Side discussion about General Topics forum

[GoldenRivet]

I'm just gonna put this out there. Seems to fit the situation...




.... This is all George W. Bush's fault.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

I understand, but just how many times has anyone changed your opinion in a forum discussion? Was I able to open your eyes to gun rights? Or being a conservative? Or choosing Dr Pepper over ale?

Actually...in gun rights...I don't really understand it, but in a way I do, I understand that it's something to do with the history of America in that the fear of a tyrannical government is a pervasive part of the American mind and society, and thus the right to bear arms is a method of combating the likelihood of this, a sort of extreme version of 'governments should fear their people', plus they help serve as a sort of informal militia in the unlikely event that the US is ever invaded by a foreign power.
What I fail to see is how it still works in a modern society with weapons technology far evolved beyond the simple rifle, a tyrannical government, if in control of its military, could kill its citizens far beyond the range of the longest ranged rifle. That being said, I guess there is some comfort and protection from it...however, the biggest problem that really needs to be drilled into people is securing the weapon and better mental health care.
What I do object to is the false myths (such as DJ Kelleys Nazi rant) and the failed arguments that some pro-gun advocates put forward.
Honestly, I think America is going to have to do a bit of soul searching in the future, because there is a big split between left and right wing parties, and although there are plenty of moderates, the extremists are shouting louder than they are...just like in most things in life I suppose.

In regards to conservatism, that's a little harder, it's not an easy thing to change a persons ideology, although I have undergone a slow transformation from being quite left wing to more centerist. I hung around on a forum with quite a lot of young left-wing idealists, and to say that they were annoying would be a bit of an understatement, so that put me off the far left somewhat. There are things I agree and disagree with, a centralised planned economy for example is something I think that is unworkable, however I do believe in the nationalisation of certain vital industries, things like healthcare, transport, and utilities, namely because I don't believe that big companies are capable of operating with the consumer in mind instead of their profits (admittedly most governments are the same which makes nationalisation just as ineffective) and in a sector were things are vital for people means that the companies would have a stranglehold over it which means that they could charge what they want. Obviously introducing competition into the factor would help matters, but the unfortunately as we've seen in the UK, corruption soon swiftly kicks in.
In short, both systems are flawed, but I tend to lean more center left than right, but I can still understand the conservative viewpoint in some matters.
In regards to Dr Pepper...actually, you're preaching to the choir there, unfortunately I've had to switch to caffeine and sugar free coke because too much of the two have had some bad side effects for me.
I'm not much of an alcohol drinker, only on special occasions.

What I do dislike and try to combat is extremism in any forms, I find it gives a certain viewpoint a bad name and discourages people from it.
I am pro-animal rights, but I find PETA are a PITA, and there are plenty of other examples, I am not a Muslim fanatic apologist, I find what ISIL is doing morally repugnant, but I don't blame the worlds followers of Islam for it.
I also dislike racism and bigotry, I think that we were all born equal on this planet, and there is no reason to differenticate because of race, social status, beliefs or sex. It's a shame that there are many (too many) out there who do.

Oberon, I respect you a lot. You have good intentions but if you believe the "cycle of hatred" is stronger than tolerance and understanding, then you must believe your cause is doomed. Don't worry, it isn't. It's just never going to be easy, never going to be finished. The righteous will have to be the strong and the understanding as well.

Aye, you're probably right there, but it's an exhausting process and I guess I just need a rest from the fight.

And when someone is bombarding you with their message, then you can see they are simply setting themselves up to be viewed as a narrow-minded extremist. But either ignore them ( a powerful tool) or counter their arguments with your own, but let's try to avoid labeling them. That's a technique that can be used inappropriately to isolate and dismiss. For one thing, calling someone a name does not necessarily make it true. For example, Tim may agree with BossMark that deporting the families of terrorists is a valid concept. Joe is welcome to say, "no, it isn't" and explain why. But Tim should not be called a bigot or xenophobe. Maybe Tim is a recent legal immigrant, or maybe he's a volunteer for homeless people, or special needs children. Does he need to advertise all this simply to counter Joe's accusation? (In this case, Tim is me )

Certainly there sometimes a rush to label people, I think it's part of the human brains desire to compartmentalise information, and this can lead to a lot of misunderstandings. Sometimes though you do have to call a spade a spade, but not repeatedly and not as an action of dismissal because that is a cheap way of trying to end an argument. In Tarjaks case I don't think that he was attempting to end the argument (because I think he would be rather optimistic if he thought that it would end like that) but instead he was stating that the viewpoint put forward by Skybird is incredibly similar to that of a bigot, or as he had already stated, an extremist. Unfortunately though, in the heat of such discussions some errors can be made, and I think that Tarjak just got a little off center, as he once said to me "Aim for the ball, not the bowler"

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Well apart from vuvuzuelas.....by being muslims

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=171598

I think that's the one that Tribes is referring to, but sadly since he is allergic to links I can't be sure...

[Platapus]

If we can just get the members of this site to understand that they don't have to respond to a post they don't agree with.

This is a website about video games. No one wins any discussion about politics or world events on this site.

I am pretty confident that the world's leadership is not monitoring GT to get information to form their policies.

If people keep responding to these types of postings, the thread lives far too long. Let the people vent their OPINIONS. No one has to respond.

But if we encourage people to vent their opinions in a manner we don't like, we can't be surprised if they continue to do so.

Response is what feeds them.

Threads that people don't respond to, move further down the list until they are forgotten.

Just remember that opinions are like farts

Every rectum has them
To every one else they stink
In polite society it is often better to keep them to yourselves.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

I'm going to say this again, if only to ensure I am being more clear: stop calling names. In every argument or discussion there are 2, 3 or more sides, and yours is not by law morally superior. You need to make your point without labeling the other member. Dismissing someone as a "bigot" is a lazy way to win an argument; you are really just trying to shut down the discussion.

If someone does post something with racist hatred, it will be pretty clear; what they say will reveal them.

If I've crossed a line the infract, brig or keelhaul me for it. If I see bigotry then I call it what it is. Whether you or anyone else call it lazy, I don't care.

If you're happy for Subsim to be a vehicle for hate, then that's fine I 'll be on my way.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Fair enough, thanks for clarifying. However, I think we disagree on that idea that if you are a Muslim, you have to practice everything in the Koran to the nth degree. I know a lot of Christians who profess belief and faith, yet they ignore many parts of the Bible. Which is a good thing, so let's not antagonize them over it. And I think millions of Muslims are the same. They would prefer to live peaceful lives, and they will "interpret" some of the more insane parts of the Koran in a more favorable light, just like the Christians I mentioned.

Tell me, if you take away key parts of the glad tidings, of the four gospels to be precise, if you take away the content of Christ's preachings, the sermon on the mount, the cleaning of the temple - what then is left of the Christian message that makes those following that rest worth to be called "Christians"?

There is a reference in the name "Christians" that points to Christ himself. And when you refuse to follow his preachings, the inner attitude he hoped to cause in people, then you are not "Christian" at all.

Muhammad's teaching was very different to that of Jesus. Because he was a warlord and bandit leader. Take away key parts of his message that meant to form totalitarian unity and absolute loyalty of his warriors - what then is left of him that is worth to be called "Muhammedan"? And what other parts are there in the koran, both the mekkanese and the medinese suras, that are not originating directly in muhammad? None.

Many people expect Islam to reform itself. But how could that come about when Islam always is allowed to sneak out of its responsibility of being the motivator and basis of all the grim things it brings over mankind? why should it - when the "radicals"are allowed to not being seen as a not only legitimate but the real face of Islam? Their murdering of apostate-muslims from korann's point of view is legal, and even demanded. They - moderate muslims - were and are a threat to the totalitarian claim of Muhammad/Islam. Lets set an example to scare all others - lets kill them!

I knew half a dozen former Muslims who became apostates. Two of them said that the meeting with me and the debates resulting :-) had a major causal effect on them in forming their decisions. They both gave up their families, parents, friends. They hid, too, they had to. And this here in Germany, 21st century. Huge pain to their conscience, you can imagine. And yet they told me that I did them right in not letting them escape the unpleasant implications of their former "compromise" solution of not following the koran, but still calling themselves "Muslim". But they had stopped to be Muslim long time before.

Both have left Germany meanwhile, saying that it was no longer safe for them here.

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Well apart from vuvuzuelas.....by being muslims

Imposible, the natives in South Africa are Christian/Tribal*






*I know it's not called tribal, there's just to many indiginous religions to type down.

[Skybird]

And another thing, since Neal mentioned name calling.

As I briefly explained in the other thread, a phobia refers to an ill state of mind, a state of a mental disorder, so to speak, considering the irrational nature of the fear that the term "phobia" means. Calling people xenophobic or Islamophobic just because they criticse islam with solid and founded argument, not only tries to attack them by labelling them to be mentally deranged of some kind, it also has an ironic implication that these clever guys do not seem to realise. By claiming the other is xenophobic they necessarily imply that themselves they are representing the "healthy" opinion there is, that their view is the result from being mentally sane, and criticising their views only is possible for an ill person, a mentally unhealthy person, when the other suffers from a kind of mental derangement or mental irrationality bordering to that.

I find that kind of "demonisation" especially underhanded. It compares to past times when people tried to defame critics or rivals to be heretics so that they got pulled away or burnt as heretics.

Maybe that is what makes it so effective and so so much used by the Islam-defence lobby.

Having been the target of Islamic hostility and death threats myself and having worked with people who became victims of Islamic bullying and intimidation and assaulting on the street when I helped in a Bürgerinitiative battling against an attempt of collusive mosque-increasement over here, I make special mental notes of people behaving in this way of trying to replace argument with simple character assassination. They do not realise how absolute they rate their own view to be - while accusing the other to be intolerant. If that is not some grim irony, then I maybe do not correctly understood what the term irony means. It compares to demanding death for all who doubt that Islam is a tolerant and peaceful religion.

[Wolferz]

We become.

Hate is negative. Let it go or it will consume you.

collusive mosque-increasement

Burn the heretics!

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Ah there is the problem. You think your arguement is solid and well founded.
The truth is your argument is full of holes and built on very dodgy foundations.

You keep saying that. Could you possibly show it?

[Onkel Neal]

Well, remember, this thread is not about what we are discussing, but how we are discussing it.

[Armistead]

Neal, would love to see a "anything goes" thread......Be interesting if people could really express themselves what they would say....

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

How many times do I have to show that the 3 sura that deal with apostacy specify a punishment which is not death?
The same claim will be made again repeatedly regardless of that little inconvenience, they will still obstinately insist that the Koran specifies death.

Oh, you've said it a great many times. You haven't shown any actual evidence even once.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Are you back in your habitual phase?

If you mean am I still waiting for you to provide a link or back up your claims whenever you assault someone, then Yes.