of Islamic culture. Therefore Islamic culture is good, and can do no wrong.

You're willing to extend this principle so far as to categorically disqualify me - a person who is often vocal about his reservations regarding American moral posturing, who opposes in no unclear terms the Iraq war and the administration's efforts to bring the nation into another unprovoked war with Iran, who sometimes goes substantially out of his way to inform other people of the crimes of American imperialism - from ever voicing any reservation on the practices of Muslims, even when those practices involve the taking of human life, apparently upon the single justification that I happen to have been born in America and retain American citizenship.

Enough is enough. If you must persist in this, I am finished taking you seriously.

I don't know the people you know, and therefore have no opinion about them as individuals. When we are talking, as here, about the government of a particular state acting in accordance with a standing public law, there is no room for apologetics about "extremism". It is, as you point out, right out in the open and on the books - say the wrong thing, think the wrong thing, we kill you. It's not like it's some kind of radical interpretation. It's right there in Shariah.

Again, the thinking in sides, or worse, groups - that's your own word choice. Who's the "racist" here? And you are deeply, profoundly wrong. There are a great many Americans who oppose the death penalty. I knew many of them at Berkeley, and although at the time I differed with them, their sincerity was apparent.

The paralell is also blatantly... well... not paralell. Even imagining that what you're saying is not a breathtaking misrepresentation of the law in Texas, which it is, and even taking for granted the unpalatable notion that every American including me is to be judged in view of the laws of the single most draconian of the States, which by the way I have never even visited, there is a plain and qualitative difference between sticking a gun in somebody's face and demanding money, and quietly changing your mind on a religious question.

And may I say that by now your flagrant disregard for factuality is also becoming tiresome, and reaching an extent which makes it difficult to imagine that your distortions are merely reckless.

I share your feelings on that. But the dishonesty of one person or government does not excuse the homicide of another.

There is a philosophical tradition he is (very loosely) following here, called cultural relativism. My attempt at a summary: It posits that since people grow up in different cultures, and there is nothing necessarily inherent in both, like an underlying set of values or ideas, it is impossible for one culture to make a moral judgement about another. It was a popular idea when anti-colonialism was flaring up. A lot of Anthropologists end up adopting cultural relativism.

What you seem to be saying, and has often been noted by philosophers, is that cultural relativism tends to revert to a moral relativism: how do you define the group that makes up the culture? If you define the group ever smaller or look at sub-cultures, etc, eventually you come to the conclusion that everyone has their own set of morals, but no-one else can judge those morals. If you accept that philosophy, you also accept that there is no basis for law or government, given that no-one can apply judgment to your actions, except perhaps on the basis of power.

But this relativism wouldn't really account for his opinions either, since he is clearly comfortable making judgments about America, while saying that we shouldn't judge Islamic culture. Perhaps closer would be the view that while cultural manifestations may be different from culture to culture, the values of each culture are still the same. For example, Jews put a hat on to go to church, Christians take it off, but both are showing respect to God.

At first it seemed his message was to warn against condemning all of Islamic society, but as the discussion continued and he made more and more condemnations of American social institutions laws, etc., it became apparent that he was really just mad at the US.

You, on the other hand, seem to be a moral objectivist. That is, there is an objectively moral set of actions that transcend any given culture, and thus what is moral in an American context is also what is moral in an Afghani context.

I would probably lean towards moral objectivism as well. That said, categorically condemning an entire society just seems silly, which i probably why at first I agreed with Sternn. I will admit that there are a shit load of problems in America. Still, I would tak offense if someone said "Fuck America." The same holds true for Afghanistan, or Britain or wherever. You can't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I can see how you would get that impression, but actually I'm not a moral objectivist. I'm a plain old objectivist, so there's no room in my ontology for anything so rich as a "moral" in the familiar sense of the word. That, however, does not change the fact that I have moral sentiments, any more than the universe's failure to sanction my preference of chocolate to dog poop as Truth changes the fact that I would rather have a Snickers bar than chow down on poop.

I do share with moral objectivists a preference for bright line rules which fit together within a describable, internally consistent system which can be applied in a more or less universal fashion, or in plain English, "not being completely full of shit and just making it all up as you go along."

Being offended from time to time and not reacting with a homicide is part of being a grown up in a civilization which has passed, say, the medieval stage of development. That's the point that Islam seems to be missing. It does not show many signs of heading toward anything like the enlightenment that substantially defanged Christianity. I tend reluctantly to the conclusion that pressure will have to be applied from the outside.

*nods* Japan is...what...a member of the G8 and home to the world's 2nd or 3rd largest economy (depending on how you measure China)? O_o

I think South Korea and Taiwan are still considered developing nations (both have capital punishment).

Where in the US can you be executed for r.ape still?