|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
posted December 02, 2009 01:47 AM |
bonus applied by angelito on 02 Dec 2009. |
|
Quote:
Quote:
...about free speech, yes. No tolerance for intolerance. No free speech for those who deny it to others.
you mean speak about denying it to others, which doesn't violate their rights. Don't mix them up.
Yes, speak of denying free speech. When nationalists, racists or religious fanatics actually get the power to deny it, it's too late. That's what this is all about. Where do you draw the line? See how many different answers there are in this thread? There's no clear-cut or universal solution. Multiculturalism works best when there is an overwhelming majority. On the other hand, when the minority is too large to assimilate but upholds drastically different values, the native-born majority feels threatened and reacts in order to preserve its culture. When do you react? When it's 4% or 40%?
By the way,Quote:
Quote:
a) a non-muslimic woman applies for a high-ranking job in a muslimic led outfit. She's denied due to women are not allowed in leading positions for religious reasons.
If it's private capitalistic business, dare I say they set the rules, the ones in charge of it. That's private property for you.
I'm pretty sure gender discrimination is illegal in most western countries, private property or not. I'm doubtful it's the same in Saudi Arabia.
____________
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 01:50 AM |
|
|
By "Civil liberties" I'm referring to the everyday personal freedoms people have. Buying what I want to buy, working where I want to work (assuming they hire me), being with who I want to be with, eating what I want to eat, etc. Again, minarets are a minor thing, but that doesn't mean they should be overlooked.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 01:51 AM |
|
|
Good post Vlaad, it says everything it is about and if you were not carrying the weight of already too many QP's I would certainly propose one more. But I want to preserve you from too much responsibility. 
@BB: you are right but who is having the last word? Natives or immigrants? At one moment a law must be created and surely both sides will not agree 100% with it. Still, it has to be made. If a muslim immigrant is offended by seeing western women fashion, and we are offended by seeing an human being behind a block of tissue, someone has to decide and choose. Who?
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 01:56 AM |
|
Edited by Vlaad at 03:30, 02 Dec 2009.
|
Quote:
Good post Vlaad, it says everything it is about and if you were not carrying the weight of already too many QP's I would certainly propose one more. But I want to preserve you from too much responsibility.
LOL Thanks. I need two more to beat RSF, then I can die happy. Actually the last serious post in the OSM I made in early 2008, because the topic was similar and it is a matter I deeply care for. I've seen it go terribly wrong with my own eyes and cannot let it go.
____________
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 02:03 AM |
|
|
It deserves one, short but wise post. It helps to take back a step before looking at those things. Going too involved always gives a wrong point of view.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 02:06 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes, speak of denying free speech. When nationalists, racists or religious fanatics actually get the power to deny it, it's too late. That's what this is all about. Where do you draw the line? See how many different answers there are in this thread? There's no clear-cut or universal solution. Multiculturalism works best when there is an overwhelming majority. On the other hand, when the minority is too large to assimilate but upholds drastically different values, the native-born majority feels threatened and reacts in order to preserve its culture. When do you react? When it's 4% or 40%?
Why would the native-born feel threatened? Because the muslims outnumber them in votes and elections? Isn't that the fault of democracy? (where every idiot's vote counts)
Because clearly, if muslims actually start to assault them, in no way do I endorse that -- they should be prosecuted for assault, for instance.
However what has that got to do with burqas? If anything that only aggravates them more.
Quote:
By the way,Quote:
Quote:
a) a non-muslimic woman applies for a high-ranking job in a muslimic led outfit. She's denied due to women are not allowed in leading positions for religious reasons.
If it's private capitalistic business, dare I say they set the rules, the ones in charge of it. That's private property for you.
I'm pretty sure gender discrimination is illegal in most western countries, private property or not.
That pretty much sucks. For example, if I don't like muslims, they force me to take them into my property? Not really my property, it seems.
@Salamandre: you must be joking with politicians being intelligent, right? 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 02:09 AM |
|
|
Quote:
@BB: you are right but who is having the last word? Natives or immigrants? At one moment a law must be created and surely both sides will not agree 100% with it. Still, it has to be made. If a muslim immigrant is offended by seeing western women fashion, and we are offended by seeing an human being behind a block of tissue, someone has to decide and choose. Who?
Ideally, nobody gets their way. The crowning achievement of Western civilization is that it encourages people to be offended. In fact, I think that is the #1 quality that separates it from the Islamic world. Of course, an orthodox Muslim doesn't want to play that game, but that doesn't mean we treat them how they would treat us. If you do, then you have more in common with them than you might realize.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 02:14 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Of course, an orthodox Muslim doesn't want to play that game, but that doesn't mean we treat them how they would treat us. If you do, then you have more in common with them than you might realize.
Absolutely true.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 02:15 AM |
|
|
Quote:
@Salamandre: you must be joking with politicians being intelligent, right?
Nope, I actually think that it needs a lot of balls to be politician today. And seeing how many reactionary posts from this thread or another only fortifies my conviction.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 02:19 AM |
|
|
???
This thread has been flowing wonderfully I thought.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 02:20 AM |
|
Edited by Vlaad at 02:24, 02 Dec 2009.
|
Quote:
Why would the native-born feel threatened? Because the muslims outnumber them in votes and elections? Isn't that the fault of democracy? (where every idiot's vote counts)
Yes, eventually the minority becomes majority (or more often, an influential minority). Theoretically speaking, the next government may have to rely on the support of a Muslim party. Wearing a hijab at university will be the first trade-off. What's next? Where does it end? If you're sympathetic for the rights of one side, surely you can understand that the other side doesn't want to waive theirs either.Quote:
However what has that got to do with burqas? If anything that only aggravates them more.
Yes, I agree; immigration policy must handle the process of naturalization way more seriously than that.
____________
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 02:38 AM |
|
|
If I'm not mistaken, this thread is reaching its conclusion after a lively discussion 
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 02:46 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes, eventually the minority becomes majority (or more often, an influential minority). Theoretically speaking, the next government may have to rely on the support of a Muslim party. Wearing a hijab at university will be the first trade-off. What's next? Where does it end? If you're sympathetic for the rights of one side, surely you can understand that the other side doesn't want to waive theirs either.
Simple. Make a system that doesn't allow others to take your rights. No matter the voting outcome.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 02:51 AM |
|
Edited by Vlaad at 02:54, 02 Dec 2009.
|
Quote:
If I'm not mistaken, this thread is reaching its conclusion after a lively discussion
Not sure if you're aware of the irony: in some Muslim countries that gesture is the equivalent to our use of the middle finger. 
____________
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 02:54 AM |
|
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
posted December 02, 2009 03:04 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Not sure if you're aware of the irony: in some Muslim countries that gesture is the equivalent to our use of the middle finger.
I was not aware.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 03:28 AM |
|
|
Sal:
Quote:
@Mvass, criticizing the government you voted for without rest, and always going against anything it decides is a worse behavior I think.
What if I didn't vote for the government? Or what if I only voted for the lesser of the two evils? And it doesn't matter, anyway. The government should be criticised for every mistake it makes. That's the only way we can begin to make it be honest (even though it often doesn't work, it's still better than just leaving it be).
Death:
Quote:
Simple. Make a system that doesn't allow others to take your rights. No matter the voting outcome.
"It's simple. We kill the Batman."
Just as simple.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 03:32 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Simple. Make a system that doesn't allow others to take your rights. No matter the voting outcome.
"It's simple. We kill the Batman."
Just as simple.
Simple or not, it's definitely something that has to be implemented, otherwise it's tyranny by majority.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 09:59 AM |
|
|
Time for a little recap of a specific point, that blizzard and of course Death tried to address.
I asked, what if in a country where the constitution grants protection from discrimination due to religious or gender reasons, a religion discriminates because of gender?
Both blizzard and Death said, that there was no problem, because the women wouldn't be forced to be part of a specific religious community.
That point isn't valid, of course, because you are never forced to be part of anything - you can always go elsewhere, leave, if somewhere for some reason your rights are violated. If a woman is molested in some dive, well, she did voluntarily come in there didn't she?
To make it clearer, I gave this list:
Quote:
a) a non-muslimic woman applies for a high-ranking job in a muslimic led outfit. She's denied due to women are not allowed in leading positions for religious reasons.
b) a muslimic woman applies for the same job in the same outfit and doesn't get the job, because she shouldn't even apply as a muslim.
c) a muslimic woman applies for a leading job in a non-muslimic led outfit and is denied the job because as a muslimic woman she isn't allowed to lead and is therefore not qualified.
d) a non-muslimic woman applies for a leading job in a non-muslimic led outfit and is denied the job because the outfit deals with other muslimic outfits, who for religious reasons won't accept a woman in a leading position. If that's nolt enough the outfit claims the same rights than the other outfits, and if that's still not enough the boss switches to muslim religion.
and asked whether there was still no problem, getting no answer from blizzard and a no from Death.
Now the interesting thing here is, that seemingly they don't have a problem with the fact, that although the constiturtion protects against discrimination because of religion or gender, all cases ends with a woman applying for a job is not getting it because of either her religion or her gender. Surely that should raise one or another question?
To make the point a bit more pronounced: Some religions demand draconic penalties for "certaimn sexual behaviour". I suppose, no one would say, that members of such a religion who do sin that way should suffer the penalties for that - a modern state doesn't tolerate killing homosexuals for religious reasons.
You have to ask, though, if it doesn't tolerate killing, why does it tolerate oppressing or discriminating?
Obviously, we have an unspoken addition in our Western civilization constitution that says, yes, we grant religious freedom, but only within the borders of existing laws. Oppression and discrimination of another gender is against existing laws.
The consequent application of Western state laws inevitably clashes with the consequent application of certain religiously based and motivated social structures.
Look at case d. We have the paradoxical situation that if a muslimic woman would go to court because she was hit heavily by her husband and lost due to the fact that the husband is allowed to hit her because she didn't obey him as she should, all other husband might claim the same thing for themselves because they can't be discriminated for religious reasons.
Clearly, this means. that the law must be the law, no matter the religion of the persons involved, and that means that everyone has to abide to the law, no matter what their religion says.
Which is where all the social dynamite is coming from.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 10:11 AM |
|
|
Quote:
That point isn't valid, of course, because you are never forced to be part of anything - you can always go elsewhere, leave, if somewhere for some reason your rights are violated. If a woman is molested in some dive, well, she did voluntarily come in there didn't she?
...
No. Not at all. That's not even close to being similar.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
