Page 10 of 18 [ 276 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 18  Next

DC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Aug 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,477

21 Mar 2012, 8:21 am

ReindeerRoger wrote:
I keep up with a local gay newspaper & www.tumblr.com/tagged/lgbtq . . . the most sustained, pervasive, and blatant issues surrounding intolerance towards gay people has to do with more radical versions of Christianity, e.g. Republicans, Evangelists.


That may be the case over in the US but it certainly isn't the case in Europe.

Quote:
Uganda is a good example of a Christian regime actively oppressing gay people. This occurs in Muslim areas as well, but it's not a uniquely Muslim problem.


At no point have I ever claimed that homophobia is a 'uniquely muslim problem'.

Quote:

I think you're working to hard to find general statements about Muslims, and then you're overly determined to make them seem different from other people. 3rd world countries all have lower qualities of life, not just the Muslim ones.

The laws that describe why homophobic violence is wrong are all written into legal codes everywhere.


Ha!
In muslim countries with Sharia homosexuality is legally punishable by death. You may want to retract that statement or would you like me to provide you with a list?

Why not go here (a canadian website) and read the full translation of Iran's laws on homosexuality.

http://www.irqr.net/islamicpunishment-e.htm

Article 110: The hadd [punishment] for lavat where penetration has occurred is death and the method of execution is at the discretion of the Sharia judge.

Quote:
They seem to barely ever be enforced, so I'm not really surprised those hate crimes in Amsterdam went un-observed.


Erm, Amsterdam used to be the gay capital of Europe, the most progressive, tolerant and relaxed city you could ever wish to visit. I lived in Holland for a few years a couple of decades ago and can assure you that they would not have been relaxed about any form of hate crime.

Quote:

But it's not only the Muslim ones that aren't dealt with. The problem is criminals, not Muslims. And if you're looking at Muslims with blinders on, it's Muslims who use their religion to justify criminal behavior, not the religion. The problem is criminals, not Muslims, and can be addressed by the better enforcement of existing laws on everyone who breaks them.

Isolating Muslims as violent etc. as if they are the only violent people in the world is a deliberate attempt to dehumanize them. But you only really succeed at dehumanizing people who do unhuman things.


I do not isolate muslims as the only violent people in the world, but on a thread discussing the problems associated with Islam in Europe, it is perfectly fair to focus on Islam and muslims.

I do not feel the need to constantly point out the evils of factory farming in a person's thread about gay rights and neither does anyone else, so why the double standards when it comes to criticism of Islam?



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

21 Mar 2012, 9:14 am

This is all really interesting.

Sure, both Christians and Muslims have used religion to oppress women and homosexuals. What is odd is that one religion has a scriptural basis for it and the other does not.

The New Testament does not call for stoning women accused of adultery, nor does the New Testament prescribe any kind of punishment for homosexuality. All the NT says on the matter is abstain from sexual immorality--and that extends to any kind of extramarital heterosexual intercourse as well as all homosexual relations. Only the Old Testament calls for death of adulterers and homosexuals, the latter being a pagan practice not to be tolerated in a Hebrew theocracy. Since the NT doesn't set up any kind of theocracy, then punishment for or tolerance of homosexuality is strictly left up to the dominant culture and the government in place at any given time. But even if homosexuality is tolerated within the culture, that doesn't mean that it is proper behavior for Christians. The Bible promotes an equal share in marital relations between men and women; even the NT mandate that wives submit to husbands is tempered by the opposite mandate that men love their wives and be willing to die for them. The only thing even remotely "oppressive" is the instruction that women should not be religious teachers over men, which many interpret as women should not be lead pastors in a church (though it is not a prohibition against women teaching/preaching at all, but rather an indication of the specificity of the context in which women should be allowed to serve. There are examples in the NT of women prophesying and serving as deaconesses in addition to other important leadership roles. Even Miriam in the OT was highly regarded as a priestess).

Women apparently do not have the same status in the Koran. The condemnation of homosexuals in the Koran is basically a cut-and-paste from the Old Testament story of Lot. In actual practice, Islamic countries can pretty much do what they want with homosexuals. What I find fascinating about this whole thing is people are so quick to sing the praises of Islam being a peaceful religion and they don't even bother reading scripture. It's always been about killing the unbelievers or bringing them under submission. Not even the Westboro nuts will go that far, but rather stay just inside the law as a protest movement.



spongy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,055
Location: Patiently waiting for the seventh wave

21 Mar 2012, 9:17 am

We dont have anything pro/against any religion.

That being said when you accuse a mod of being racist and several personal attacks are exchanged we all get a link to look at things to see if the mod went too far... this topic seemed interesting so I thought Id join in.

I encourage you to reduce the personal attacks on a mod if you dont want other mods to have a look at your thread.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

21 Mar 2012, 9:57 am

DC wrote:
I beg to differ, she is strangely absent on almost all threads about Christianity but always shows up to take a pop at Tequila when the subject of Islam comes up.


Did I mention she 'anonymously' claimed I had Borderline Personality Disorder?



Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 65,510
Location: Over there

21 Mar 2012, 9:59 am

Tequila wrote:
DC wrote:
I beg to differ, she is strangely absent on almost all threads about Christianity but always shows up to take a pop at Tequila when the subject of Islam comes up.
Did I mention she 'anonymously' claimed I had Borderline Personality Disorder?
That was posted in an ANONYMOUS thread.


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

21 Mar 2012, 10:01 am

Cornflake wrote:
That was posted in an ANONYMOUS thread.


It's still a slur and trivialises the genuine victims of BPD.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

21 Mar 2012, 10:04 am

DC wrote:
If nice middle class white Canadian women were being treated in the same way by white men, Hyperlexian would be furious but because they are muslim women it's too culturally sensitive.

It is a totally racist viewpoint that puts rights for white women far above rights for muslim women.

How else would you describe it puddingmouse? Hyperlexian is perfectly happy to wax lyrical about womens rights just so long as nobody mentions Islam. The second Islam comes up Hyperlexian tells us we should not discuss it and be more concerned with issues closer at home.


Precisely.

White Canadian/British/European (non-Muslim) men should be vilified for abusive and violent behaviour - and rightly so. Muslim men who do far worse to their own womenfolk in both Islamic countries and how this abhorrent and vile treatment is an officially practised, encouraged and endorsed part of state culture? Let's not talk about that too much. She's like a copy of The Guardian made flesh in her double standards and hypocrisy.



Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 65,510
Location: Over there

21 Mar 2012, 10:09 am

Tequila wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
That was posted in an ANONYMOUS thread.
It's still a slur and trivialises the genuine victims of BPD.
So it's now no longer about you? Which grievance to you want to air?

Here it is again: "i think you have Borderline Personality Disorder".
Looks pretty innocuous to me.


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

21 Mar 2012, 10:10 am

Cornflake wrote:
Here it is again: "i think you have Borderline Personality Disorder".
Looks pretty innocuous to me.


I don't have BPD. Using genuine disorders as insults is offensive to victims who actually have it.

Not too difficult to understand, is it?



Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 65,510
Location: Over there

21 Mar 2012, 10:11 am

Tequila wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
Here it is again: "i think you have Borderline Personality Disorder".
Looks pretty innocuous to me.
I don't have BPD. Using genuine disorders as insults is offensive to victims who actually have it.

Not too difficult to understand, is it?
Again: it was an ANONYMOUS comment.


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

21 Mar 2012, 10:13 am

puddingmouse wrote:
It was more a statement of 'remove the beam from your own eye', than one that said 'Muslim women are different and you're not qualified to discuss them, ever'.

And why hasn't she locked this thread? That's because she's participating in the discussion, not moderating it. As for those other threads, I won't comment on that without them in front of me, but they were almost certainly locked because a rule break had occurred. If you break the rules, your thread gets locked. We don't go around locking threads simply because we disagree with them.


I find it problematic based on that the type of "deflection" or "red-herring" play she engages in is the same play that anyone to the left of center on the topic of multiculturalism or Islam goes to. There was a report from Norway where 100% of assault rapes in an area were done by men of "non-western" origin, the first comment was from a leader of an immigrant organization which went "well, we estimate that 16000 rapes occur every year, so Norwegian men rape too!"

If we were having a conversation about how horrid American beer is and some person chimed in "you know, Canadians make crap beer too" its not relevant to the discussion.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

21 Mar 2012, 10:14 am

Cornflake wrote:
Again: it was an ANONYMOUS comment.


Is it OK to 'anonymously' make libellous comments in that thread?

That thread is a place for mud-slinging that you don't have the balls to do face-to-face.

Frankly I think hyperlexian is unfit for the task of moderator and needs to be deposed.



spongy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,055
Location: Patiently waiting for the seventh wave

21 Mar 2012, 10:16 am

Tequila wrote:
DC wrote:
If nice middle class white Canadian women were being treated in the same way by white men, Hyperlexian would be furious but because they are muslim women it's too culturally sensitive.

It is a totally racist viewpoint that puts rights for white women far above rights for muslim women.

How else would you describe it puddingmouse? Hyperlexian is perfectly happy to wax lyrical about womens rights just so long as nobody mentions Islam. The second Islam comes up Hyperlexian tells us we should not discuss it and be more concerned with issues closer at home.


Precisely.

White Canadian/British/European (non-Muslim) men should be vilified for abusive and violent behaviour - and rightly so. Muslim men who do far worse to their own womenfolk in both Islamic countries and how this abhorrent and vile treatment is an officially practised, encouraged and endorsed part of state culture? Let's not talk about that too much. She's like a copy of The Guardian made flesh in her double standards and hypocrisy.


Havent seen her say anything of the sort ever, feel free to post a link where she actually says that(ie not one of you putting words in her mouth) *and Ive talked with her for a while but let us just assume that she did say it at some point:

How is that any different to your racism towards muslims?. Why are you picking on her supposed hatred for caucasian males when you are doing the same thing on Muslms?.

*if said link doesnt exist thats a personal attack and if she had anything against you she could send you a last warning and ban you right away



Last edited by spongy on 21 Mar 2012, 10:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

DC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Aug 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,477

21 Mar 2012, 10:16 am

spongy wrote:
We dont have anything pro/against any religion.

That being said when you accuse a mod of being racist and several personal attacks are exchanged we all get a link to look at things to see if the mod went too far... this topic seemed interesting so I thought Id join in.

I encourage you to reduce the personal attacks on a mod if you dont want other mods to have a look at your thread.


Fair enough.

For the record, I do still stand by my accusation of racism though.

I would like to know how exactly one looks at the scale and seriousness of abuse of religious minorities, women and homosexuals that are endemic across not just Islamic countries but the majority of Islamic culture and decide that it is of lesser importance than the persecution these groups face in western secular societies.

The only way that view logically holds together is if the suffering of a white Canadian woman is far more important than the suffering of an Afghan muslim woman.

By definition, that is racism.

I don't think it's fair to labour this point any further in Hyperlexian's absence, so I'll shut it until she has had time to respond.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

21 Mar 2012, 10:19 am

spongy wrote:
How is that any different to your racism towards muslims?


I'll answer the rest later but just for you, I'll point this out...

Islam is not a race. It is a religion (some might call it a cult). Big difference.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

21 Mar 2012, 10:24 am

TM wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
It was more a statement of 'remove the beam from your own eye', than one that said 'Muslim women are different and you're not qualified to discuss them, ever'.

And why hasn't she locked this thread? That's because she's participating in the discussion, not moderating it. As for those other threads, I won't comment on that without them in front of me, but they were almost certainly locked because a rule break had occurred. If you break the rules, your thread gets locked. We don't go around locking threads simply because we disagree with them.


I find it problematic based on that the type of "deflection" or "red-herring" play she engages in is the same play that anyone to the left of center on the topic of multiculturalism or Islam goes to. There was a report from Norway where 100% of assault rapes in an area were done by men of "non-western" origin, the first comment was from a leader of an immigrant organization which went "well, we estimate that 16000 rapes occur every year, so Norwegian men rape too!"

If we were having a conversation about how horrid American beer is and some person chimed in "you know, Canadians make crap beer too" its not relevant to the discussion.


the reason people continously say that they arent alone is because they arent, do you knwo how much of a sub section fo norway they talked about?
1 county probably, sometimes as small as 3000 people in norway so among those 3000 the only rape that occured was by an immnigrant and suddenly you claim a 100%?

if it was a town then there are plenty with a size of a hundred and fifty people.

but in essence the reason why it pisses me off to see people demonize a single culture, even if deserved to a greater or lesser extent is that they rarely take care of their own shortcomings before trying to find a scapegoat for the worlds troubles.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.