Heartland

Whatever happened to the spirit of "Sisters gegen Nazis" ??

Nikolas Vitus Lagartija wrote:Whatever happened to the spirit of "Sisters gegen Nazis" ??

Well said.

that just corssed my mind going through yet another flame-war topic. (not that i'm not a one that poured gas on that fire)

sultan2075 wrote:

eastmidswhizzkid wrote: 3. the countless races who have made the uk their home since the dawn of time are the reason we survive as a hopelessy "mongrel" nation. that cultural and genetic diversity is our strenghth. the reality of racial "purity" is the reason why pedigree bulldogs can hardly breathe, let alone catch a cow...and also why it is ill-advised to fuck your sister.
.

"Diversity is strength" is very much a cliche used by very well-meaning people. So tell me: how is it a strength? What makes it a strength? I am genuinely curious.

That's an easy one to answer. Diversity within the genetic pool means that groups are less susceptible to disease and the consequences of interbreeding - the incidence of tay-sachs within the Ashkenazi jewish population is a clear example of what happens when your genetic pool is too small.

Cultural diversity also provides a range of experiences and knowledge that can be deployed in problem-solving - if all you've got's a hammer, then everything looks like a nail, but when you've got a complete set of tools then your ability to create more things is greatly enhanced. Cultural diversity also allows people from one ethnic group to experience food, music, art, film, associated with another, which is believed to enhance quality of life. Happy people are generally more economically productive, live longer, and thereby generally contribute more to the tax base - countries with low life expectancy are generally less economically advantaged, the two are linked.

Policies aside, the Ukip are so utterly shambolic. The left hand doesn't even seem to know what the right hand is doing.
They have already admitted that they don't even bother turning up for important votes, despite being elected & paid to do a job.
Would you employ (& pay) anyone who simply couldn't be bothered to work?
The interview on LBC the other day is another example.
Farage's own advisor couldn't even stop him digging a hole for himself.

A recent comment I read summed them up perfectly I think.

Can't organise a steel band at a carnival is the new 'p*ss up in a brewery'.

So regardless of their message (which I am vehemently against) it strikes me that any votes they do actually get would be a total waste.

Pista wrote:Policies aside, the Ukip are so utterly shambolic.
A recent comment I read summed them up perfectly I think.

Can't organise a steel band at a carnival is the new 'p*ss up in a brewery'.

So regardless of their message (which I am vehemently against) it strikes me that any votes they do actually get would be a total waste.

Totally agree. They are the political equivalent of turning up at a TSOM gig wearing a "The Sisters Suck" t-shirt then spending all evening in the venue bar.

Oh God, political debate reduced to slogans like 'diversity is strength'. i'm not even going to bother with this brainless BS anymore.

EvilBastard wrote:

sultan2075 wrote:

eastmidswhizzkid wrote: 3. the countless races who have made the uk their home since the dawn of time are the reason we survive as a hopelessy "mongrel" nation. that cultural and genetic diversity is our strenghth. the reality of racial "purity" is the reason why pedigree bulldogs can hardly breathe, let alone catch a cow...and also why it is ill-advised to fuck your sister.
.

"Diversity is strength" is very much a cliche used by very well-meaning people. So tell me: how is it a strength? What makes it a strength? I am genuinely curious.

That's an easy one to answer. Diversity within the genetic pool means that groups are less susceptible to disease and the consequences of interbreeding - the incidence of tay-sachs within the Ashkenazi jewish population is a clear example of what happens when your genetic pool is too small.

Cultural diversity also provides a range of experiences and knowledge that can be deployed in problem-solving - if all you've got's a hammer, then everything looks like a nail, but when you've got a complete set of tools then your ability to create more things is greatly enhanced. Cultural diversity also allows people from one ethnic group to experience food, music, art, film, associated with another, which is believed to enhance quality of life. Happy people are generally more economically productive, live longer, and thereby generally contribute more to the tax base - countries with low life expectancy are generally less economically advantaged, the two are linked.

What do you do when cultures have radically different and incompatible conceptions of good and evil?

Also, are the bolded things "culture"? Does cultural diversity just mean we have sushi for lunch every once in a while and occasionally watch Bollywood movies?

sultan2075 wrote:What do you do when cultures have radically different and incompatible conceptions of good and evil?

I struggle to come up with one culture where the concept of "good" and "evil" is radically different from that of another. Certainly there are extremist religious groups who think some odd things about "good" and "evil" but they can't be taken to be representative of a culture. The weird thing about conceptions - when they exist in a vacuum, they don't change, but when they meet other conceptions then they often evolve for the better. The evolution isn't always easy, but it always happens (unless you live in Switzerland).

EvilBastard wrote:Certainly there are extremist religious groups who think some odd things about "good" and "evil" but they can't be taken to be representative of a culture.

Extremists are like magnifying glasses, they don't change the basic tenets of an ideology but simply amplify them.

sultan2075 wrote:What do you do when cultures have radically different and incompatible conceptions of good and evil?

I have some difficulty accepting that anyone could say that and not be already coming from a position of prejudice, you know.

Aside from the total nutjobs that exist everywhere, like Johnny Towel-head running around with a sizzling bomb chanting "Allah Allah Allah", or Paddy 'Ra-head doing much the same, or even Yosemite Sam in his shack in the mountains with tinned food and a shotgun eagerly awaiting the coming collapse of society, most cultures are far far closer than you seem to be suggesting when it comes to basic concepts like human decency.

Those "radically different concepts of good and evil" - for over 99% of people they really just don't exist.

nowayjose wrote:

EvilBastard wrote:Certainly there are extremist religious groups who think some odd things about "good" and "evil" but they can't be taken to be representative of a culture.

Extremists are like magnifying glasses, they don't change the basic tenets of an ideology but simply amplify them.

I think it comes down to the way the ideology is interpreted, rather than extremists amplifying the basic tenets. If you look at any ideology closely enough you can find support for the idea that it espouses violence, bigotry, proscriptive fashion advice or a low cholesterol diet. But you could read a single page of Stephen King's Cujo and conclude that it's the story of a love that a boy has for his dog, and you'd be missing an awful lot of the point.

mh wrote:

sultan2075 wrote:What do you do when cultures have radically different and incompatible conceptions of good and evil?

I have some difficulty accepting that anyone could say that and not be already coming from a position of prejudice, you know.

Aside from the total nutjobs that exist everywhere, like Johnny Towel-head running around with a sizzling bomb chanting "Allah Allah Allah", or Paddy 'Ra-head doing much the same, or even Yosemite Sam in his shack in the mountains with tinned food and a shotgun eagerly awaiting the coming collapse of society, most cultures are far far closer than you seem to be suggesting when it comes to basic concepts like human decency.

Those "radically different concepts of good and evil" - for over 99% of people they really just don't exist.

One example of radically different concepts of good and evil:

There are some cultures that see a woman's right to abortion as a good thing. There are some cultures that see abortion as an abhorrent evil. And of course there are some cultures where there are a mix of views.

EvilBastard wrote: I think it comes down to the way the ideology is interpreted, rather than extremists amplifying the basic tenets. If you look at any ideology closely enough you can find support for the idea that it espouses violence, bigotry, proscriptive fashion advice or a low cholesterol diet.

It's amazing how you downplay violence and bigotry by comparing them with a low cholesterol diet. It's also amazing how you assume that, for example, the founder of Islam himself apparently misinterpreted his own ideology. Maybe the archangel Gabriel should've provided him with an accompanying commentary as well. That could've saved the world quite some trouble.

nowayjose wrote:It's amazing how you downplay violence and bigotry by comparing them with a low cholesterol diet. It's also amazing how you assume that, for example, the founder of Islam himself apparently misinterpreted his own ideology. Maybe the archangel Gabriel should've provided him with an accompanying commentary as well. That could've saved the world quite some trouble.

No sure why you’re amazed. The torah bans the eating of pork and shellfish, the bible bans the wearing of mixed fibres - from this you could assume that the torah was a treatise on healthy eating and that the bible was written by one of Tim Gunn's forefathers. Are either of these representative of the fundamental tenets of Judaism or Christianity?

It’s clear from verse 256 of Al Baqara that “there is no compulsion in religion,� which would rather seem to negate those who claim that killing non-muslims is a requirement of the faith.

It’s pretty easy when you look past the rhetoric to see the intent of ideologies. At the root they are manuals for living, guidance, advice, rather than hard-and-fast rules that are supposed to be interpreted rigidly and across the board. If the latter was the case we’d have Christians stoning unbelievers and selling their daughters into slavery. There are extremist Christians who have found a single piece of scripture and have taken it to be the whole of the lesson. They are, fortunately, in a tiny minority, but they get the press. Why should Islam be any different?

As I've said before, the irony of democracy is that you must give a voice to the hateful opinions of those who, if they ever came to power, would be the first to take that right from you.
Fortunately, come September 18, the opportunity exists for me to jettison the whole damn lot of Westminster morons and elect leaders to make entirely new and different mistakes.

EvilBastard wrote: No sure why you’re amazed. The torah bans the eating of pork and shellfish, the bible bans the wearing of mixed fibres - from this you could assume that the torah was a treatise on healthy eating and that the bible was written by one of Tim Gunn's forefathers. Are either of these representative of the fundamental tenets of Judaism or Christianity?

It’s clear from verse 256 of Al Baqara that “there is no compulsion in religion,� which would rather seem to negate those who claim that killing non-muslims is a requirement of the faith.

I can't comment on Judaism since I know nothing about that. In both Christianity aswell as Koran interpretation, there is a concept called 'abrogation'. It basically means that a certain set of rules or instructions supercedes others (usually earlier ones). For example, in Christianity, the New Testament abrogates the Old Testament because (theologically) of a 'new covenant' god has made with his people through Jesus.
In the Koran, later pronouncements of the prophet completely invalidate conflicting earlier ones because (theologically) Allah was a bit impatient in how his campaign was going along so he decided to ramp up things a bit. That's why his newer instructions are usually harsher. So if there is a conflict, the newer, updated version is what counts, and only this. Some people might cite the "no compulsion" rule but don't take into account the abrogation rule (or intentionally suppress it) but the newer "kill the idolators wherever ye find them" abrogates, and hence supercedes the older, tolerant one.

nowayjose wrote:

EvilBastard wrote: No sure why you’re amazed. The torah bans the eating of pork and shellfish, the bible bans the wearing of mixed fibres - from this you could assume that the torah was a treatise on healthy eating and that the bible was written by one of Tim Gunn's forefathers. Are either of these representative of the fundamental tenets of Judaism or Christianity?

It’s clear from verse 256 of Al Baqara that “there is no compulsion in religion,� which would rather seem to negate those who claim that killing non-muslims is a requirement of the faith.

I can't comment on Judaism since I know nothing about that. In both Christianity aswell as Koran interpretation, there is a concept called 'abrogation'. It basically means that a certain set of rules or instructions supercedes others (usually earlier ones). For example, in Christianity, the New Testament abrogates the Old Testament because (theologically) of a 'new covenant' god has made with his people through Jesus.
In the Koran, later pronouncements of the prophet completely invalidate conflicting earlier ones because (theologically) Allah was a bit impatient in how his campaign was going along so he decided to ramp up things a bit. That's why his newer instructions are usually harsher. So if there is a conflict, the newer, updated version is what counts, and only this. Some people might cite the "no compulsion" rule but don't take into account the abrogation rule (or intentionally suppress it) but the newer "kill the idolators wherever ye find them" abrogates, and hence supercedes the older, tolerant one.

If indeed the New Testament abrogates the Old, I'm guessing that so long as one is living in love (as instructed) it's quite ok to covet your neighbour's ass, dishonour your parents, and commit adultery?

Abrogation is either Allah changing his mind, or people reading the Qu'ran misunderstanding the word of Allah - given that Muslims believe that the word of god is perfect and holy, I'm going to side with the latter. Unable to understand what is being said, man misinterprets it and claims abrogation.

But let us say that The Verse of the Sword does abrogate the "no compulsion" one. Again, the danger here is to view the phrase in microcosm. True,

Surah 9.5 wrote:But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war.

But it is immediately followed by:

Surah 9.6 wrote:If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah, and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

Furthermore, the context of the verse is made clear in the first line,

Surah 9.1 wrote:A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances.

So which verse abrogates which? Can I kill them and then give them asylum?

This thread is like a time warp.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

EvilBastard wrote: So which verse abrogates which? Can I kill them and then give them asylum?

I don't know. I wanted to point out that the concept of 'abrogation' exists within Islam and therefore it is shortsighted to focus on the milder, more tolerant verses since they might be superceded by newer ones.

If you read that whole sura, it is hard not to see it as the ramblings of a madman. Trying to make sense of the verses, especially vis a vis each other, is probably a lost cause. Of course Mohammed was illiterate, so one cannot assume he knew exactly what he had said a week earlier. Which also means that as the muslims gained ground and won battles, the pronouncements became more radical to both justify the ongoing pillaging aswell as to egg on his followers.

itnAklipse wrote:Oh God, political debate reduced to slogans like 'diversity is strength'. i'm not even going to bother with this brainless BS anymore.

That's gonna be a loss

nowayjose wrote:I don't know. I wanted to point out that the concept of 'abrogation' exists within Islam and therefore it is shortsighted to focus on the milder, more tolerant verses since they might be superceded by newer ones.

It doesn't. It exists only in the minds of those calling themselves islamic scholars. The word of god is by its very definition perfect, there can be no abrogation. Where abrogation appears, it is the result of man's inability to understand the word of god.

nowayjose wrote:If you read that whole sura, it is hard not to see it as the ramblings of a madman. Trying to make sense of the verses, especially vis a vis each other, is probably a lost cause. Of course Mohammed was illiterate, so one cannot assume he knew exactly what he had said a week earlier. Which also means that as the muslims gained ground and won battles, the pronouncements became more radical to both justify the ongoing pillaging aswell as to egg on his followers.

You could level the same accusation at any religious text, or political manifesto (bringing us neatly back to UKIP). Plenty of pillage, bloodletting, and general skullduggery evident in all of them - to single out the Qu'ran as a benchmark for cultural incompatibility is a bit blinkered, imho - for sure, if you take the words literally, it's a handbook for religious genocide. But view it through the lense of your average 21st century muslim-in-the-street and it's a guidebook - don't drink, be charitable, don't abuse animals, dress modestly, and honour the contracts that you have made with everyone, regardless of religion - which could be taken to include both social and business contracts.

The problems come when society closes itself off, allowing extremism to flourish in the dark. Openness pushes extremists (religious or political) into the light where they can be seen and rejected by everyone else, which is how it should be. UKIP's platform seems to want to put Britain in a timewarp that sees the world as individual fiefdoms between which impermeable borders exist. Anyone who has gone online, or traveled/lived outside their "home" country, knows that such a view indicates an abject ignorance of the world. "They can come here, but they have to be like us." Yeah, because we want a homogenous society, where we're all the same, or where the differences between us are so slight as to make no difference.

Fine - if that's what you want, then vote UKIP. You'd be voting (imho) for a really boring world, but you have the right to vote for what you want. And so do the rest of us - kind of how it works. I will not stop you from voting UKIP - but those who do should put their money where their mouths are. Stop using money, arabic numbering, stop practicing law, drive only British vehicles, pare your language back to gaelic, if I catch you using words like shufti, bungalow, or jungle I'm making you wear a sign saying "I'm a fuckwit", and best be careful about what you eat - can't be too careful with that foreign rubbish.

You can stand on the beach and shout all you like - come tell me when you've been able to turn back the tide.

weebleswobble wrote:This thread is like a time warp.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Weebs = Cap'n Sensible

Nikolas Vitus Lagartija wrote:Whatever happened to the spirit of "Sisters gegen Nazis" ??

Seconded.

Nikolas Vitus Lagartija wrote:Whatever happened to the spirit of "Sisters gegen Nazis" ??

Whenever I remember I have my gegen nazis vest, I resume worrying that people will see the swastika and "Nazis" and dive straight for the wrong end of the stick. Would otherwise be tempted to wear it to the polling station today

aims wrote:Whenever I remember I have my gegen nazis vest, I resume worrying that people will see the swastika and "Nazis" and dive straight for the wrong end of the stick. Would otherwise be tempted to wear it to the polling station today

Yeah, i took my patch off me jacket back in t'day for same reason ~ but hey it's the thought that counts.