Fair point, I thought it kinda went without saying given the nature of the thread, but I'll be clearer in the future...
I did see that comment, and I guess I just assumed that it was along the same lines as comments that start with "I'm not a racist, but...". See, what you said above makes a lot of sense...but your OTHER comments don't seem to make a lot of distinction between the two Islams you see. You talk about Muslims becoming the majority, but clearly that isn't a problem if they are the right kind of Muslims, right? Your comments mirror what you hear all the time, people lambasting all Muslims for being evil terrorists, etc, etc, and then ending with some sort of PC disclaimer that they "aren't talking about all Muslims", when they clearly were (Bill O'Reilly is the biggest offender here, thus the mention of his show). My apologies if that doesn't describe you, but surely you can see why I might be suspicious of comments like that.
Originally posted by: bsobel
I did see that comment, and I guess I just assumed that it was along the same lines as comments that start with "I'm not a racist, but...". See, what you said above makes a lot of sense...but your OTHER comments don't seem to make a lot of distinction between the two Islams you see. You talk about Muslims becoming the majority, but clearly that isn't a problem if they are the right kind of Muslims, right? Your comments mirror what you hear all the time, people lambasting all Muslims for being evil terrorists, etc, etc, and then ending with some sort of PC disclaimer that they "aren't talking about all Muslims", when they clearly were (Bill O'Reilly is the biggest offender here, thus the mention of his show). My apologies if that doesn't describe you, but surely you can see why I might be suspicious of comments like that.
Fair point, I thought it kinda went without saying given the nature of the thread, but I'll be clearer in the future...
Then if you want to use AMD/Intel services, you can't eat pork. There is always an alternative, such as not buying a computer, buying a programmable board and writing your own code to do whatever you need to do, or whatever. Maybe not convenient, efficient, or anything else desirable, but legislation is not the solution to every little problem you think you see.Originally posted by: bsobel
What is Intel and AMD decided that if you eat pork you can't have a CPU and there realistically isn't any way to start a compeition. Should that be allowed?
Why are you suggesting a math class to me? I can prove my mathematical claims on an abacus. What you fail to see is that you're so worried that these people might some day take away some of your freedoms that you're willing to take away theirs now. How are you better than them?In that case I'd suggest a math class and eat any bacon you might want to now why you still can Many people do feel it's laudable, and the reason is not because of the race of the new majority, its the clear direction and rules of law that majority would enact on those today who enjoy various freedoms.
Yes, that's fine. I might not agree with it and might even move to another country to avoid their laws, but I can't strip the rights of those I disagree with simply because I disagree with them.I presume, from your post, that if muslims became a majority in the US *and* voted to enact various islamic laws, you are ok with that?
Yes, that's fine. I might not agree with it and might even move to another country to avoid their laws, but I can't strip the rights of those I disagree with simply because I disagree with them.
Originally posted by: bsobel
Yes, that's fine. I might not agree with it and might even move to another country to avoid their laws, but I can't strip the rights of those I disagree with simply because I disagree with them.
So you believe that the southern US should still be segregated right? I mean, we did strip people of their 'rights' to discrciminate because we disagree with them. And they where the majority in many of the areas forced to change...
So your argument may be summarized as "it's fine for me to strip rights from people who disagree with me, but not if they strip rights from me." Tell me again how you're different from those you hate so much.Originally posted by: bsobel
Some reference (I choose this one since it was recently in most of the main stream news so most posters probably saw it...) Australia
"On one he tells his audience to Islamise Australia through a Muslim baby boom. The birth rate in the Western countries is going down. People are more interested in their careers . . . they don't want to have babies," Sheik Green says in one DVD. "So don't you think, Muslim brothers and sisters, we've got a bit of an opportunity here? They're not having babies any more. So what if, instead, we have the babies? "In Canada one in three or one in four children being born is a Muslim. What does that do to the demographic shift of a Muslim population in 20 years' time?"
But this is exactly what you're proposing that the Swiss should do - maintain their majority by discriminating against Muslims. Old or new majority - what's the difference? Only time, which is completely relative and, therefore, an unsuitable basis for ethical principles.Originally posted by: bsobel
The real question is. Does a current majority have the right to maintain that majority. In some cases the clear moral answer is no (see womans rights, segregation, etc). In the scenario that a new majority could enact a signifigantly different rule of law I think the answer is different (ethically and morally).
So your argument may be summarized as "it's fine for me to strip rights from people who disagree with me, but not if they strip rights from me." Tell me again how you're different from those you hate so much.
Maybe you can enlighten me: why is the analogy a bad one? In one case (religion), the product is an idea. In the other (taxis), the product is a service. I can give my currency to whichever I choose in the marketplace. The currency for ideas is simply consideration or time investment, while the currency for services is money. A religion would fail if no one invested in it the same way a company would go under.Originally posted by: Citrix
LOL are you serious you just compared a PRODUCT to a religion. the rest of your post is just nonsense.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Maybe you can enlighten me: why is the analogy a bad one? In one case (religion), the product is an idea. In the other (taxis), the product is a service. I can give my currency to whichever I choose in the marketplace. The currency for ideas is simply consideration or time investment, while the currency for services is money. A religion would fail if no one invested in it the same way a company would go under.Originally posted by: Citrix
LOL are you serious you just compared a PRODUCT to a religion. the rest of your post is just nonsense.
The point you're missing is that there is no right to discriminate. Discrimination is an intrinsic part of people that can't simply be legislated away. That said, you're simply suggesting we substitute one form of discrimination for another. Your rationale is that your discrimination is better for the current majority and will prevent your majority from losing power. This is not altogether dissimilar from a hypothetical piece of legislation drafted by Democrats that would automatically throw out all votes from Republican districts in the next election.Originally posted by: bsobel
So you believe that the southern US should still be segregated right? I mean, we did strip people of their 'rights' to discrciminate because we disagree with them. And they where the majority in many of the areas forced to change...
I can still walk. We always have a choice where to deposit our currency. Besides, the taxi union couldn't use force to make me use their service, as that is already illegal. For this to come to pass, the taxi drivers would have to assume power before they passed the laws that would allow them to assume power, which is a tricky proposition.Originally posted by: bsobel
What if the taxi union got so big that the forced you to use taxi's vs busses and personal vehicles by force or threat of force? The became so big that they ensured only taxi drivers got elected to government and only passed laws which favored taxi drivers. Thus ensuring they could never fail as you would have no choice but to 'invest' in their services.
I can still walk. We always have a choice where to deposit our currency. Besides, the taxi union couldn't use force to make me use their service, as that is already illegal. For this to come to pass, the taxi drivers would have to assume power before they passed the laws that would allow them to assume power, which is a tricky proposition.
Yes, and my post says exactly why what you described cannot happen. Existing laws would be broken to achieve what you suggested. These laws could only be broken on this scale if the people breaking them were already in power. However, they cannot rise to power without breaking these laws. Thus, the conclusion is a non sequitur - it does not logically follow from Muslims entering a country that they will seize and maintain control by force.Originally posted by: bsobel
They outlaw walking. Walking is punishable by death. As far as coming to power, thats exactly what we are discussing here.
However, they cannot rise to power without breaking these laws. Thus, the conclusion is a non sequitur - it does not logically follow from Muslims entering a country that they will seize and maintain control by force.
Huh? You are arguing that laws should be passed to stop Muslims from gaining the political upper hand. I said that reasonable laws that will prevent them from gaining the upper hand by use of force already exist. Now you're arguing that the law doesn't matter and they will not obey the law anyway. Why, then, were you suggesting previously that laws should be made to prevent this from occurring?Originally posted by: bsobel
Let me see if I get this right. They won't take a country by force, because it's against the countries laws. I guess we should just tell, say, the Philippines to pass a law making it illegal to overthrow the government by force. That should fix things right up.