user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
No, that guy is pig-ignorant. He is far more like the Muslim extremists in spirit than that poor woman.
Voted : No
Bigot.
Voted : No
Report him!!!
you can't exactly report customers.
plus that type of things are becoming more and more common.
8 years of Hee-Haw Whitehouse can change a country.
by LCD on Tue Nov 28, 06 2:08pm
[+]
Voted : No
Unfortunately it seems to be a point of view that is gaining popularity in the west.
Hideous.
Voted : No
If she agrees with any of the things the radicals say, or if when questioned she refuses to refute their beliefs, then she is fair game.
If she doesn't then no, it isn't fair to yell at her.
^she shouldn't' have to defend herself , she is minding her own business.
OWAR: if someone asks you specifically "do you support terrorism against the US" then I think you ought to answer "no, no I do not".
Don't you?
For instance, it's 1943 in america, and you choose to wear your lederhosen and other assorted german folk clothing to work. It would be wise to make it very clear that while you are a proud german you do not in any way support what they are doing over there and you are on americas side.
Wouldn't you say?
last time I checked it was 2006.
try inventing a time machine, if you want to live/act like you are in the 40's.
by LCD on Tue Nov 28, 06 4:29pm
[+]
Voted : No
I know a number of Islamic people, and *none* of them agree with what the fundamentalists stand for. As for that fine, upstanding bastich you spoke of, if he feels so vehemently about the fundies, give him this advice for me. Find a recruiting station. *Use* said station to full effect.
no. just like it's not okay when people paint all conservatives as "gung-ho NRA types who don't care about muslims, gays, liberals, etc."
goes both ways. in all fairness, even muslim leaders have acknowledged that their failure to speak up and out agaist the radical element has put them in this position. it's not fair and it's not right. maybe they should be more vocal to set the record straight.
herzog is right lcd. it speaks to my comment. muslims do have a bad image and it may not be fair, but until their higher-ranks unite and show the world the truth, their silence only makes matters worse.
you just don't get it do you?
first of all, I DIDN'T paint all conservatives. I was talking about one person, when I know his position on gun control, gay marriage, and muslims in general.
"muslims do have a bad image and it may not be fair,"
same can be said about lot of other issues.
if you don't stand up for people, they will not stand up for you.
or they may not be around to stand up for you.
by LCD on Tue Nov 28, 06 5:25pm
[+]
^ lol. easy there. yes i do get it and my point stands. just like it's wrong to paint all muslims as this or that, it's wrong to paint all conservatives, gay people, jewish people, etc. with one broad stroke.
you're talking to me about people standing up for others? i recall a time on this very site when i was being totally abused and quite a few people chose to not say a word -- those same people made ballots like this one. so i'm all for standing up for people. but my experience has been that when you need people to stand up for you, the very ones you think will, don't. the ones people assume will not, actually do. kind of ironic, ain't it.
but, i have seen people on here (cough) paint all conservatives, as an example, in a bad light. thats all i'm saying. i mean you did say that he is a "gung-ho nra type." so are all members of the nra that way?
You did say "NRA-type".
If there is a type then they must have general characteristics to define them, other than simply belonging to the NRA, which would be redundant. SO you have generalized literally millions of americans as "NRA types" simply for joining an organization that supports the 2nd amendment.
LCD, if you don't stand up for those "NRA-types" how can you expect them to stand up for you?
What is an "NRA type"?
if you actually research the religion, almost none of the extremist beliefs are supported by the religion itself.
oh, sorry herz, i forgot you don't know what research is.
I don't understand how anyone could stick up for this kind of behaviour AND have the nerve to insinuate that the woman was 'fair game' because she chose to wear a headress and not (alledgedly) swear allegiance to the good ol' US of A in a loud voice.
What planet are you on?
There is no room for this kind of behaviour in a civilized society.
kev, I was going to throw that into your face, but I did reconsider.
you might think all this is all in fun, hope you feel the same way when it happens to you.
^ huh? throw what into my face? you didn't say anything other than your one comment. happen to me? it happens to me all the time. it's happened to me right on this site.
i have a right to be bitter. my issue is that sometimes people pick and chose who to "stick up for." and sometimes the very people getting upset at the issue lcd lays out for us, are the sames ones that will turn around and make blatant derogotory comments about other minorities. or they make broad generalizations about other groups while at the same time, lashing out and accusing others of doing the very same thing.
so on issues like this, i really do have a right to call people out. i'm not saying lcd does this. so you saying "hope you feel the same way when it happens to you," is kind of funny -- it does all the time! and yeah, i get pissed at some of the liberals on here who selectively chose which group they're going to defend each day because when a few people were coming right and saying that i had no right to live because i was gay, most remained silent.
but i guess you didn't know any of that. or is it just muslims or black people that get discrminiated against and deserve defending?
and by the way, would you mind pointing out which comment of mine made light of anything in this ballot? i'm having a hard time finding one that shows that i think "all this is fun." can you?
ahh, blueclearwater is lcd. so it's you who "just doesn't get it."
you of all people should know better dude! i cannot believe you would make such a comment like "when it happens to you." why would you do that when you know full well that i left this very site for reasons like you describe in this very ballot. unbelievable.
I fucking love that 'talk to the hand' icon.
Voted : No
That's unfair.
wideheadofknowledge - I don't know why you think it is hideous?
Last time I checked, you wanted to ban all religions, and that would include Islam.
neothe1? That's another one that wanted to ban all religion, which would include Islam.
" swear allegiance to the good ol' US of A in a loud voice"
This was never suggested. I said if she refused to condemn their actions when asked, not that they are required to sing the pledge every day. Please don't put words in anyones mouth.
The fact is that at some point silence in the face of atrocities amounts to tacit support.
LCD: why did you create an alias?
i said ban belief, "socrates". with that name, you should agree.
"It would be wise to make it very clear that while you are a proud you do not in any way support what they are doing over there and you are on americas side."
Herzog, it is unacceptable to have to state your opinions or beliefs for the benefit of intolerant arseholes.
"The fact is that at some point silence in the face of atrocities amounts to tacit support"
This is not a fact, herzog and to pretend so is disingenuous to say the least.
Socrates, I wholly support the banning of religions from the public arena. I have said before that you can believe whatever ancient mythology you choose to but don't foist it upon me, children or people too dumb to know they're being lied to. And don't use it to rationalize or justify evil bigotry.
neothe1- I know you want to ban belief. And then on here you pretend to care about standing up for Islam.
As for the ancient Greek Socrates? He said that he thinks things and that he believes things but that he knows nothing. He debated deeply into what can even be known. To think something without knowing for sure- that is called belief. Therefore, he was not anti-belief.
wideheadofknowledge - banning all religion from the public arena?
Therefore, you want the receptionist that LCD mentioned to remove her headdress. YOu denounce an individual who is crude and rude about his dislike for Islam (but left the Muslim woman alone), and then you want to enforce a ban on Islam from public.
^ Any Muslims reading this, they cannot be trusted on this.
The two of them cannot be trusted on this.
belief is a delusion of absolute certainty. socrates was against that.
ballot 105472
i'm starting to get sick of you, soc. we already have a herzog, we don't need 2.
Widehead: so you believe muslims are under absolutely no obligation to condemn terrorism carried out in the name of their religion?
Well that's certainly the attitude many of them hold, and it is exactly why they are having such trouble distancing themselves from the terrorists now: because they have done *nothing* to distinguish between the two.
Yes, you do have an obligation to criticize those who carry out horrible acts in your name.
All christians should denounce fred Phelps, all germans should denounce hitler, and yes, all muslims should denounce bin laden.
neothe1- I think the problem is the manner in which we interpret the word 'believe'.
I usually interpret it to mean one of "The subjective assessment of uncertainty." That is, when someone uses the phrase: "I believe" (eg, 'I believe' that you can do well on your exams; as opposed to: 'I know' you can do well in your exams. One phrase is less definite than the other) , it is an aknowledgement that they don't 'know' 100% that it is true.
You interpret the word as something in which when someone believes, they dogmatically think that it is absolutely true. Ancient Greek Socrates was certainly against that kind of thing. He didn't believe in banning it or legally prohibiting it though.
"we already have a herzog, we don't need 2."
- I don't see what makes me 'another herzog'? I just found it strange that you and wideheadofknowledge were seemingly standing up for Islam here, yet elsewhere have indicated a hatred against religions and a desire to ban religions, including Islam. It is a suspicious inconsistency.
Which is why I said: "Any Muslims reading this, they cannot be trusted on this." - because I was suggesting to Muslim people that they probably should not trust you and wideheadofknowledge on this topic of tolerance of their religion, due to other comments made indicating a desire to oppress freedom to peacefully practice any religion, including Islam.
herzog- blatantly asking random Muslim people "Do you support terrorism?", can be very abrasive, accusative and offensive. However, I guess not necessarily. Perhaps it depends on the manner and the context in which the question is asked.
"so you believe muslims are under absolutely no obligation to condemn terrorism carried out in the name of their religion?"
No obligation whatsoever.
"so you believe muslims are under absolutely no obligation to condemn terrorism carried out in the name of their religion?"
what's in a name?
"I think the problem is the manner in which we interpret the word 'believe'."
belief is faith. faith is a delusion of knowledge. saying "i believe" is the same as saying "i know". i say "i THINK". that's an opinion. an opinion has room for error. belief is stupidity, it has no room for changing, or simply wrong, facts. it is unwavering. and it is wrong. all intentional harm is a result of faith. sois most unintentional harm. faith hurts everyone and everything.
"It is a suspicious inconsistency."
only to a bigot.
"Yes, you do have an obligation to criticize those who carry out horrible acts in your name"
funny, i never heard you complain.
"herzog- blatantly asking random Muslim people "Do you support terrorism?", can be very abrasive, accusative and offensive. However, I guess not necessarily. Perhaps it depends on the manner and the context in which the question is asked"
If a white guy, with lots of visible tattoos and a completely shaved head worked in an office occupied primarily by blacks then I think asking him whether he supports white supremacist groups would be a fair question.
But if it ever came up I suspect he'd offer the information without being asked. This would be acceptable, I think it's fair to hold all people to the same standards.
Widehead: we'll have to disagree then, I believe self-regulation within a group would solve many problems, you don't. I think the world would have been better had more germans spoke out against hitler, more arabs against bin laden, and more russians against stalin (etc). When people control their own extremists it eliminates the need for outsiders to get involved, which in turn decreases animosity between these groups.
But I suppose they could stubbornly cling to the notion that they don't have any responsibilities, and like all those good germans, die along with the extremists when the rest of the world gets sick of it.
"If a white guy, with lots of visible tattoos and a completely shaved head worked in an office occupied primarily by blacks then I think asking him whether he supports white supremacist groups would be a fair question."
no, it would not.
don't hear you speaking out against bush, herz
neothe1- Let's not get stuck into labels. I will embrace what you are meaning. Yes, that can be so. However, I still don't support banning it.
""It is a suspicious inconsistency."
only to a bigot. "
- I think that it is quite inconsistent to want to ban Islamic belief, and then later on be trying to look like standing up for Islam.
Personally, I think Muslims should be free to practice their religion in a peaceful manner. And I don't think they should feel painted with the same brush of extremism, it's unfair. Certainly they should denounce extremism, but accusative questions are not necessary for that to be done. I have many Muslim friends, and they do denounce the extremists.
"Personally, I think Muslims should be free to practice their religion in a peaceful manner"
And, of course, in private away from children too young to see that what they are being told is a lie.
My, my what a far nicer place the world would be without the stain of religion.
wideheadofknowledge- Yeah, because that receptionist LCD mentions, for example, by wearing her headdress in public, is being aggressive and is trying to brainwash everyone around her, especially children? Nonsense, I don't think so.
Widehead: so do you believe this woman should be discouraged from openly practicing or expressing her religion?
"I think that it is quite inconsistent to want to ban Islamic belief, and then later on be trying to look like standing up for Islam"
because you're a bigot, and see things in black and white
What part of Islam has anything to do with a headress? None.
If someone wants to show the world that they are dumb enough to follow a religion then that's fine. However religious symbols should be banished from ALL places of employment - lest the employer be thought of as supporting any religion(s).
Openly practicing religion should be banned for all faiths and denominations for the very same reason that we prevent the young from seeing other allegedly corrupting influences such as pornography, violence, drug abuse or whatever else.
Religion is nothing but a corrupting influence and should be removed from the public arena.
oh, i can just see the movies in 100 years:
rated R for stylised violence and gratuitous dogmatism
ot like that one episode of doctor who:
"Guests are reminded that platform 1 forbids the use of weapons, teleportation and religion."
"rated R for stylised violence and gratuitous dogmatism"
Absolutely.
Children should not have to face the warped view of reality that religions give to them.
can't point the finger at religions alone. the problem is belief. ALL belief. religion is only one kind of faith.
I don't quite follow you.
Let's start with religion and work our way up. Once religion is out of the wy I feel that a lot of present evils, bigotry and devisions would evaporate.
All it would take is just one generation - just one! And we could be rid of one of the most disgusting things we have cooked up so far in our inconsequential span on this planet.
"because you're a bigot, and see things in black and white "
- I hardly think so. I don't see how it is biggoted for a non-religious person to stand up for other people's right to peacefully follow a religion, nor to enquire about what appears to be an inconsistency on another person's part.
And atheist extremist (like the communists) attempts to crush religion were brutal and oppressive, and did not bring peace.
wideheadofknowledge- the headdress is part of Islamic practice.
"I don't quite follow you."
take for example a guy who robs a convenience store. obviously that's nota thought through act. it's an act of faith. faith that he won't get caught, or faith that it isn't wrong, or just isn't wrong for him. but it's not religious faith. it is a different kind of faith, which needs to be eliminated
or perhaps a guy talking on his cell phone while driving. that is also an act of faith. likely the faith that accidents only happen to OTHER people. that is again another kind of faith that needs to be eliminated.
all faith is the same. even believing that the sun will rise tomorrow is wrong. faith is immoral.
"And atheist extremist (like the communists)"
HAHAHAHAHA! first of all, they were anti-religious, not atheist, they were against the organised practice of religion because they viewed it as a threat to the government. and second, your far right wing thinking (or lack thereof) is coming out more and more explicitly, and now you're mentioning communism when it's not the slightest bit relevant.
"the headdress is part of Islamic practice."
no, it's not. the hijab is an ARABIC tradition, it's in no way connected with islam. do some research.
neothe1 - The 'Communists' attempted to ban religious belief. It is relevant to what is being discussed, or so it seems. Oh, and I am not right wing. Denouncing that oppression is not right wing. All major factions, including the Greens denounce those brutal and violent attempts to ban religious belief.
Oh and I specified intentionally that the headdress is part of Islamic practice, I did not intend anything about Islamic theoretical doctrine. In religions, it is common for practices to be attached to a religion without it ever being mentioned in the actual texts of that religion. The headdress and Islam is an example. It is what has become attached to the Islamic religion for many, and not just Arabs- but Indonesians, and the rest as well.
oh go away. we have a herzog already.
neothe1- actually herzog and myself disagree on various issues, including the Iraq war, how to deal with Iran, Guantanamo Bay, and many other issues.
"herzog- Raises interesting points"
if herz approves of you, you've got problems.
you say the same things he does, just less explicitly and belligerently. where you would ask "is it racist when arabs insult a white person?", herz would scream "YOU FUCKING PINKO PC PANSIES ONLY CALL SOMEONE RACIST IF THEY'RE WHITE! YOU HATE WHITE PEOPLE!", which is exactly what you're trying to say. you're just trying to fool us into somehow admitting that slander is true. and i'm getting sick of it. especially when you're using that username to do it.
neothe1- I don't see what that has to do with the topic at hand.
But anyway: ""is it racist when arabs insult a white person?"
- Not necessarily, that depends on the specific circumstances of each individual case.
"you're just trying to fool us into somehow admitting that slander is true."
- Racism against caucasians does happen sometimes. Racism against all kinds of different races (Dravidian, blacks, Mongol and the rest) unfortunately is existent even in this millenium.
and the right wing stereotype of left wingers is that we think only white people can be racist. that's what you subtly argue, while herz would scream it.
and now you're arguing the right wing stereotype that left wingers, atheists especially, will criticise christianity and call for it's outright forceful ban, while defending islam to the death, because it's a minority. which would be complete hypocrisy.
neo- "and now you're arguing the right wing stereotype that left wingers, atheists especially..."
No, not at all. In this ballot I have never referred to an inconsistency of 'leftists' or 'atheists', but rather to two specific individuals.
only right wingers use the term "leftist"
^ I have not noticed such a trend.
|
|
