Muslim families in Winnipeg want children excused from
17 Feb 2011, 8:44 am
Macbeth wrote:
daspie wrote:
murphycop wrote:
Obviously they are coloured, if they're Muslims and coloured then they'll have 2 cards to play. I'm just giving an example of why a white atheist wouldn't want to attend a class, rather than a coloured Muslim. Obviously its not as easy to find a reason why such a person would find a certain class offensive, where as, it'd be easy to find several examples why a Muslim student wouldn't want to attend a class, or why they want to change the class to suit them, cause they can get away with it. Cause you jumped straight off the subject of Muslims to another religion. Muslims make more demands when living in our western countries than any other religious people. People are getting fed up with it, just seeing a woman walking around with a burkha today in the supermarket, its all wrong. But lets not go into burkha's.
Maybe it makes up stuff all the time, like most papers do. Its not to say that particular story isn't true. It was pretty outrageous to have such a thing on christmas day anyway.
Maybe it makes up stuff all the time, like most papers do. Its not to say that particular story isn't true. It was pretty outrageous to have such a thing on christmas day anyway.
Completely agree with. Here in India several temples get demolished because they were built on govt. lands and nothing happens later but when a mosque is destroyed similarly then belligerent Muslims protest very strongly and fight with police which they find them enemy of Islam and this is the case every where in the world. Just google for Christian protest, Muslim protest and Hindu protest and see how many entries you get for each of them.
So the fact that when their temple is threatened, the Muslims make a stand, and other religions just let it happen without making a fuss, makes Muslims bad? Since when was "sitting there and taking it in the ass" a commendable thing? They defend what they believe in. That doesn't make them evil. I defend what I believe in too.
All these demolitions were done because the structure was built illegally as it was on govt. lands. Also that mosque was demolished few years after court's order and the demolition too took place in early morning at 6:00 a.m. This all shows even authority knows how unlawful and rioters muslims can be and they are so in every part of the world esp. where they are in sizable minority.
17 Feb 2011, 3:46 pm
Macbeth wrote:
murphycop wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
murphycop wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
murphycop wrote:
Na, and i'm not gonna waste time trying to explain something you don't understand.
Yeah, I didn't say it wasn't from the mail. Think its one of the only times i've actually posted something from that paper.
Yeah, I didn't say it wasn't from the mail. Think its one of the only times i've actually posted something from that paper.
Yeah, I don't understand why you insist on thinking that two different situations are the same, or why you insist on sticking to your "white atheist" hypothesis when it is utterly unlike the original problem. Apart from the fact it involves "teachers".
Using material sourced from that rag gives you about the same credibility as the yanks give to people who quote Fox as fact. You never said it wasn't fro the Mail, but you make such a fuss about NOT using the mail, only to then go ahead and use it. I mean you must have READ that article before you posted it, surely? So you KNEW it was from them. Did you not think that it might just reinforce my point?
"Don't stereotype me, I'm not a Mail Reader. Here's an article from the Daily Mail supporting my viewpoint."
That or you DIDN'T read it properly, which slightly brings in to question your comprehension of.. almost anything that has come before.
A white atheist student complaining is just an opposite of a couloured Muslim complaining. It was just an example to show that a white person who isn't religious would have their demands laughed off.
Again, you'll have to learn that your opinion doesn't mean its true, though i'm sure a lot of their storries are blown out of proportion, and miss parts that a left wing paper would leave out, but vice versa, the left wing paper will do exactly the same. Yep, I knew it was from the Mail, and I knew you'd react like this. I was going to say something like "and yeah, I know its from the Mail". I actually didn't say something cause I thought you'd have some proof to show it isn't true, maybe it isn't, I don't know. And believe what you want.
I can post a link from the Mail if I want, doesn't mean i'm a Mail reader. I've posted links from the Mirror, does that make me a stereotypical left wing Mirror reader? You're pigeon-holing again, doing something, that you hate yourself. People agree that, that is pure hypocrisy.
Who said anyone involved in this was coloured? See? You're bringing race into the argument when race wasn't an issue. Nobody said they didn't want to go to lessons because the teachers were White. Also, do other religious groups really get laughed out? Examples? Way back at the start I pointed out about the Witness kids excused assemblies at my school by way of an example, and you decided that was irrelevant to a discussion about religious kids at schools wanted to be excused certain lessons. I'm sure some other people mentioned other religious groups in the states as well.
The article itself makes contradictions between what the Mail says is the case and what the woman herself claims to have said. Who am I most given to believe? The Nazi Source-Book for Modern Life, which provably makes sh** up all the time?
Obviously they are coloured, if they're Muslims and coloured then they'll have 2 cards to play. I'm just giving an example of why a white atheist wouldn't want to attend a class, rather than a coloured Muslim. Obviously its not as easy to find a reason why such a person would find a certain class offensive, where as, it'd be easy to find several examples why a Muslim student wouldn't want to attend a class, or why they want to change the class to suit them, cause they can get away with it. Cause you jumped straight off the subject of Muslims to another religion. Muslims make more demands when living in our western countries than any other religious people. People are getting fed up with it, just seeing a woman walking around with a burkha today in the supermarket, its all wrong. But lets not go into burkha's.
Maybe it makes up stuff all the time, like most papers do. Its not to say that particular story isn't true. It was pretty outrageous to have such a thing on christmas day anyway.
Obviously they're coloured? Despite us having the whole conversation about White Muslims? Yes, very obviously. They MUST be coloured.
Your example still has nothing to do with the OP situation.
I cited a perfectly relevant example of another religious group getting special treatment that nobody gives a f**k about. There are plenty of others, that's just the one I know of personally. I'm fairly sure now I think on it that the Sikh kid never did assembly either.
Go on. Tell me all about all the other religions you know loads about who never ask for exceptions or demand things, here or in Canada or anywhere else. And there you manage to jump from religious-based educational requests to choice of clothing. Why is it "all wrong"? Because she isn't some lardy white western woman with a huge muffin-top in leggings that show more than anyone wants to see? Far as I care, they can wear what they like. Wouldn't hurt if some of the hideous acres of pasty goose-flesh that we get on our streets covered up a bit either. Its not pretty. However, an "educated persian" I once knew pointed out that there is something terribly attractive about a really nice pair of eyes, and that mystery is a great part of attraction and romance. Ass-out over-made-up trull is just about rutting and very little else.
Yes. The ones in the original post. The conversation about white Muslims was a different matter.
Well we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Na, your example wasn't relevant to the OP. Are the other religions as agrressive as Muslims in our country, when they don't get their way?
I don't see people of other religions covered from head to toe. Its another issue of double standards, something you're oblivious to. If an English woman went into a certain country in the middle east, wearing gothic stuff, she'd most likely be gunned down. I've not seen many other religious groups blowing us up in London, apart from the Irish. And you jump from Muslims to obese tarts. So obviously you have a problem with fat women dressing like whores, but its ok for you to have an issue with a certain subject or group of people? So Muslims can wear what they like, but you don't want fat white women to? So its not ridiculous that I could go into a shop with a balaclava or a motorcycle helmet, and be asked to have it removed, so cctv can see my face if i commit a crime, but it'd be fine for me to go into the shop wearing a burkha, and not be asked??
There's a massive difference between dressing like a whore and dressing like Michael Jackson used to on a trip to the shops.
_________________
'Ave we had a national f**king stroke!??
17 Feb 2011, 5:54 pm
murphycop wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
murphycop wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
murphycop wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
murphycop wrote:
Na, and i'm not gonna waste time trying to explain something you don't understand.
Yeah, I didn't say it wasn't from the mail. Think its one of the only times i've actually posted something from that paper.
Yeah, I didn't say it wasn't from the mail. Think its one of the only times i've actually posted something from that paper.
Yeah, I don't understand why you insist on thinking that two different situations are the same, or why you insist on sticking to your "white atheist" hypothesis when it is utterly unlike the original problem. Apart from the fact it involves "teachers".
Using material sourced from that rag gives you about the same credibility as the yanks give to people who quote Fox as fact. You never said it wasn't fro the Mail, but you make such a fuss about NOT using the mail, only to then go ahead and use it. I mean you must have READ that article before you posted it, surely? So you KNEW it was from them. Did you not think that it might just reinforce my point?
"Don't stereotype me, I'm not a Mail Reader. Here's an article from the Daily Mail supporting my viewpoint."
That or you DIDN'T read it properly, which slightly brings in to question your comprehension of.. almost anything that has come before.
A white atheist student complaining is just an opposite of a couloured Muslim complaining. It was just an example to show that a white person who isn't religious would have their demands laughed off.
Again, you'll have to learn that your opinion doesn't mean its true, though i'm sure a lot of their storries are blown out of proportion, and miss parts that a left wing paper would leave out, but vice versa, the left wing paper will do exactly the same. Yep, I knew it was from the Mail, and I knew you'd react like this. I was going to say something like "and yeah, I know its from the Mail". I actually didn't say something cause I thought you'd have some proof to show it isn't true, maybe it isn't, I don't know. And believe what you want.
I can post a link from the Mail if I want, doesn't mean i'm a Mail reader. I've posted links from the Mirror, does that make me a stereotypical left wing Mirror reader? You're pigeon-holing again, doing something, that you hate yourself. People agree that, that is pure hypocrisy.
Who said anyone involved in this was coloured? See? You're bringing race into the argument when race wasn't an issue. Nobody said they didn't want to go to lessons because the teachers were White. Also, do other religious groups really get laughed out? Examples? Way back at the start I pointed out about the Witness kids excused assemblies at my school by way of an example, and you decided that was irrelevant to a discussion about religious kids at schools wanted to be excused certain lessons. I'm sure some other people mentioned other religious groups in the states as well.
The article itself makes contradictions between what the Mail says is the case and what the woman herself claims to have said. Who am I most given to believe? The Nazi Source-Book for Modern Life, which provably makes sh** up all the time?
Obviously they are coloured, if they're Muslims and coloured then they'll have 2 cards to play. I'm just giving an example of why a white atheist wouldn't want to attend a class, rather than a coloured Muslim. Obviously its not as easy to find a reason why such a person would find a certain class offensive, where as, it'd be easy to find several examples why a Muslim student wouldn't want to attend a class, or why they want to change the class to suit them, cause they can get away with it. Cause you jumped straight off the subject of Muslims to another religion. Muslims make more demands when living in our western countries than any other religious people. People are getting fed up with it, just seeing a woman walking around with a burkha today in the supermarket, its all wrong. But lets not go into burkha's.
Maybe it makes up stuff all the time, like most papers do. Its not to say that particular story isn't true. It was pretty outrageous to have such a thing on christmas day anyway.
Obviously they're coloured? Despite us having the whole conversation about White Muslims? Yes, very obviously. They MUST be coloured.
Your example still has nothing to do with the OP situation.
I cited a perfectly relevant example of another religious group getting special treatment that nobody gives a f**k about. There are plenty of others, that's just the one I know of personally. I'm fairly sure now I think on it that the Sikh kid never did assembly either.
Go on. Tell me all about all the other religions you know loads about who never ask for exceptions or demand things, here or in Canada or anywhere else. And there you manage to jump from religious-based educational requests to choice of clothing. Why is it "all wrong"? Because she isn't some lardy white western woman with a huge muffin-top in leggings that show more than anyone wants to see? Far as I care, they can wear what they like. Wouldn't hurt if some of the hideous acres of pasty goose-flesh that we get on our streets covered up a bit either. Its not pretty. However, an "educated persian" I once knew pointed out that there is something terribly attractive about a really nice pair of eyes, and that mystery is a great part of attraction and romance. Ass-out over-made-up trull is just about rutting and very little else.
Yes. The ones in the original post. The conversation about white Muslims was a different matter.
Well we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Na, your example wasn't relevant to the OP. Are the other religions as agrressive as Muslims in our country, when they don't get their way?
I don't see people of other religions covered from head to toe. Its another issue of double standards, something you're oblivious to. If an English woman went into a certain country in the middle east, wearing gothic stuff, she'd most likely be gunned down. I've not seen many other religious groups blowing us up in London, apart from the Irish. And you jump from Muslims to obese tarts. So obviously you have a problem with fat women dressing like whores, but its ok for you to have an issue with a certain subject or group of people? So Muslims can wear what they like, but you don't want fat white women to? So its not ridiculous that I could go into a shop with a balaclava or a motorcycle helmet, and be asked to have it removed, so cctv can see my face if i commit a crime, but it'd be fine for me to go into the shop wearing a burkha, and not be asked??
There's a massive difference between dressing like a whore and dressing like Michael Jackson used to on a trip to the shops.
Yes, it was relevant. More relevant than your "Muslims are all aggressive" argument in a thread where the Muslims in question are quite happy to discuss alternatives in a peaceful manner. NOWHERE does it say, except in YOUR diatribes that anyone involved in this has been agressive or violent at all. Stop trying to lump all Muslims into one insane car-bombing mass. Its ridiculous.
If an obese tart wants to dress like an obese tart then that's her book. I'm just saying that I know which is easier on my eye, and as it happens I do believe that women in Burkhas should acquiesce to requests to show their faces for obvious security reasons. And funnily enough I live in an area heavily populated by Sikhs, and they tend to wear quite a lot of clothing as well. Not quite to the level of the Muslims who live here, but there isn't much in it. I'm guessing you never saw a Nun either. Damn them for their concealing robes and modesty.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
17 Feb 2011, 9:01 pm
Macbeth wrote:
Stop trying to lump all Muslims into one insane car-bombing mass. Its ridiculous.
Quote:
The highlighted part is illogical and is often used to absolve muslims of their religious aggression. To really ascertain if a particular community is aggressive or not one should simply calculate the ratio of extremists (and extremists are often much more than terrorists) to total population. When someone says muslims are extremist they mean that a randomly picked muslim is likely to be more extremist in nature than a average guy of other religion.
My question that why Muslims have higher proportion of terrorists in their community is still unanswered and one can give names of countries where muslims first grew faster than other communities and then they start civil war. India(1947), sudan, nigeria, lebanon and may be one or two other.
Please answer this question. This will let you know why the brush for muslim is different from the brush of other communites. And yes we use same brush to paint all the members within a community. The reason is that a community has its principles. It the principles are extremist then a higher proportion of its member are likely to commit acts of violence than the same in other community still not all member will be violent. That what we mean by saying that a particular community is this and that.
Just yesterday muslims in New Delhi clashed with police. It is so common now that we just ignore it. People do not realize what it portends. a civil war.
Last edited by daspie on 18 Feb 2011, 11:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
17 Feb 2011, 9:13 pm
daspie wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Yes, it was relevant. More relevant than your "Muslims are all aggressive" argument in a thread where the Muslims in question are quite happy to discuss alternatives in a peaceful manner. NOWHERE does it say, except in YOUR diatribes that anyone involved in this has been agressive or violent at all. Stop trying to lump all Muslims into one insane car-bombing mass. Its ridiculous.
If an obese tart wants to dress like an obese tart then that's her book. I'm just saying that I know which is easier on my eye, and as it happens I do believe that women in Burkhas should acquiesce to requests to show their faces for obvious security reasons. And funnily enough I live in an area heavily populated by Sikhs, and they tend to wear quite a lot of clothing as well. Not quite to the level of the Muslims who live here, but there isn't much in it. I'm guessing you never saw a Nun either. Damn them for their concealing robes and modesty.
If an obese tart wants to dress like an obese tart then that's her book. I'm just saying that I know which is easier on my eye, and as it happens I do believe that women in Burkhas should acquiesce to requests to show their faces for obvious security reasons. And funnily enough I live in an area heavily populated by Sikhs, and they tend to wear quite a lot of clothing as well. Not quite to the level of the Muslims who live here, but there isn't much in it. I'm guessing you never saw a Nun either. Damn them for their concealing robes and modesty.
The highlighted part is illogical and is often used to absolve muslims of their religious aggression. To really ascertain if a particular community is aggressive or not one should simply calculate the ratio of extremists (and extremists are often much more than terrorists) to total population. When someone says muslims are extremist they mean that a randomly picked muslim is likely to be more extremist in nature than a average guy of other religion. And btw there is no study or reason to suggest that those people who carry out car bombings etc are not insane. They are very devout, knowledgeable in Islam and justify their action according to its tenet. I am not saying that a person with these qualities can't be insane but we should not project them as being zombies. Some of 19 people who carried out 9/11 were very qualified people education wise and were in good financial position. Even doctors were caught in London who were planning some terrorist attack and similarly qualified people have been implicated with terrorism charges world wide.
Bollocks. What is illogical (and verging on the insane) is tarring a whole religious group which includes several distinct races and a variety of sects and subsects with the same "aggressive demand" brush. Especially in a thread about a group of Muslims making a polite request and offering reasonable alternatives.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
17 Feb 2011, 10:05 pm
Macbeth wrote:
daspie wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Yes, it was relevant. More relevant than your "Muslims are all aggressive" argument in a thread where the Muslims in question are quite happy to discuss alternatives in a peaceful manner. NOWHERE does it say, except in YOUR diatribes that anyone involved in this has been agressive or violent at all. Stop trying to lump all Muslims into one insane car-bombing mass. Its ridiculous.
If an obese tart wants to dress like an obese tart then that's her book. I'm just saying that I know which is easier on my eye, and as it happens I do believe that women in Burkhas should acquiesce to requests to show their faces for obvious security reasons. And funnily enough I live in an area heavily populated by Sikhs, and they tend to wear quite a lot of clothing as well. Not quite to the level of the Muslims who live here, but there isn't much in it. I'm guessing you never saw a Nun either. Damn them for their concealing robes and modesty.
If an obese tart wants to dress like an obese tart then that's her book. I'm just saying that I know which is easier on my eye, and as it happens I do believe that women in Burkhas should acquiesce to requests to show their faces for obvious security reasons. And funnily enough I live in an area heavily populated by Sikhs, and they tend to wear quite a lot of clothing as well. Not quite to the level of the Muslims who live here, but there isn't much in it. I'm guessing you never saw a Nun either. Damn them for their concealing robes and modesty.
The highlighted part is illogical and is often used to absolve muslims of their religious aggression. To really ascertain if a particular community is aggressive or not one should simply calculate the ratio of extremists (and extremists are often much more than terrorists) to total population. When someone says muslims are extremist they mean that a randomly picked muslim is likely to be more extremist in nature than a average guy of other religion. And btw there is no study or reason to suggest that those people who carry out car bombings etc are not insane. They are very devout, knowledgeable in Islam and justify their action according to its tenet. I am not saying that a person with these qualities can't be insane but we should not project them as being zombies. Some of 19 people who carried out 9/11 were very qualified people education wise and were in good financial position. Even doctors were caught in London who were planning some terrorist attack and similarly qualified people have been implicated with terrorism charges world wide.
Bollocks. What is illogical (and verging on the insane) is tarring a whole religious group which includes several distinct races and a variety of sects and subsects with the same "aggressive demand" brush. Especially in a thread about a group of Muslims making a polite request and offering reasonable alternatives.
I have clearly specified what people generally mean by saying that Muslims are an intolerant community. It does not matter if it constitutes of several races or ethnic group as one can find terrorists from all such races(!) and same is with sects and sub sects. When muslims are low in number they are polite and when they increase they do this.
18 Feb 2011, 3:12 pm
daspie, we could try explaining to Macbeth untill blue in the face, but he's an extremist in a different context to the extremist Muslims. Anything that is said to him, he blows out of proportion. And he tarrs people who say anything negative about Muslims with the same brush.
_________________
'Ave we had a national f**king stroke!??
18 Feb 2011, 4:26 pm
murphycop wrote:
daspie, we could try explaining to Macbeth untill blue in the face, but he's an extremist in a different context to the extremist Muslims. Anything that is said to him, he blows out of proportion. And he tarrs people who say anything negative about Muslims with the same brush.
BS. Find me an extremist Muslim in the OP and I'll agree that chucking a fit because of your religion is foolish. But you won't find one, because nobody in the OP has been unreasonable, or threatening, or made extreme demands.
I blow things out of proportion? It isn't me comparing some parents taking an interest in the nature of their children's schooling with Muslim extremists trying to Islamify a completely different country.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
18 Feb 2011, 11:03 pm
Macbeth wrote:
Stop trying to lump all Muslims into one insane car-bombing mass. Its ridiculous.
Quote:
The highlighted part is illogical and is often used to absolve muslims of their religious aggression. To really ascertain if a particular community is aggressive or not one should simply calculate the ratio of extremists (and extremists are often much more than terrorists) to total population. When someone says muslims are extremist they mean that a randomly picked muslim is likely to be more extremist in nature than a average guy of other religion.
My question that why Muslims have higher proportion of terrorists in their community is still unanswered and one can give names of countries where muslims first grew faster than other communities and then they started civil war. India(1947), sudan, nigeria, lebanon and may be one or two other.
Please answer this question. This will let you know why the brush for muslim is different from the brush of other communites. And yes we use same brush to paint all the members within a community. The reason is that a community has its principles. It the principles are extremist then a higher proportion of its member are likely to commit acts of violence than the same in other community still not all member will be violent. That what we mean by saying that a particular community is this and that.
Just yesterday muslims in New Delhi clashed with police. It is so common now that we just ignore it. People do not realize what it portends. a civil war.
19 Feb 2011, 1:14 am
@Daspie: the Hindus in Kashmir are just as bad as the Muslims in Kashmir, and in America religious violence by Christians is far from unheard-of.
On the other hand, every single Muslim whom I've personally met has been a fine, gentle, civilized human being. Muslims in Egypt just had one of the most civilized revolutions to ever occur.
I agree that covering anyone from head to toe is silly, though; requirements for photo IDs exist for a reason, and I don't think that exceptions to requiring the face to be uncovered should be made - but that should include people who deliberately wear hats that obscure their faces, too.
19 Feb 2011, 2:18 am
If the singing is in association with something forbidden (for example: drinking songs while consuming alcohol) then it is forbidden. But music or singing in and of itself is not forbidden. I don't see a problem with music education in an elementary school.
_________________
Not through revolution but by evolution are all things accomplished in permanency.
19 Feb 2011, 4:51 am
daspie wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Stop trying to lump all Muslims into one insane car-bombing mass. Its ridiculous.
Quote:
The highlighted part is illogical and is often used to absolve muslims of their religious aggression. To really ascertain if a particular community is aggressive or not one should simply calculate the ratio of extremists (and extremists are often much more than terrorists) to total population. When someone says muslims are extremist they mean that a randomly picked muslim is likely to be more extremist in nature than a average guy of other religion.
My question that why Muslims have higher proportion of terrorists in their community is still unanswered and one can give names of countries where muslims first grew faster than other communities and then they started civil war. India(1947), sudan, nigeria, lebanon and may be one or two other.
Please answer this question. This will let you know why the brush for muslim is different from the brush of other communites. And yes we use same brush to paint all the members within a community. The reason is that a community has its principles. It the principles are extremist then a higher proportion of its member are likely to commit acts of violence than the same in other community still not all member will be violent. That what we mean by saying that a particular community is this and that.
Just yesterday muslims in New Delhi clashed with police. It is so common now that we just ignore it. People do not realize what it portends. a civil war.
In case you missed it, people have been clashing with Police in quite a few places across the middle east and Africa.
Lumping everyone in a community into the same pot is stereotyping, ridiculous, and liable to cause more problems than it solves.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
19 Feb 2011, 7:05 am
Macbeth wrote:
In case you missed it, people have been clashing with Police in quite a few places across the middle east and Africa.
This is the fallacy in your logic. If muslims have done something peacefully then you count it. Every one is expected to be peaceful and therefore just count when any community has been riotous and violent. Anyway what happened in egypt was "within a community" matter. You again chose not to answer my point which is what muslims have done to non muslims in nigeria, sudan, India, lebanon etc.
Quote:
Lumping everyone in a community into the same pot is stereotyping, ridiculous, and liable to cause more problems than it solves.
I have already answered this rhetoric in my earlier post. Wait for 30 years when muslims will be a sizeable minority just as they are in britain. When they will bomb you like they have done elsewhere in europe then you will realize the legacy of muhammed.
19 Feb 2011, 7:21 am
LKL wrote:
@Daspie: the Hindus in Kashmir are just as bad as the Muslims in Kashmir, and in America religious violence by Christians is far from unheard-of.
This is highly irresponsible statement I have ever seen. See these links and please reply back.
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4
video 1
video 2
Quote:
On the other hand, every single Muslim whom I've personally met has been a fine, gentle, civilized human being. Muslims in Egypt just had one of the most civilized revolutions to ever occur.
No one is saying that all Muslims are like that but on an average a muslim is more likely to be an extremists(extremist needs not be a terrorist, he/she just needs to have extremist views). Also every Muslim is potentially a terrorist. Pleasethis and this.
Quote:
I agree that covering anyone from head to toe is silly, though; requirements for photo IDs exist for a reason, and I don't think that exceptions to requiring the face to be uncovered should be made - but that should include people who deliberately wear hats that obscure their faces, too.
There is difference between a Muslim wearing burkha and a non muslim wearing a hat. The former is motivated by a religion and that too which is supremacist, so hard to change whereas the latter is not doing it due to religious conviction and is easy to change.
19 Feb 2011, 9:43 am
daspie wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
In case you missed it, people have been clashing with Police in quite a few places across the middle east and Africa.
This is the fallacy in your logic. If muslims have done something peacefully then you count it. Every one is expected to be peaceful and therefore just count when any community has been riotous and violent. Anyway what happened in egypt was "within a community" matter. You again chose not to answer my point which is what muslims have done to non muslims in nigeria, sudan, India, lebanon etc.
Quote:
Lumping everyone in a community into the same pot is stereotyping, ridiculous, and liable to cause more problems than it solves.
I have already answered this rhetoric in my earlier post. Wait for 30 years when muslims will be a sizeable minority just as they are in britain. When they will bomb you like they have done elsewhere in europe then you will realize the legacy of muhammed.
Literally none of your posting about Muslims has anything to do with a small group peacefully requesting an exception from certain compulsory lessons in Canada. Certainly what Muslims choose to do in Nigeria or Sudan or anywhere else does not reflect what these Muslims are doing.
You've fallen into the ridiculous fallacy, that because some "Muslims" have complained, and some other Muslims have used violence, these ones MUST also be trying to enforce their views on everyone else, threatening violence and generally being unpleasant.
Once more, because you aren't getting it. Treating a whole community..ANY community..as one homogeneous whole is f*****g stupid. I've tried explaining it politely but it just isn't sinking in. All Muslims are NOT the same. Just like All PEOPLE are not the same.
What this thread should have been covering was about compulsory lessons and religious requirements, and the various pros and cons of making lessons compulsory, why those lessons are compulsory, and whether a religious requirement should take precedent over any given lesson, and if so why. What we got was pages of ranting about how the evil bogeymen Islamics will come and make your children worship Allah, and force your womenfolk into bondage. Any wonder that a lot of them don't like you, when any request or complaint they make is painted as an attack on western "culture"?
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
19 Feb 2011, 10:12 am
Macbeth wrote:
Literally none of your posting about Muslims has anything to do with a small group peacefully requesting an exception from certain compulsory lessons in Canada. Certainly what Muslims choose to do in Nigeria or Sudan or anywhere else does not reflect what these Muslims are doing.
You've fallen into the ridiculous fallacy, that because some "Muslims" have complained, and some other Muslims have used violence, these ones MUST also be trying to enforce their views on everyone else, threatening violence and generally being unpleasant.
Once more, because you aren't getting it. Treating a whole community..ANY community..as one homogeneous whole is f***ing stupid. I've tried explaining it politely but it just isn't sinking in. All Muslims are NOT the same. Just like All PEOPLE are not the same.
What this thread should have been covering was about compulsory lessons and religious requirements, and the various pros and cons of making lessons compulsory, why those lessons are compulsory, and whether a religious requirement should take precedent over any given lesson, and if so why. What we got was pages of ranting about how the evil bogeymen Islamics will come and make your children worship Allah, and force your womenfolk into bondage. Any wonder that a lot of them don't like you, when any request or complaint they make is painted as an attack on western "culture"?
You've fallen into the ridiculous fallacy, that because some "Muslims" have complained, and some other Muslims have used violence, these ones MUST also be trying to enforce their views on everyone else, threatening violence and generally being unpleasant.
Once more, because you aren't getting it. Treating a whole community..ANY community..as one homogeneous whole is f***ing stupid. I've tried explaining it politely but it just isn't sinking in. All Muslims are NOT the same. Just like All PEOPLE are not the same.
What this thread should have been covering was about compulsory lessons and religious requirements, and the various pros and cons of making lessons compulsory, why those lessons are compulsory, and whether a religious requirement should take precedent over any given lesson, and if so why. What we got was pages of ranting about how the evil bogeymen Islamics will come and make your children worship Allah, and force your womenfolk into bondage. Any wonder that a lot of them don't like you, when any request or complaint they make is painted as an attack on western "culture"?
You still have not understood what murphycop and me have been saying. The fact that there are so many examples of muslims doing the same things in different parts of the world and that too in different times clearly shows that they are acting according to some principles and that is "holy" koran. What they are demanding in winnipeg is one of the manifestations of that exclusive ideology. You fulfill their one demand and they will table ten more. The reason why muslims are disliked everywhere is because they all act according to their book, koran. So explaining their behaviour by invoking koran and history is not wrong. You may call it "tarring or painting every one with same brush" but the brush is their and that is koran. I hope you will understand it now.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Easy Online Sleep Study for Families of a Person w Autism! |
23 Feb 2024, 4:39 pm |
| Old Children's Movies that are now Politically Incorrect |
29 Mar 2024, 12:26 am |
| Cyberattack reduces services at Chicago children's hospital |
09 Feb 2024, 3:31 pm |
| Autistic adult banned from library children's section |
10 Mar 2024, 8:04 am |
