Wrong. I've never argued with Bill before. I took his post as a personal insult, and responded.
It was not my way of speaking to you wihout doing so directly. I like our new arrangement, and even thought of foregoing my comment to Bill due to my desire not to appear to be speaking to you--but that's not fair to me. I wanted to take issue with it, and I did.
Your comment:
yes, Lash, I know you made certain to avoid using the actual word "nimh", but we're not crazy
is incorrect.
______________________
I thought you agreed to stop responding to my posts, too?
If you dont want my replies to muck up your rhythm, dont post stuff about me. <shrugs>
_______________________
That was not about you. You've lost it. <shakes head>
I guess the last thing I shall say to you, nimh, is that...Europe is in the world.
<LOL!!!>
_________________
nimh said...no, really:
Yes, IN THE WORLD violence over the cartoons has erupted in many places. Never said it wasnt. Never said anything about it, in fact.
However, you spoke of "riots sweeping EUROPE". Remember? (Course you do, cause I just quoted it, above, in the post you responded to.)
____________________
Really, is this a joke?
I find that article by Tariq Modood extremely insulting. Anyone who thinks criticism of a scheme or code of ideas is equivalent to racism is a jerk.
[and if he wants to know why Jews and Sihks are afforded protection under race laws, its because the boundaries of Judaism and Sihkism are considered in law to be contiguous with the racial group. However even that does not prevent philosophical criticism of Judaism or Sihkism, which is all that I and many others are doing regarding political Islam]
Lash wrote:Wrong. I've never argued with Bill before. I took his post as a personal insult, and responded.
You inferred an insult that I NEVER implied. I've read numerous posts accusing both JW and Nimh of all manner of Ad Hominem laden posts for the purpose of insult but have seldom, if ever, seen either of them stoop to that level without massive provocation. I disagree with you, Lash, about as often as I agree with Nimh (politically); not never, but not often. However, neither you nor I have historically demonstrated the grace and tolerance that JW and Nimh do routinely in the face of unwarranted animosity. I hold both in high esteem and felt like that was an appropriate time to give them both the recognition they so richly deserve. No more; no less.
FWIW, were I Nimh, I too would have taken offense at your unwarranted rebuff of the innocuous compliment. Again, it had NOTHING to do with you.
OCCOM BILL wrote:Again, it had NOTHING to do with you.
As my statement had nothing to do with him.
He made the same mistake with my post that I seem to have made with yours.
The light bulb, Bill.
What was the reason for that? If you don't mind answering.
Every time you see me use the light bulb, it is because I believe I've made a point worthy of extra consideration. It's label is "idea" so I don't see how that in itself is insulting to anyone. Now, if I were making a scathing point, and thought it warranted "extra consideration", than an implied insult might very well be intended to be strengthened. That (clearly?) wasn't the case in that post. My intentions were quite benevolent.
I respect your sharp intellect, persistence and inherent ability to see through nonsense, Lash, along with a few other traits. But let's face it; neither you nor I would qualify for a compliment such as the one I offered JW and Nimh (and Walter, Sozobe, Georgeob1 etc. etc. etc.). I would take no offense in such a revelation and have little intention of changing my ways, so I really don't see any reason for you to.
I didn't mind the comment--it was the light bulb that got me.
And, it was mild irritation, which dissipated long ago.
Life's too short.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:I find that article by Tariq Modood extremely insulting.
"Extremely insulting"? I understand that you extremely
disagree with it, but what part do you consider an
insult? I take it that you dont consider something highly insulting just because its highly disagreeable, because that would be exactly the logic of the Muslim protestors you decry .. ;-)
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:Anyone who thinks criticism of a scheme or code of ideas is equivalent to racism is a jerk.
I think it is too easy to define a religion purely as "a scheme or code of ideas". Christianity, Islam and Hinduism are as much identity as they are concept; throughout centuries, they were simply something you were born into. This was true for Christianity too for 19 out of 20 centuries; for Islam and Hinduism, it is still mostly true. Like it or not, religious affiliation is as part and parcel of group categorisation and identification as race is.
It is as group that Jews are insulted by anti-semites; it is as group that Muslims are insulted wholesale by bigots. I personally agree that it is strange that British Sikhs and Jews
are protected against insult and hate speech, but British Muslims are not.
Even if you don't agree however, it's hardly a statement that automatically qualifies for calling the person a jerk. Tony Blair and the parliamentary Labour Party - your party, I believe - last month stringently pleaded for the adoption of a new hate speech law that argued pretty much exactly that; the law was only blocked because a minority of Labour dissidents joined the opposition.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:and if he wants to know why Jews and Sihks are afforded protection under race laws, its because the boundaries of Judaism and Sihkism are considered in law to be contiguous with the racial group.
That is indeed how the law is at the moment. Blair and Modeed agree on the particular point that the law is not right, at the moment, and should be expanded to accord protection against hate on the basis of religion as well as race.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:However even that does not prevent philosophical criticism of Judaism or Sihkism, which is all that I and many others are doing regarding political Islam
It may be what
you are doing, but the insults and hate speech Muslims encounter on a day-to-day basis in today's Europe goes far beyond your philosophical arguments. It's hardly you that a hate speech law would block, or what Modood was writing of. I also think it's a real stretch to define a cartoon of Muhammed with a bomb in his turban as "philosophical criticism".
Thank you, by the way, O'Bill. Very gracious, and straightforward. <nods>
Some more summaries from news items I came across and thought interesting (for varying reasons):
Quote:Britain looks away from the cartoons
link
My summary:
Quote:2006/02/16 · Terraviva
As violence over the Mohammed cartoons continues at scattered locations around the world, Britain has looked away from them in the interest of good race relations. Not even the tabloids -- never likely otherwise to lose a chance to grab reader attention -- reproduced the cartoons.
''There was .. no agreement .. not to publish the cartoons,'' Ian Jack said, 'Editors simply decided on their own not to publish them.''
The British take a pragmatic approach to such matters rather than ideological one, he said. ''The view here was that publishing the cartoons would mean just striking a posture, that would do no good and probably do quite a lot of harm.''
nimhface: <nodding>
---------------------
Quote:Solana warns against EU-muslim cartoon rift
link
My summary:
Quote:2006/02/15 · EU Observer
EU foreign policy chief Solana visited the Middle East in a bid to soothe tension over the Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed.
On Monday he met the leader of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu. The OIC is pushing for the UN to adopt a reference against blasphemy in the tenets of a new human rights body.
Solana signalled the EU might be supportive of this idea, saying "we are working on some ideas that maybe it is possible to get through." Solana's spokeswoman was quoted as saying: "They want mechanisms to guarantee this is not repeated and we should be able to find it in UN conventions on human rights."
nimhface:
---------------------
Quote:MEPs express solidarity with Denmark in cartoon row
link
My summary:
Quote:2006/02/15 · EUobserver
European lawmakers spoke out on the Danish-Muslim cartoon conflict and are expected to issue a resolution condemning the violent protests, supporting Denmark and backing freedom of expression.
German MEP Poettering said the protests in the Muslim world had not been spontaneous: "They were organised by repressive regimes months after the publication of the cartoons."
The MEPs proposed to establish an EU-Muslim commission to examine school textbooks in Europe and the Islamic world to see how they describe the other side, but came out strongly against a proposal by the commission to make media sign up to a voluntary "code of conduct" for reporting on religions.
"The press has to draw its own code of conduct, we cannot do it for them," said Daniel Cohn-Bendit.
nimhface:
---------------------
Quote:European citizens turn against media in cartoon row
link
My summary:
Quote:2006/02/10 · EUobserver
A majority of French and Norwegians believe that publishing the controversial caricatures of the prophet Mohammed was wrong and a provocation.
In a French poll, 55% believed that publishing the cartoons did not serve to further the debate on free speech. The decision to print them was supported by 38%.
In Norway, the second country to publish the cartoons, 57% of respondents, especially women, believed it was wrong to publish, while 30% believed the media had the right to publish.
Meanwhile, the Danish paper that first published the cartoons announced it had sent its cultural editor, Flemming Rose, on vacation, after Rose told CNN earlier this week that his paper was considering joining an Iranian newspaper's move to publish "funny caricatures" about the Holocaust.
nimhface (at last paragraph):
---------------------
Quote:French politicians for freedom of expression
link
My summary:
Quote:2006/02/03 · Le Figaro
Faced with the "scandal of the caricatures" of Muhammad, French elected representatives are unanimous in defending freedom of expression and condemning the threats of reprisals and calls for boycott.
Interior Minister Sarkozy said: "Caricature is by definition excess. I prefer this excess to that of censorship."
The only dissonant voice among the majority conservatives was Michel Hunault, who saw these caricatures as "a pointless provocation".
On the left, the Socialist Party "firmly condemned" the sacking of the France Soir managing editor. The national secretary for culture and the media "reaffirmed PS support for all the journalists who are the object of pressure and threats in the exercise of their profession".
But the Movement Against Racism (MRAP) compared the caricatures to the "anti-Semitic caricatures of the thirties".
nimhface: none
And more, from Italy:
Quote:Italian minister resigns over cartoon riots in Libya
link
My summary:
Quote:2006/02/20 · EU Observer
The Italian minister who wore a T-shirt depicting one of the Danish carricatures of Mohammed on TV, resigned over the weekend after being blamed for violent riots outside the Italian consulate in Libya in which some ten people were killed. Prime minister Berlusconi had urged him to resign.
But Calderoli, who served as minister of reform for the Lega Nord party, repeated that fellow Italians could order the T-shirt from his office.
Calderoli's T-shirt also caused ripples in Brussels, where the European Parliament faction that Lega Nord representatives belong to, the Independence/Democracy group, will vote on whether to exclude the party.
nimhface: neutral
Quote:Ex-minister probed over T-shirt
link
My summary:
Quote:2006/02/20 · ANSA
Roberto Calderoli, who quit as minister over the weekend, is under investigation for contempt of religion.
Prosecutors are assessing whether Calderoli, who wore a T- shirt showing controversial cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed on national television last week, can be charged. The offence in question used to carry a maximum penalty of two years in jail, but a recent change means punishment is now a fine of 1,000-5,000 euros.
The T-shirt was the apparent focus of violent protests in Libya, where 11 demonstrators were killed and the Italian consulate was ransacked. Premier Berlusconi then asked the minister to quit, angering Calderoli's Northern League.
Calderoli however said his party should stick with Berlusconi's coalition, as long as it agreed to certain priorities, including the "defence of Europe's Christian roots, and a battle against any form of fundamentalism."
nimhface at the last paragraph:
and at the paragraph that recalls that Calderoli could be charged under the blasphemy laws that have forever protected Catholicism in the country:
Lash wrote:nimh said...no, really:
Yes, IN THE WORLD violence over the cartoons has erupted in many places. Never said it wasnt. Never said anything about it, in fact.
However, you spoke of "riots sweeping EUROPE". Remember? (Course you do, cause I just quoted it, above, in the post you responded to.)
____________________
Really, is this a joke?
Nope. Quite simple really.
You said riots were "sweeping Europe" over the cartoon affair. I mentioned that as one example of your penchant for caricatural exaggerations.
Well, was it?
There have been riots in Nigeria, Lybia, Beirut, Syria, Pakistan, true. None of those places lie in Europe though, so that's really neither here nor there.
<shrugs> Stuff like this is simple. You assert something, you get called on it - you've got the choice to either honestly address what you said, or act like you really said something else altogether.
Re: riots sweeping Europe, the worst I've heard of was a demonstration in London where hateful placards were carried. That's hardly a riot. Did I miss something?
If not, then it
was one of those cartoonesque exaggerations, and I was merely pointing out the obvious. <shrugs>
Yeah. You've missed something, alright.
I said riots were sweeping Europe because of the Muslim violence that began in France, a month or so ago. It was spread in several areas around France and in other cities as well. As a matter of fact, anyone but a complete fool would THIS VERY GLOBAL EXPLOSION as a continuation of that VERY SAME MUSLIM problem, and they'd CALL IT WHAT IT IS, except for a blithering liberal idiot, who is quaking in his boots at the prospect of being told that Islam is NOT such a FREAKING PEACEFUL RELIGION.
You discounted articles I brought supporting my claims. Now, you turn a blind eye to what's happening in Europe and the world re your pet demographic, the misunderstood Muslims. I hope you wake up before someone tries to plant a manifesto in your best shirt.
You are the one who decides which articles he'll accept and which he won't. I've enjoyed playing a bit at your game. It is very convenient. Yeah, nimh. It was just an odd guy with a mean placard...that's all it was.
Sleep tight.
Remember
<So our old-style Lash is finally back again thinks another "complete fool" and "blithering liberal idiot">
The nationalistic (neo-Nazi) British party
BNP [is] to use Prophet cartoon in campaign , btw, now.
The BNP's agenda is racist. They are careful to restrict their comments to muslims and not pakistanis or asians. But most people understand their true objectives, and reject it.
But just because some racists are violently critical of Islam, it does not follow that those who level valid intellectual criticism of Islam must be racist.
Lash wrote:Yeah. You've missed something, alright.
I said riots were sweeping Europe because of the Muslim violence that began in France, a month or so ago. It was spread in several areas around France and in other cities as well. As a matter of fact, anyone but a complete fool would THIS VERY GLOBAL EXPLOSION as a continuation of that VERY SAME MUSLIM problem, and they'd CALL IT WHAT IT IS, except for a blithering liberal idiot, who is quaking in his boots at the prospect of being told that Islam is NOT such a FREAKING PEACEFUL RELIGION.
I'm having some trouble reading through all the caps, but basically I gather that you spoke of "riots sweeping Europe" because of violence in several French cities?
I'm not aware of 'cartoon' riots in several cities in France, myself - the only thing I've read about was an attack on a police station near Paris
when the police killed a Gap robber. So links would be welcome - I'm building an archive.
(Yes, I'll accept any source, though mainstream news media of course are easiest to use. The Brussels Journal item you just linked in however dates from November, and deals mostly with the French riots from back then. Since I posted about 324 items about those, I dont necessarily need a reminder there - I was asking about your assertion about now).
Finally, would it be pesky of me to point out that, even if there was 'cartoon' violence in several French cities (something I havent seen reported myself, but I suppose I might have missed it), violence in one European country does not actually make for "riots sweeping Europe" over the cartoons - and your assertion about them thus remains the gross exaggeration I called it? <shrugs>
I'm not getting into all what the caps accuse me of - being some weak-kneed, starry-eyed naive who thinks Islam is just such a peaceful religion - mostly because I've probably posted as much in-depth about how to combat Islamist fundamentalism as anyone here.
Note I responded to that post you link in here, two posts below ... you were mixing up two things again (downplaying the extent of the riots
downplaying the alleged religious fervour of the rioters).
Lash wrote:..."I just don't think so"...."I don't think they would"... "I don't think that means..."
Well, at least I don't go around claiming things HAPPENED, that I KNOW that it's like that, etc, when I lack full certainty about it .. you should give it a try, might keep you out of trouble ;-)
I hope there is no one that answers that description, Walter. I find it impossible to believe anyone here does.
quote from an article I posted elsewhere
"#2 Europe stares into the abyss (or, for the more poetic folks in the audience: Götterdämmerung).
The 20th Century was an unmitigated calamity for Europe. In 1900, Victorian culture still dominated the Old Continent. It was the land of waltzes, ballets, and genteel aristocrats. It harbored the wealthiest financial establishments, the richest cultural traditions, and the most productive industrial economies. The universities of Austria, Germany, and England were world-renowned as the epicenters of learning and innovation.
All of that ended with the advent of WW I, which was arguably the greatest single disaster in human history. That brutal, senseless war uncorked the evil genies of fascism, communism, and genocide. By mid-century, Europe was exhausted
demographically, economically, and spiritually.
The Europeans responded to this shock in several ways. Most importantly, they largely abandoned their cultural traditions, opting instead for post-modern secularism with a healthy dollop of moral relativism. Essentially, they turned away from inspirational endeavors and focused their energies on La Dolce Vita.
While there is much to be said for La Dolce Vita, it brought with it two major negative side-effects. First, was a particularly stifling brand of sclerotic socialism. Second, was a collapse of Europe's birthrate.
Most studies show that people have large families for religious reasons and because they fear poverty in their old age. Socialism and secularism eliminated these concerns and prompted the continent's birthrate to plummet to less than 1.4 children per woman (2.1 is considered replacement level).
Unfortunately for Europe, a civilization cannot be maintained if no one wants to have children.
Thus, socialism and secularism have brought Europe to the doorstep of extinction. While the economic dangers of socialism are readily apparent (uncontrolled government debt, unsustainable public pension programs, etc), the resulting population collapse prompted European governments to make a fateful step that will dictate the course of European politics throughout the 21st Century. Namely, the Europeans opened their doors to large-scale Muslim immigration.
While I have no particular animosity towards Islam (indeed, having lived in the Middle East for a period of time, I observed many admirable things about Arabic and Muslim culture), the stark reality is that European and Muslim cultures are utterly incompatible. The streets of Amsterdam, for example, are famous for legalized prostitution, hashish bars, and tolerance towards alternative sexual lifestyles. Most Europeans consider things such as fervent religious belief, the death penalty, and the subordination of women to be apparitions from the Dark Ages.
The Muslim world, on the other hand, demands female chastity, despises atheism, and routinely metes out harsh punishment for even petty criminal activity.
Layered on top of these fundamental differences are fourteen centuries of mutual contempt and vicious warfare between the two cultures.
A quick look at the numbers is sobering indeed. Over the next 40 years, Muslims will make up close to a majority of the population in many Western European nations. These numbers do not even require continued immigration. For instance, according to a recent article in The American Conservative by Paul Kohout, Denmark will have an immigrant majority by 2039 even if it stops all immigration today (due to differential birth rates). I've also seen reports that in 2005, for the first time in history, the majority of babies born in France were to Muslim parents.
To my knowledge, no population group has ever allowed itself to be peacefully displaced in the land of its origin (much less by a group with which it has considerable historical animosity).
The London train bombings, the murder of Theo van Gogh, and the French intifada are the harbingers of things to come. In many ways, Europe is experiencing a "late Tito" period similar to Yugoslavia in the early 1980s. At that time, Yugoslavia's socialist economy was starting to unravel even as its society was being shaken by barely-concealed tribal rivalries fueled by changing demographics. The communist government tried to manage these tensions through a choking, all-encompassing program of political correctness.
It didn't work.
Similarly, the entire European continent is now drifting towards the same poisonous dynamic that touched off vicious ethnic wars in Bosnia and Kosovo.
Since I consider the possibility of peaceful coexistence (inside the same state) between Islamic and European cultures to be unrealistic, the 21st Century holds only negative outcomes for Europe. As the demographic situation reaches a crisis, things will break in one of three ways. In the first scenario, nationalist parties will come to power in Europe and initiate armed confrontations with Islam, resulting in its violent expulsion. In the second scenario, the violence will fragment the continent into Muslim and European cantons. In the third scenario, the Muslims will emerge victorious and impose their social norms on the European population.
This will leave a Europe that resembles Mussolini's Italy, Lebanon, or Zimbabwe, respectively.
No matter which course history follows, it will not be a pretty picture. "
Hey Steve, did you see
this post?
No need to answer it if you dont feel like it, just wondering if you'd seen it.
