View Full Version : What value are these people?
Starkweather
06-09-2007, 10:00
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6980888.stm
What value are these people to us? Yet we pander to them in a way that makes us look foolish
These, the report says, refer to "incredible hatred of women, incredible hatred of non-Muslims... and of Muslims who are not part of the Wahhabi tradition".
My main concern is that it seems that no-one sees fit to regulate such things
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6980888.stm
What value are these people to us? Yet we pander to them in a way that makes us look foolish
What value is there in burning books?
Starkweather
06-09-2007, 10:07
What value is there in burning books?
I'd rather burn straw men
I'd rather burn straw men
OK, let me put it another way. Who's job should it be to decide which opinions are permissable or not?
dirtydog
06-09-2007, 10:08
What value is there in burning books?
Should the taxpayer be funding books on religious extremism which poison the minds of Muslims against the British and the West?
Your response is glib. There are many sorts of books and literature which are banned and I'm sure you support the principle fully.
dirtydog
06-09-2007, 10:09
OK, let me put it another way. Whose job should it be to decide which opinions are permissible or not?
Someone should decide though, no? Someone with the interests of Britain in mind.
Should the taxpayer be funding books on religious extremism which poison the minds of Muslims against the British and the West?
Your response is glib. There are many sorts of books and literature which are banned and I'm sure you support the principle fully.
No. Im 100% against the notion of banning ideas, or the expression of them.
Since when has thoughtcrime been an acceptable notion?
Someone should decide though, no? Someone with the interests of Britain in mind.
Nope. See my answer above.
Starkweather
06-09-2007, 10:13
OK, let me put it another way. Who's job should it be to decide which opinions are permissable or not?
You seem to be confusing an issue of publishing with that of holding opinion. There is also the question of whether public buildings should be used to spread hate literature.
You seem to be confusing an issue of publishing with that of holding opinion. There is also the question of whether public buildings should be used to spread hate literature.
Everyone should have the right to have their opinions heard.
Starkweather
06-09-2007, 10:16
The report's authors counted 61 separate copies of Maududi's books including the classic Al Jihad, in which he states: "The objective of Islamic jihad is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of state rule... the aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution."
Newsflash: Some people have fucked up opinions.
Starkweather
06-09-2007, 10:21
Everyone should have the right to have their opinions heard.
That right cannot be granted, if only because it is physically impossible to grant every individual the capacity to engage every other individual on the planet.
Almost everything you have contributed to this thread is vague sounding, semi-noble rhetoric
Starkweather
06-09-2007, 10:21
Newsflash: Some people have fucked up opinions.
And it doesn't bother you that public money is being used to make said opinions available?
What exactly are you defending in this thread?
dirtydog
06-09-2007, 10:23
Everyone should have the right to have their opinions heard.
Even if it could result in terrorism or ultimately the end of our way of life.
Is it not immoral for the taxpayer to be forced to fund something which it finds reprehensible?
Even if it could result in terrorism or ultimately the end of our way of life.
Yes. Id rather have terrorism that state censorship of opinions.
Is it not immoral for the taxpayer to be forced to fund something which it finds reprehensible?
I must have missed that referendum.
That right cannot be granted, if only because it is physically impossible to grant every individual the capacity to engage every other individual on the planet.
It doesnt have to be granted, since the free expression of ideas is the 'norm'. What should not be done is anything to violate that right.
Almost everything you have contributed to this thread is vague sounding, semi-noble rhetoric
Thankyou.
What exactly are you defending in this thread?
The right of people to express opinions.
First they came for the islamists.....
<snip>
...Then they came for the pub psychologists, and there was no one left to speak up.
Starkweather
06-09-2007, 10:29
It doesnt have to be granted, since the free expression of ideas is the 'norm'. What should not be done is anything to violate that right.
Reomving a book from shelves does not violate that right, particularly with publicly funded money.
Thankyou.
As long as you don't feel you have to act in a certain way whilst you're here.
Starkweather
06-09-2007, 10:31
The right of people to express opinions.
Which isn't challenged by the proposal of removing Islamist book from public shelves
anarchist
06-09-2007, 12:30
or ultimately the end of our way of life
The same could be said of people who speak out against capitalism.
dirtydog
06-09-2007, 12:33
The same could be said of people who speak out against capitalism.
Not really. Nationalists speak out against capitalism but we don't want Sharia Law and mosques all over the place.
anarchist
06-09-2007, 12:37
Not really. Nationalists speak out against capitalism but we don't want Sharia Law and mosques all over the place.
Yeah but anybody who wants an end to capitalism basically wants an end to our current way of life.
dirtydog
06-09-2007, 12:43
Yeah but anybody who wants an end to capitalism basically wants an end to our current way of life.
Not in the same way as Islamification of Britain would end our way of life. Nationalists seek an end to having the economy as the alter at which people must worship and which everyone is subservient to. Nationalists seek an end to the doctrine of perpetual economic growth which destroys the environment, uses up precious finite resources and turns us into virtual slaves. Both policies which should be supported by 'the left' but those who consider themselves left wing in fact support policies that capitalists favour, such as mass immigration. Arguably nationalists are the true left wingers.
anarchist
06-09-2007, 12:50
Nationalists seek an end to the doctrine of perpetual economic growth which destroys the environment, uses up precious finite resources and turns us into virtual slaves.
I agree with the nationalists in that respect.
Arguably nationalists are the true left wingers.
This goes back to the problem with the definition of "left wing" doesn't it. Favouring white skin over black skin is widely regarded as a far right policy, in social terms, and I don't think many (social) left wingers think that way. I certainly don't. If I was prime minister (in my non-hierarchical Britain ;)) I wouldn't care what colour people were so long as they contributed to society, and I'm not talking about an economic contribution - just a general contribution.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.6 Copyright © 2010 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.