Multiculturing Interculters Cross Cultures

[Shogun]

Shogon: Life is short, time is valuable, and my abilities in debate are modest. My main interest on this Board is to exchange information with other conservatives, and also, perhaps, to influence them a bit on certain questions where we disagree among ourselves; as a secondary interest, I enjoy debating with certain thoughtful non-conservatives -- in theory I hope to push them rightwards a little, but in practice I have to admit to engaging with them just for the pleasure of the mental exercise, like playing tennis against a good player.

Now, in theory, I know I should always do someone who attacks my views the courtesy of paying attention to them and replying. But I am afraid I will often fall short here, if I think that there is little of substance in their attack, or if I think that they lack seriousness about the views the purport to hold. But you may parse this as, "if I think that their attack is so devastatingly brilliant that I am unable to answer it, and must retreat before it in stunned silence".

I also note that we seem to be at the opposite ends of the ages of man, and what interests and impresses the slow-moving elderly, probably bores restless adolescents. So we would have a communication problem in any case. I do not mean to discourage you from engaging in political debate, though: our country needs its young people to be involved in politics.

dude, i'm 30. If you came here to speak ONLY with other conservatives then you've come to the wrong forum. Hell, all I asked for was a single specific example of your charge against liberals and you don't consider such a request "serious"? for a guy who is often rather long winded in his posts you sure are a pushover in debate. One might think that you would shine like a beacon of conservatism if it were the case that you could reply to my request with evidence instead of a towel thrown into the ring. Hopefully, you don't mind when I give you the same butterfly and bee treatment the next time you post something stupid about liberals while having no desire to prove your point beyond tired rhetoric.



by the way, You have an awfully saccharine way of saying uncle.

 

[midcan5]

Shogon: Life is short, time is valuable, and my abilities in debate are modest. My main interest on this Board is to exchange information with other conservatives, and also, perhaps, to influence them a bit on certain questions where we disagree among ourselves; as a secondary interest, I enjoy debating with certain thoughtful non-conservatives -- in theory I hope to push them rightwards a little, but in practice I have to admit to engaging with them just for the pleasure of the mental exercise, like playing tennis against a good player.

I think it was Freud who said, 'the very best we can do is to be honest with ourselves.' So come on, be honest, you post to show us 'America hating liberals,' your words, how wonderfully bright and historically accurate you conservatives are.

 

[Doug]

Okay, okay. Give me a few minutes.

 

[Doug]

<b>Shogun</b>: Okay. Let's take one issue at a time. How about this one:

I said:

If the overwhelming majority of Muslims were vehement supporters of secular democracy, there would be no problem. But that isn't true.

You said:

Show me your source. I've got 20 cents that says you don't have one that suggests any such thing outside of silly conservative rhetoric.

In order that neither of us can slip out this argument through lawyer's arguments over definitions, I will be more concrete and specific:

(1) I will confine my assertions to Muslims who live in the United Kingdom. There is a significant population of Muslims here, and they have been here a long time. There are many second-generation Muslims here, born and raised in the UK, educated in its secular school system. It's a country that conducts polls frequently, so we can probably get some definite answers about Muslim beliefs.

(2) By "overwhelming majority" I will settle for 85%. But if you think this is too strong, we can negotiate.

(3) By "support secular democracy" -- I will give up the requirement that they do so "vehemently" -- I mean answering questions like the following:

----- (a) They want to live under secular law, and do not want to see Sharia law introduced into any part of the United Kingdom.

----- (b) They would not like to see Britain become an Islamic state.

----- (c) They would answer "no" to the question "British people who insult Islam should be arrested and prosecuted".

----- (d) They would answer "Were not justified" when asked "To what extent do you agree that the July 7th bombings were justified because of British support for the war on terror?"

Now I claim that the overwhelming majority -- 85% or more -- of British Muslims do not adhere to these positions. You claim, or at least strongly imply, that they do, and have twenty cents that says I have no sources for my belief.

Twenty cents is not very much. I propose that we make it one hundred dollars.

Then there is the question of deciding who is right. No man should be a judge in his own cause, so I propose that we choose someone on this board who is willing to be the judge, and who we both agree is fairminded. Then we each send them $100 and let them decide. Winner gets his money back plus the other fellow's.

How about it?

 

[midcan5]

ridiculous.
How many liberals do you think are at all willing to suspend applicable laws in order to facilitate muslims over christians? How many LIBERALS do you see trying to rationalize a muslim father in a western nation who killed his daughter because of her attire? NONE? praytell, if you can show me ANY liberals who argued that muslims should be allowed to follow their religious law ABOVE the constitutional laws of the nation please do so. Otherwise, your silly post confuses willing religious and cultural tolorance for a double standard. I assure you that anything that applies to the Eric Rudolphs will also apply to killer Mohammeds... Not that you can sift through comments made after Van Gogh's death, or ANYTHING similar, and find representative liberals defending his MURDER. But, again, I'll toss down this gauntlet and DARE you to prove me wrong.

Indeed, if you want to see callous justification at its worst try bringing up Rachel Corrie to a circle of conservatives.

Doug,

I won't speak for Shogun but the above questions were the ones I was waiting with bated breath for - it didn't come - instead you are going to base your argument on some survey? "If you think the United States could never elect an Adolf Hitler to power, note that David Duke would have become governor of Louisiana if it had just been up to the white voters in that state." So given Robert Altemeyer's quotation can I then say that America is a Nazi loving nation? Using your constant twisting of logic I think that is fair assessment, don't you. Or maybe Louisiana has changed? You must remember those soldiers standing at the school doors in the sixties/seventies. Was that bad liberalism at work you think?

Your arguments rarely are honest or straightforward as they seem to be motivated only by your hatred of liberalism.

"....another component of liberalism: its deeply-rooted anti-Western assumptions, which see the West, and its capitalist system, as the source of the world's evils. Thus liberals try to ignore the growth of Islamic power in Europe, despite its deeply illiberal character, as we have seen in this thread. Truly, as James Burnham noted half a century ago, liberalism is the ideology of Western suicide." (Doug)

What are those assumptions? A half century ago, or maybe a little later, conservatives came to power, Reagan/Thatcher/Bush and in my opinion it has been downhill ever since. I still would like to see the answers to the original questions. Some historians mark Reagan as the end of the golden age, the piece below deals with economics, it deals with the one aspect of civilized life that can create real change not always for the good.

Posted in religion: slightly OT but relevant to this discussion.
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=108

 

[Foxfyre]

Doug,

I won't speak for Shogun but the above questions were the ones I was waiting with bated breath for - it didn't come - instead you are going to base your argument on some survey? "If you think the United States could never elect an Adolf Hitler to power, note that David Duke would have become governor of Louisiana if it had just been up to the white voters in that state." So given Robert Altemeyer's quotation can I then say that America is a Nazi loving nation? Using your constant twisting of logic I think that is fair assessment, don't you. Or maybe Louisiana has changed? You must remember those soldiers standing at the school doors in the sixties/seventies. Was that bad liberalism at work you think?

Your arguments rarely are honest or straightforward as they seem to be motivated only by your hatred of liberalism.

"....another component of liberalism: its deeply-rooted anti-Western assumptions, which see the West, and its capitalist system, as the source of the world's evils. Thus liberals try to ignore the growth of Islamic power in Europe, despite its deeply illiberal character, as we have seen in this thread. Truly, as James Burnham noted half a century ago, liberalism is the ideology of Western suicide." (Doug)

What are those assumptions? A half century ago, or maybe a little later, conservatives came to power, Reagan/Thatcher/Bush and in my opinion it has been downhill ever since. I still would like to see the answers to the original questions. Some historians mark Reagan as the end of the golden age, the piece below deals with economics, it deals with the one aspect of civilized life that can create real change not always for the good.

Posted in religion: slightly OT but relevant to this discussion.
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=108

I think it necessary to point out that the demographics of Louisiana show 65+&#37; white; 31+% black, this according to the most recent figures posted by the U.S. Census bureau. It is therefore a clear fallacy that ". . .David Duke would have become governor of Louisiana if it had just been up to the white voters in that state." That simply is not true. And as the demographics show that the black population has been increasing over the last couple of decades, that would suggest that an even higher percentage of the population was white when David Duke ran for governor. It was a strong majority of white voters plus black voters who defeated him. (Admittedly Duke has garnered a majority of white votes in one election he ran for, but he received one twentieth of one percent of the vote when he ran for President.)

And, to say Doug has a 'strong hatred of liberalism' based on what you posted is laughable. One can strongly hold conservative values without 'hating' its antithesis.

Without qualification, even with our softened value system, I can agree that the United States would never vote Adolph Hitler to power. Will that always be the case? If we continue to dilute our ethics and value system with increasing multiculturalism, I think it won't be long before we start electing enough really harmful people to high office that it would be possible to elect another Hitler or worse. Right now our personal freedoms are our best defense to protect ourselves against that.

 

[Shogun]

<b>Shogun</b>: Okay. Let's take one issue at a time. How about this one:

I said:

You said:

In order that neither of us can slip out this argument through lawyer's arguments over definitions, I will be more concrete and specific:

(1) I will confine my assertions to Muslims who live in the United Kingdom. There is a significant population of Muslims here, and they have been here a long time. There are many second-generation Muslims here, born and raised in the UK, educated in its secular school system. It's a country that conducts polls frequently, so we can probably get some definite answers about Muslim beliefs.

(2) By "overwhelming majority" I will settle for 85%. But if you think this is too strong, we can negotiate.

(3) By "support secular democracy" -- I will give up the requirement that they do so "vehemently" -- I mean answering questions like the following:

----- (a) They want to live under secular law, and do not want to see Sharia law introduced into any part of the United Kingdom.

----- (b) They would not like to see Britain become an Islamic state.

----- (c) They would answer "no" to the question "British people who insult Islam should be arrested and prosecuted".

----- (d) They would answer "Were not justified" when asked "To what extent do you agree that the July 7th bombings were justified because of British support for the war on terror?"

Now I claim that the overwhelming majority -- 85% or more -- of British Muslims do not adhere to these positions. You claim, or at least strongly imply, that they do, and have twenty cents that says I have no sources for my belief.

Twenty cents is not very much. I propose that we make it one hundred dollars.

Then there is the question of deciding who is right. No man should be a judge in his own cause, so I propose that we choose someone on this board who is willing to be the judge, and who we both agree is fairminded. Then we each send them $100 and let them decide. Winner gets his money back plus the other fellow's.

How about it?

No, what you said was:

post #45
Finally, referring to a previous question: how many here think it might be a very good thing for Mohammed to become the most common male name in Britain?

post #59
So, what is the problem that can arise if Britain becomes a nation of Mohammeds?

One problem is this: Muslim culture seems resistant to the idea of the rule of law. And the rule of law, more so than democracy, is a quintessential ingredient for a civilized society based upon democratic freedoms. I say "resistant" and not "totally hostile to", because the rule of law is such an attractive idea for all except the strongest (who find themselves restrained by it), that it has begun to permeate non-European cultures too. At first, only lip service is paid to it. But this is a first step.

So the fear is, as Muslims grow in numbers and influence in Britain, so also will these backward Islamic values grow. Already, writers in Britain are afraid to satirize Islam, for fear of both murderous Muslim retaliation against them, and the actions of the Politically-Correct Thought Police here. (And this, despite Britain having a rich tradition of anti-religious satire -- remember the brilliant Life of Brian. A similar film making fun of Mohammed is now utterly inconceivable.)

Liberals, who have been at the forefront of defending individual freedoms, certainly more so than conservatives, should, by logic, be the first to be concerned about this. After all, Islamists share a number of socially-conservative positions with Christian fundamentalists. Both might be happy with a strict censorship that prevented satirization of religion.

post #69
I say liberals are indifferent to the growth of an immigrant population which itself, as a collective entity, is far from unanimously opposed to that law.

This is why it is perfectly justified for anyone with a brain, who supports the rule of secular law and liberal democracy, to be worried about the growth of the Muslim population in Europe.

If the overwhelming majority of Muslims were vehement supporters of secular democracy, there would be no problem. But that isn't true.


Furthermore, liberals -- or rather, the West-hating Politically Correct Thoughtpolicemen among them, who are numerous -- work in tandem with Islamists, by supporting Thoughtcrime prosecutions against people who raise doubts about the reality of multi-culturalism. More importantly, the liberal intelligentsia who run our educational and political systems are committed to multi-culturalism, which means the praise of every culture except the indigenous one. We can see their counterparts in this very thread. Thus Islamism is filling a vacuum in a society whose spokesmen have lost confidence in it.


Already, Islamists have effectively forbidden public satire aimed at their religion in Britain. Playwrites know that they risk death if they disobey this unofficial, but deadly real, dictat.

What percentage thought that their cause was just?

What percentage of Muslims in Britain think of themselves as Muslims first, and British second?

What percentage would like to see Sharia law introduced into parts of Britain?

Answers to all the above questions can be found in links in the posts referenced above. In a day or two I will supply the figures for those too ... busy ... to check the links for themselves.



So, Again, I'll invite you to post your evidence that shows:

A) Liberals have no problem with letting muslims replace constitutional liberty with sharia law and readily accept sharia law while spurning christians who try the same thing every day in America. In fact, wasn't it you who suggested that Western Christians DONT try to impose their dogma onto public policy?

B) The popularity of a name has anything to do with a negative impact of the application of sharia law

C) Muslims in Europe are pawing their grubby hands together just waiting to rob you of your LEGAL SYSTEM by *GASP* influencing the common culture

D) and the biggy, that ANY LIBERALS applauded the death of theo vangogh as righteous retribution for a slight against islam, OR ANY OTHER EXAMPLE OF THE SAME, while being too scared to lampoon the muslim religion.


Again, spare me the dance and prove your statements instead of trying to reform your position. I've quoted your words and have been specific with what, exactly, you've said that is partisan bullshit. Maybe once you manage that we can resume this gentleman's bet. Otherwise, the irony of bringing up lawyer's definitions is not lost on me.

 

[Shogun]

Fox, I've given you specific quotes from Doug who seems to think that Liberals are just OK with the application of sharia law over Constitutional law. That Liberals don't care when the Theo Van Goghs are murdered in the streets. That a fucking NAME means anything to public policy. If that doesn't strike at partisan hatred of liberalism to you then so be it.

Maybe you can show me evidence of such silliness since he has failed to do so.

 

[Doug]

The attitudes of white Southerners <i>are </i>significant. Being one myself, I have a special interest in them.

They have been evolving, for decades, in the direction of the sort of tolerant and democratic norms I want to see everywhere. They did this, in part, under the intense pressure of enlightened liberal public opinion. You never read a liberal saying that a poor ignorant white Klan member was just reacting to his bad social circumstances, that we had it coming to us if he set off a bomb somewhere, look what we did to the South under Occupation, etc. No, the liberal condemnation of Southern white racism was total and unrelenting, without a scintilla of "understanding" -- would that liberals had the same attitude to Islamism today!

Anyway, whatever was directed at Southern whites, it seems to have had a lot of success.

I was particularly heartened to see Louisiana, where David Duke had so much support just a few years ago, elect the son of Indian immigrants Bobby Jindall, a Republican, to the governorship of that state -- and shame on the Democratic Party for always naming him by his Hindu first name, Piyush, and, or so it has been reported, Photoshopping the pictures of him on their leaflets to make his skin appear darker.

Now how is this relevant to Muslims in Europe?

The implied argument is either:

--these people in Louisiana are or were bad and intolerant, so it's okay for Muslims to be bad and intoterant (the Aztecs' revenge argument, addressed earlier),

or

--Southern whites used to be bad and intolerant, but they have become better. Therefore, all intolerant people will become better, regardless of the social and historical circumstances in which they currently exist, the nature of their intolerance, etc.

In other words: I knew someone who was ill, and they got better. So if someone else is ill, they will also get better.

Maybe I should make that bet $200, and let MidCan have a piece.

 

[Doug]

Ah, Shogun. I have taken a specific question, and addressed it to you. But you seem not to have noticed it. Look at it, because you have an opportunity to take $100 from me -- or more, if you like.

I, and other conservatives here, like Foxfyre, have argued that the growth of the Muslim population in Europe is something we should be concerned about, because a significant number of these Muslims bear deep-seated political attitudes that are at variance with those necessary for a liberal democracy.

I believe that you, and MidCan, (and others?) disagree. You either deny that such attitudes exist in a significant number of Muslims, or -- so I have gathered from your posts, but it is hard to be certain -- you see this as some sort of retribution for what the West has done to Third World countries, or -- again, it requries some interpolation and sympathetic interpretation to draw this out of your argument -- you say that any backward attitudes Muslims bring with them to Europe will be easily changed, that Muslims will simply become Europeans who happen to worship Allah, with no significant differences otherwise to those Europeans who are Jews, Christians, or non-believers.

So, to try to get away from generalities, I posed you a question. I said that if the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Europe were vehement supporters of liberal democracy, I would not have any worries. But they are not, so I do.

I then tried to frame this in a testable way, in the best Popperian tradition: I refined my argument to UK Muslims, I defined "overwhelming majority" as 85&#37; or more (but I am willing to bargain on this and might accept a lower figure), and I specified "support of liberal democracy" as a set of questions.

I will repeat those questions here -- if the overwhelming majority of British Muslims adhere to the norms of liberal democracy, then we would find that:

----- (a) They want to live under secular law, and do not want to see Sharia law introduced into any part of the United Kingdom.

----- (b) They would not like to see Britain become an Islamic state.

----- (c) They would answer "no" to the question "British people who insult Islam should be arrested and prosecuted".

----- (d) They would answer "Were not justified" when asked "To what extent do you agree that the July 7th bombings were justified because of British support for the war on terror?"

Now, time to put up or shut up.

I claim that you will not find an overwhelming majority of British Muslims passing those tests.

And, by implication you (and MidCan too, I think) claim that you will.

So, put your money where your mouth is.

(I see that MidCan is smart enough to see what's coming, and is trying to wriggle out of the cross-hairs by dismissing "surveys". Well, how else are we to know what Muslims think, except by, in a systematic and scientific way, asking them? Should we suck their opinions out of our thumbs? Or construct them based on wishful thinking?)

 

[Shogun]

The attitudes of white Southerners <i>are </i>significant. Being one myself, I have a special interest in them.

They have been evolving, for decades, in the direction of the sort of tolerant and democratic norms I want to see everywhere. They did this, in part, under the intense pressure of enlightened liberal public opinion. You never read a liberal saying that a poor ignorant white Klan member was just reacting to his bad social circumstances, that we had it coming to us if he set off a bomb somewhere, look what we did to the South under Occupation, etc. No, the liberal condemnation of Southern white racism was total and unrelenting, without a scintilla of "understanding" -- would that liberals had the same attitude to Islamism today!

really? NEVER see liberals make such consessions? Well holy frickin cowpie, dude! Today must not be your day with the timeshare brain. Let me demonstrate to you, by quoting myself, how stpid your lebieral hating vitriol is.



I'm not sure which party is more racist but I am glad that we've come to a point where racism for the sake of hatred doesn't sell in political platforms anymore. Certainly, Robert Byrd(D) has got to go. While I can fathom the influence of the Klan to a young white man in the south during that period of history I choose to apply the same standard to him that I did to Strom Thurman (R) who was probably just as much a product of the timeframe from which they developed. I think that George Allen (R) lost his bid for the senate because of his macaca comment and I can believe that he used the word ****** in college. Again, I'm betting that such was the result of the SOUTH more than particular party affiliation. Just as Mitt Romney became governor of Mass. on a socially liberal platform (pre-08 election) it seems that location has more to do with the tone of a political message than party. Sure, Reps and Dems may offer different avenues and options but, again thankfully, racism for the sake of hatred is no longer a selling platform.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=52062&page=3




So, Doug, WHY do you keep avoiding the responsibility of backing up the specific charges you've made against liberalism and sharia law? WHY IS IT that you have dexterity enough to type long winded crap that sidesteps a confrontation with your own words? Have I quoted another Doug on this forum? Are you NOT the guy who said the above? Who made, and continues to do so, astonishingly stupid accusations regarding liberal tolorence, nay WILLING SUBMISSION, to sharia law?


Why, Doug?

 

[Foxfyre]

Fox, I've given you specific quotes from Doug who seems to think that Liberals are just OK with the application of sharia law over Constitutional law. That Liberals don't care when the Theo Van Goghs are murdered in the streets. That a fucking NAME means anything to public policy. If that doesn't strike at partisan hatred of liberalism to you then so be it.

Maybe you can show me evidence of such silliness since he has failed to do so.

I agree with Doug that there are liberals who think Sharia law is just fine and it should not be interfered with, nor do we have anything to fear from it. Have you not suggested as much yourself? How many liberals in this forum alone do you think would take Israel's side and proclaim their government to be significantly more fair and less discriminatory than that of their neighbors, especially the Palestinians? How many liberals will say or have said that compared to most Middle East countries, the UK or the United States is a shining beacon of truth, justice, and liberty for all?

One difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals seem to mostly consider anything criticizing liberalism to be hatred of liberals. It is my observation that should I criticize a liberal concept, I will be personally criticized, even attacked, by most liberals who respond. Little defense of the liberal concept will be offered, but rather the argument will be deflected to some conservative concept or action that will be attacked. I'm guessing most liberals on the forum can't or won't name a single conservative radio or TV talk show host that they don't describe as 'spewing hate' or some facsimile of that.

Conservatives consider denigration of conservatives to be hateful, but not criticism of conservative values for which most conservatives love to provide a defense. I know Doug to be a person who is not dogmatic or excessively protective of any ideology and who views those who are, including conservatives, as rationally or ideologically suspect. He does espouse mostly conservative ideals and I would bet a steak dinner that he can provide a well reasoned rationale for each one that he holds.

I get very weary of those who label critics of anything as haters or fearmongers.

 

[Shogun]

Ah, Shogun. I have taken a specific question, and addressed it to you. But you seem not to have noticed it. Look at it, because you have an opportunity to take $100 from me -- or more, if you like.

I, and other conservatives here, like Foxfyre, have argued that the growth of the Muslim population in Europe is something we should be concerned about, because a significant number of these Muslims bear deep-seated political attitudes that are at variance with those necessary for a liberal democracy.

I believe that you, and MidCan, (and others?) disagree. You either deny that such attitudes exist in a significant number of Muslims, or -- so I have gathered from your posts, but it is hard to be certain -- you see this as some sort of retribution for what the West has done to Third World countries, or -- again, it requries some interpolation and sympathetic interpretation to draw this out of your argument -- you say that any backward attitudes Muslims bring with them to Europe will be easily changed, that Muslims will simply become Europeans who happen to worship Allah, with no significant differences otherwise to those Europeans who are Jews, Christians, or non-believers.

So, to try to get away from generalities, I posed you a question. I said that if the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Europe were vehement supporters of liberal democracy, I would not have any worries. But they are not, so I do.

I then tried to frame this in a testable way, in the best Popperian tradition: I refined my argument to UK Muslims, I defined "overwhelming majority" as 85% or more (but I am willing to bargain on this and might accept a lower figure), and I specified "support of liberal democracy" as a set of questions.

I will repeat those questions here -- if the overwhelming majority of British Muslims adhere to the norms of liberal democracy, then we would find that:

----- (a) They want to live under secular law, and do not want to see Sharia law introduced into any part of the United Kingdom.

----- (b) They would not like to see Britain become an Islamic state.

----- (c) They would answer "no" to the question "British people who insult Islam should be arrested and prosecuted".

----- (d) They would answer "Were not justified" when asked "To what extent do you agree that the July 7th bombings were justified because of British support for the war on terror?"

Now, time to put up or shut up.

I claim that you will not find an overwhelming majority of British Muslims passing those tests.

And, by implication you (and MidCan too, I think) claim that you will.

So, put your money where your mouth is.

(I see that MidCan is smart enough to see what's coming, and is trying to wriggle out of the cross-hairs by dismissing "surveys". Well, how else are we to know what Muslims think, except by, in a systematic and scientific way, asking them? Should we suck their opinions out of our thumbs? Or construct them based on wishful thinking?)

I have neither suggested or hinted that the application of Sharia or any muslim law takes precedence over constituional law. In fact, the Opposite is quite true. In fact, maybe you'd like to QUOTE ME saying anything even close to what you've just insinuated (for the sake of sidestepping my criticism of your stupid liberal hating posts, non less). I"VE taken the time to quote your specific words now let's see you do the same. You see, Doug, THIS is what we call EVIDENCE. PROOF. Something more tangible than your lame asses hatred of liberalism.

Further, I have not suggested that the west DESERVES Theo VanGogh's murder. Please, QUOTE ME saying as much. In fact, AGAIN, the opposite is true because IM the one challenging YOU to post a single example of a liberal applauding VanGoghs murder based on YOUR assertion that liberals love this kind of retribution. Again, QUOTE ME and prove your accusation or stop saying stupid shit.

Notice, ONCE AGAIN (for the thrid time in this post actually) that I'm inviting you to prove me wrong by posting my own quotes as evidence. We both know that you won't because we both know that such has never been my position in this thread. Pretty much like we both know that claiming as much is a sorry assed attempt to deflect my criticism of your stupid rants against liberals.

But, for the fourth time, quote me and prove me wrong.

My position in this entire thread has been that sharia law does not trump Constituional law. Quote me suggesting otherwise. Hell, for that matter, quote any LIBERAL that suggests otherwise. the popularity of a muslim name has as much affect on forcing sharia law as any other immigrant community with a foot in homeland cultures in a western democracy. Can you name ONE liberty that you are legally stripped of for the sake of mulsims? No? Can you name ONE liberty that has been replaced with Sharia law? Just one. Come on, dude, you screamed that the sky is falling so let's see you produce a chunk of star.

Muslims will influence host western cultures just like EVERY OTHER immigrated identity. Yours is the same xenophoic paranoia that caused whitey to fear desegregation.

Significant differences? Oh, you mean like the difference that culture will go through regardless of the partiular characters giving input? Im guess that you don't sport the same cultural fashion and act like britons did a mere 100 years ago, eh? SCARY, isn't it? Boofuckinghoo, you might have to acknowldge that muslims are a viable part of your population. Seriously, starving ethiepians are crying for you. Really. "Significant differences" is not the APPLICATION OF SHARIA LAW. Maybe you can be specific and tell me exactly what you consider significant. I bet 1950's whitey was unwilling to let their white daughters marry black savages too but, thankfully, we've moved beyond that kind of stupidity in the States. If britons have a jellyfish backbone and won't lampoon Allah it's not becuase the LEGAL SYSTEM keeps you from doing so out of respect for Sharia law. it's because, as usual, Britons are pussies.'


ps, isn't it funny how you suggested that western christians don't try to impose their dogma into public policy and I pointed out how stupid that opinion is? I notice you spent no time making another similar stupid statement.




I will repeat those questions here -- if the overwhelming majority of British Muslims adhere to the norms of liberal democracy, then we would find that:
----- (a) They want to live under secular law, and do not want to see Sharia law introduced into any part of the United Kingdom.
----- (b) They would not like to see Britain become an Islamic state.
----- (c) They would answer "no" to the question "British people who insult Islam should be arrested and prosecuted".
----- (d) They would answer "Were not justified" when asked "To what extent do you agree that the July 7th bombings were justified because of British support for the war on terror?"


HA! SURE, dude.. and those shifty eyed ******* should have just been content with not being on the cotton field instead of creating such a ruckus in the 60s! Please tell me that you are not ASSUMING your entire position based on the results of one survey. PLEASE tell me that you are not that stupid. PLEASE tell me that you are not GUESSING that 85% of the muslim population wants to impose sharia law instead of constitutional law based on a source like that. Further, why don'y you go on to explain jut how your one survey says anything about the motives of liberal tolorance.


Not to mention that you sure have fallen into quite a logical fallacy, Doug. I suggest you go back and read up on Research Methods and the pliability of statistics and the weakness of surveys before I have to take your hundred dollars from you.



Fallacy: False Dilemma
A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of "reasoning":

1. Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false).
2. Claim Y is false.
3. Therefore claim X is true.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html


Evidence, Doug. Try it.

 

[Doug]

Got nuthin', huh?

 

[Shogun]

1 I agree with Doug that there are liberals who think Sharia law is just fine and it should not be interfered with, nor do we have anything to fear from it. Have you not suggested as much yourself? How many liberals in this forum alone do you think would take Israel's side and proclaim their government to be significantly more fair and less discriminatory than that of their neighbors, especially the Palestinians? 2 How many liberals will say or have said that compared to most Middle East countries, the UK or the United States is a shining beacon of truth, justice, and liberty for all?

3 One difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals seem to mostly consider anything criticizing liberalism to be hatred of liberals. It is my observation that should I criticize a liberal concept, I will be personally criticized, even attacked, by most liberals who respond. 4 Little defense of the liberal concept will be offered, but rather the argument will be deflected to some conservative concept or action that will be attacked. I'm guessing most liberals on the forum can't or won't name a single conservative radio or TV talk show host that they don't describe as 'spewing hate' or some facsimile of that.

5 Conservatives consider denigration of conservatives to be hateful, but not criticism of conservative values for which most conservatives love to provide a defense. I know Doug to be a person who is not dogmatic or excessively protective of any ideology and who views those who are, including conservatives, as rationally or ideologically suspect. 6 He does espouse mostly conservative ideals and I would bet a steak dinner that he can provide a well reasoned rationale for each one that he holds.

7 I get very weary of those who label critics of anything as haters or fearmongers.

1. Prove it. Give me ONE example of any liberal who thought that the death of Theo VanGogh was righteous karma. Until you can do that your belief means two things; One starts with J and the other with S. People BELIEVE in bigfoot too. Guess what that belief means to zoologists.

2. Regarding Israel you chose a bad example because I can give you more examples of Israeli racism than you, or the zionists, can prove otherwise without resorting to the Scarlet A. As far as the US is concerned there are many liberals who do not agree with foreign policy and can comprehend the effect of such without having to wave a flag or attach 50 lapel pins but I DEFY you to find one America liberal who will roll over and let Sharia law trump our Constituional law as applied to the entire population of the United States. I am no more interested in FORCING a muslim-american into ignoring their religion as I am going to FORCE The Amish into a Circuit City. That tolorance for the self imposition of Sharia on MUSLIM communities is not an excuse to ignore AMERICAN legal standards. Find me ONE liberal who suggested that the mulim who killed his daughter for wearing western clothes was correct in his actions and should be immune to our legal reprocussions. JUST ONE. Again, I don't care if your boogeyman paranoia makes you think the worst of liberal just because they are not as rabid and quick to scapegoat mulsims. Just step on up and do whta Doug refuses to do and PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF SUCH.



3. If you have criticism and a VALID EXAMPLE OF SUCH then I'd have to debate the example. As it is, Doug doesn't even TRY to give an example of anything he suggests about liberals. Nothing. Not a single fucking iota of proof. Notice that when I criticize anyone, including Israel, I ALWAYS post evidence. Go back through this very thread and show me where either of you have provided such while going hogwild in demonizing mulsims and liberals. If you don't see how such blanket generalization based on absolute poppycock amounts to hatred then let me apply the same tone to your identity affiliations and see how you rationalize such empty vitriol.


4. You must not pay attention. I've stated before my eventual admiration for Pat Buchanan. I routinely mention Boortz on the fair tax threads because he comes on right after Savage in these here parts. Bill Oreilly is my noontime lunch hour. There are middle of the road liberals who are open to conservative ideas. Hell, you clearly are not familiar with my great abortion compramise. You must not try to pay too much attention when liberals defend traditionally conservative issues like the second amendment. Why don't you start paying attention instead of getting back into that 04 polarized vibe?


5. CLEARLY your criteria does not extend to conservatives talking generalized shit on liberals. If you think your side likes to debate the issue rather than the political ideology then you sure as hell haven't been reading Doug's posts regarding liberals and sharia law. Why else do you think he avoids my challenge of posting evidence like the devil himself? Hint: it's not because "Conservatives consider denigration of conservatives to be hateful, but not criticism of conservative values for which most conservatives love to provide a defense.". I'm not even insulting anything conservative by asking Doug to back up his stupid assertions. Nor, is generalizing some phantom benevolence to "conservatives" any more true than generalizing the same to "LIBERALS". Can you prove as much? Where is your data that suggests that such is true? Is it easier to ASSUME as much because you identify with that side of the spectrum? Praytel, if you have EVIDENCE then whip that shit out and show Doug how it's done.

6. Well, then I anxiously wait on baited breath for ole Doug to step up and prove the specific stupid assertions that Iv'e already highlighted. Until he decided to step up instead of play dodge ball you might be out a steak dinner.



7. ME TOO. I know all to well what thats like evertime I point out a flaw of Israel. Notice, though, that I'm not calling Doug out on his fear of muslims. I'm calling doug out to provide evidence for the specific stupid shit that he's suggested bout liberals and sharia law. Specifically, I've asked what liberties have ever been suspended from Constitutional law for the sake of Sharia law AND to name a single liberal that thinks Sharia law should trump Western laws. Ive been very clear about this to the point of redundancy. Maybe you'll fill in his blank.

 

[Shogun]

Got nuthin', huh?

Apparently, I've got my scope locked on a giant vagina a little too scared to address the accusations of his own stupid words.

Were you able to comprehend my post, and the direct challenge to support evidence for your claims, or is this where you break off into another deflective tangent?


dance, boy, DANCE!





So, are you admitting that you are ASSUMING the motivation of 85&#37; of the muslim population in Brittain BASED ON A SINGLE SURVEY then?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH!


I guess your ability to back up your silly opinion is about as significant as toothpaste in the Uk.

 

[AllieBaba]

I think there are zoologists who do believe in Bigfoot...

 

[Shogun]

Is asking for evidence of such, by this pint in the thread, deserving of a rim shot?


did you know that Missouri had an "Elvis is Alive" museum? It was quite an attraction in the 80s but kinda tapered off in the 90s. Very kitchy. I'm reminded how some people also believed the king was alive but, alas, had to face their eventual disapointment and accept the truth of the matter.

http://www.theelvisisalivemuseum.com/


(Evidence, Doug, that's what it looks like.)

 

[midcan5]

I think it necessary to point out that the demographics of Louisiana show 65+% white; 31+% black, this according to the most recent figures posted by the U.S. Census bureau. It is therefore a clear fallacy that ". . .David Duke would have become governor of Louisiana if it had just been up to the white voters in that state." That simply is not true. And as the demographics show that the black population has been increasing over the last couple of decades, that would suggest that an even higher percentage of the population was white when David Duke ran for governor. It was a strong majority of white voters plus black voters who defeated him. (Admittedly Duke has garnered a majority of white votes in one election he ran for, but he received one twentieth of one percent of the vote when he ran for President.)

And, to say Doug has a 'strong hatred of liberalism' based on what you posted is laughable. One can strongly hold conservative values without 'hating' its antithesis.

Without qualification, even with our softened value system, I can agree that the United States would never vote Adolph Hitler to power. Will that always be the case? If we continue to dilute our ethics and value system with increasing multiculturalism, I think it won't be long before we start electing enough really harmful people to high office that it would be possible to elect another Hitler or worse. Right now our personal freedoms are our best defense to protect ourselves against that.

Foxfyre,

In a strange, in the back door sort of way we are getting to the point. My examples are not to persuade you or anyone else, they are merely to point to situations in our own country that can be interpreted as Doug and you interpret Muslims. Your arguments are my arguments. Let me see if I can make this clear. I am only using extremists because Doug is using extremists. Are you sure Hitler would never have been elected here. (Actually if you have some time read about Fascism in America during the GD, FDR, a brilliant liberal handled that situation well.) But you both imply Muslims will, unlike our own kooks rise up and create a world caliphate. Funny how that particular fear is often present in the American psyche, it is usually directed at the UN or some imaginary world system. Again allow me to draw on real world experience, years ago Blacks were going to rise and war against the US. It didn't happen, any idea why? Doug and you would have loved that as it would have given you something to rail against.

You are wrong on the Duke quotation, and your last paragraph is contradictory. Multiculturalism in and of itself is no danger, those 'values' you talk about can be the scary piece if they don't allow freedom and tolerance.


"Duke lost the election by a wide margin. Edwards received 1,057,031 votes (61.2 percent). Duke's 671,009 votes represented 38.8 percent of the total. Duke claimed victory, saying, "I won my constituency. I won 55 percent of the white vote," which he had, as exit polls confirmed. In actuality, Duke had done little better in percent terms than the first major Republican gubernatorial candidate in modern Louisiana history, Charlton Lyons, had done in 1964."

http://www.answers.com/topic/david-duke

And Doug's anti liberal posts and snide remarks are too prevalent to mention. But I do the same. Mea culpa.

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfyre,

In a strange, in the back door sort of way we are getting to the point. My examples are not to persuade you or anyone else, they are merely to point to situations in our own country that can be interpreted as Doug and you interpret Muslims. Your arguments are my arguments. Let me see if I can make this clear. I am only using extremists because Doug is using extremists. Are you sure Hitler would never have been elected here. (Actually if you have some time read about Fascism in America during the GD, FDR, a brilliant liberal handled that situation well.) But you both imply Muslims will, unlike our own kooks rise up and create a world caliphate. Funny how that particular fear is often present in the American psyche, it is usually directed at the UN or some imaginary world system. Again allow me to draw on real world experience, years ago Blacks were going to rise and war against the US. It didn't happen, any idea why? Doug and you would have loved that as it would have given you something to rail against.

You are wrong on the Duke quotation, and your last paragraph is contradictory. Multiculturalism in and of itself is no danger, those 'values' you talk about can be the scary piece if they don't allow freedom and tolerance.


"Duke lost the election by a wide margin. Edwards received 1,057,031 votes (61.2 percent). Duke's 671,009 votes represented 38.8 percent of the total. Duke claimed victory, saying, "I won my constituency. I won 55 percent of the white vote," which he had, as exit polls confirmed. In actuality, Duke had done little better in percent terms than the first major Republican gubernatorial candidate in modern Louisiana history, Charlton Lyons, had done in 1964."

http://www.answers.com/topic/david-duke

And Doug's anti liberal posts and snide remarks are too prevalent to mention. But I do the same. Mea culpa.

I wonder if you would judge the remarks 'snide' if they suported your point of view? I'm not making a judgment on that. Just expressing my general rhetorical opinion that it is common to judge that with which we disagree more harshly than that with which we agree. And as you honestly expressed, I include myself in that demographic. Yes, mea culpa.

Yes there was a massive backlash in some areas against desegregation--I saw it in places I lived. I saw people trying to round up enough support to buy a house to keep a black family out of a neighborhood. And usually this was less a prejudice against blacks than a desire to preserve property values in the neighborhood. As silly as it was, the reality was that a large number of blacks moving into all white neighborhoods was causing the whites to flee and property values to plummet. As affirmative action was breaking down other barriers the white backlash intensified. Racism and desegregation has not been an easy process in this country, and until we finally got through all that, a certain constituency did see David Duke as somebody who would roll all that back. A whole lot of those folks have evolved nicely, however, and would not see David Duke that way now and would not vote for him. I do remember how horrified the Republicans were when Duke changed his party affiliation. The GOP wanted no part of him, but there is no mechanism for ejecting somebody from a political party.

And though I have no way of knowing, I don't know how reliable exit polls are to show that a majority of whites ever voted for Duke though. If we believe exit polls, John Kerry won the last presidential election by a healthy margin. But it's possible that a majority went for Duke, so I won't speculate.