Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Spectator UK)   RIP, diversity of opinion (1770-2014)   (spectator.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Sad, free speeches, English Defence League, New York Times best-seller, New Statesman, Brandeis University, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, diversity, Leveson Inquiry  
•       •       •

6070 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Apr 2014 at 1:21 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



744 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-18 04:32:36 PM  
 
2014-04-18 04:33:40 PM  

whidbey: Wow. It goes from 659 to 492 comments with trolling dipshiat removed from the grid. Something to think about.


Yes, life is much easier when you stick your fingers in your ears and your feet over your eyes, and then go lalalalalalalalalalalalalalala.  I CAN'T HEAR YOU.  I CANT' SEE YOU. HAHA!
 
2014-04-18 04:35:24 PM  

HeartBurnKid: lantawa: HeartBurnKid: lantawa: Again I say to you and others who are locked into your echo chambers: Stop being totally dogmatic dicks, and start showing some intellectually integrated perceptual abilities. You are capable of such, so practice it, and stop with the sneering contemptuous approach to those with whom you disagree. You are truly interfering with societal advancement when you do this, i.e., fail to contemplate alternative viewpoints.

You might start with the man in the mirror there, Mr. "Liberal Baathism".

Catch up.  This thread has evolved well past that post to which you are responding.

Yes, I'm aware that you've continued to bring the crazy since that post.


Yeah.  That wiki article is really cray cray   *rolls eyes*
 
2014-04-18 04:40:27 PM  
 
2014-04-18 04:46:23 PM  

Gulper Eel: Infernalist: I won't begrudge anyone the right to speak whatever they believe, but at the same time, I'm sure as hell not going to be friendly and welcoming to people who make it plain that their viewpoints and intentions are at odds with my own life.  So, no, you can't come to my party.  Not yours.

Except that the press and academic institutions pitch themselves as the places where ideas are to be openly debated  without reprisals - but when push comes to shove, institutions like Brandeis side with the people doing the pushing and shoving.

The idea is that you should  expectyour positions to be challenged, welcome it, and be ready to debate - not to smugly strut off flatly stating that no debate is necessary.

Shouting down the opposition is a coward's move. It's a minor-league variation on what those batshiat Koran-felchers in Tehran did to Rushdie.


This would not have been a "debate" at Brandeis, but a rant against Islam by someone who (understandably) has a serious beef with what she perceives as "Islam". The people who mutilated her were not adherents of Islam, even though that is what they called themselves. Her gripe is about a bunch of bastard misogynists hiding behind the Koran to exercise their brand of evil.
If this were to be an actually debate, then an Imam or two - true scholars of the faith - should have been invited along to refute her statements about that religion. That is how these things are supposed to work... but this was not going to happen, there was going to be no "open debate", and so Brandeis shut it down.
 
2014-04-18 04:50:47 PM  

lantawa: HeartBurnKid: lantawa: HeartBurnKid: lantawa: Again I say to you and others who are locked into your echo chambers: Stop being totally dogmatic dicks, and start showing some intellectually integrated perceptual abilities. You are capable of such, so practice it, and stop with the sneering contemptuous approach to those with whom you disagree. You are truly interfering with societal advancement when you do this, i.e., fail to contemplate alternative viewpoints.

You might start with the man in the mirror there, Mr. "Liberal Baathism".

Catch up.  This thread has evolved well past that post to which you are responding.

Yes, I'm aware that you've continued to bring the crazy since that post.

Yeah.  That wiki article is really cray cray   *rolls eyes*


FFS, nobody is saying Baathism doesn't exist.  They're just saying that your attempt to smear American liberals as having anything in common with Baathist is ridiculous, and your either being disingenuous or insane.  The more of your rantings I read, the more I think the latter.
 
2014-04-18 05:09:09 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: And how do you "defeat" Islam without murdering a lot of people? You really think the Ayotallahs etc. would be more than happy to ease up on the fundamentalism if we just "Jebusplained" things to them?You can do a to to encourage the Muslim world to reconsider its attitudes but you'll never "defeat" anyone with force.


Putting aside the question of why we should have to justify Western views to Islamist butchers in the first place...let's start with the speech she would have given if the Brandeis student body and administration weren't such a bunch of pissy little snowflakes. (Since it's a WSJ link, Fark shiatcanned the URL but here's the copy)

Today, however, I am going to predict a better future, because I believe that the pendulum has swung almost as far as it possibly can in the wrong direction.

When I see millions of women in Afghanistan defying threats from the Taliban and lining up to vote; when I see women in Saudi Arabia defying an absurd ban on female driving; and when I see Tunisian women celebrating the conviction of a group of policemen for a heinous gang rape, I feel more optimistic than I did a few years ago. The misnamed Arab Spring has been a revolution full of disappointments. But I believe it has created an opportunity for traditional forms of authority-including patriarchal authority-to be challenged, and even for the religious justifications for the oppression of women to be questioned.

Yet for that opportunity to be fulfilled, we in the West must provide the right kind of encouragement. Just as the city of Boston was once the cradle of a new ideal of liberty, we need to return to our roots by becoming once again a beacon of free thought and civility for the 21st century. When there is injustice, we need to speak out, not simply with condemnation, but with concrete actions.

One of the best places to do that is in our institutions of higher learning. We need to make our universities temples not of dogmatic orthodoxy, but of truly critical thinking, where all ideas are welcome and where civil debate is encouraged. I'm used to being shouted down on campuses, so I am grateful for the opportunity to address you today. I do not expect all of you to agree with me, but I very much appreciate your willingness to listen.

I stand before you as someone who is fighting for women's and girls' basic rights globally. And I stand before you as someone who is not afraid to ask difficult questions about the role of religion in that fight.

The connection between violence, particularly violence against women, and Islam is too clear to be ignored. We do no favors to students, faculty, nonbelievers and people of faith when we shut our eyes to this link, when we excuse rather than reflect.

So I ask: Is the concept of holy war compatible with our ideal of religious toleration? Is it blasphemy-punishable by death-to question the applicability of certain seventh-century doctrines to our own era? Both Christianity and Judaism have had their eras of reform. I would argue that the time has come for a Muslim Reformation.

Is such an argument inadmissible? It surely should not be at a university that was founded in the wake of the Holocaust, at a time when many American universities still imposed quotas on Jews.

The motto of Brandeis University is "Truth even unto its innermost parts." That is my motto too. For it is only through truth, unsparing truth, that your generation can hope to do better than mine in the struggle for peace, freedom and equality of the sexes.


--

In other words, we start defeating Islam (and by the way, defeating all the other fundamentalisms as well, be they religious or political), by not being so farking touchy when our beliefs are challenged, and instead to give as good as we get. We demonstrate to the Islamic world that the individual matters more than the tribe, that we farking revel in vigorous debate, that we never EVER mince words lest we give 'offense', and in so doing we ensure that both our earthly and spiritual existences are richer as a result.

We start defeating Islam by insisting on the demonstrable superiority of secular humanism, specifically that while you may live your life by the Qu'ran if you wish, you may not legislate by the Qu'ran - or any other holy text. Religion and its more superstitious manifestations are not compatible with good law. Period. If you wish to publicly identify with your faith, you don't get to shut down criticism of that faith.

And you start defeating Islam by not infantilizing individual Muslims. Anything you would gladly use to challenge Sarah Palin, you use to challenge the imam who showed up in Amsterdam or London or Jersey City figuring he could just spout the same bullshiat that wowed 'em back home.
 
2014-04-18 05:10:22 PM  

rewind2846: This would not have been a "debate" at Brandeis, but a rant against Islam


Well, I've just posted her text and don't you feel silly now?
 
2014-04-18 05:14:17 PM  
My non-existent god, you people are still standing on the bridge and tossing dead chickens to the troll? Sigh, c'mon, Fark. You're better than this.
 
2014-04-18 05:20:57 PM  

HeartBurnKid: lantawa: HeartBurnKid: lantawa: HeartBurnKid: lantawa: Again I say to you and others who are locked into your echo chambers: Stop being totally dogmatic dicks, and start showing some intellectually integrated perceptual abilities. You are capable of such, so practice it, and stop with the sneering contemptuous approach to those with whom you disagree. You are truly interfering with societal advancement when you do this, i.e., fail to contemplate alternative viewpoints.

You might start with the man in the mirror there, Mr. "Liberal Baathism".

Catch up.  This thread has evolved well past that post to which you are responding.

Yes, I'm aware that you've continued to bring the crazy since that post.

Yeah.  That wiki article is really cray cray   *rolls eyes*

FFS, nobody is saying Baathism doesn't exist.  They're just saying that your attempt to smear American liberals as having anything in common with Baathist is ridiculous, and your either being disingenuous or insane.  The more of your rantings I read, the more I think the latter.


Persons in this thread asked for citations.  I gave them citations.  In particular, the wiki citation has enormous credibility.  This result, the result being continued name-calling and insults, is what I expected, but I did, in fact, want to be certain that there was NO DOUBT that I literally *WON* the debate in regards to this topic. What I claim in this thread is true.  Eastern and Western marxism and socialsim have, in fact, had influence on each other.  Baathism is a part of that admixture.  Now that I have proven it with citations, let's see your citations that DISPROVE it.  You, and others who have dogmatically attacked me, cannot disprove it, because it has in fact been demonstrably provable   Specifically, I proved it, after fending off about a hundred childish remarks by ignorant and/or bad-intentioned persons.
 
2014-04-18 05:26:37 PM  

TellarHK: My non-existent god, you people are still standing on the bridge and tossing dead chickens to the troll? Sigh, c'mon, Fark. You're better than this.


You are the troll, or should I say one of the trolls; intellectual slobs who fail to answer or respond to legitimate citations that have been lain out before you in good faith.  Yes, why AM I throwing academic effort at idiots who are hurling dead chickens at me (pre-farked, I might add).
 
2014-04-18 05:28:50 PM  

Gulper Eel: rewind2846: This would not have been a "debate" at Brandeis, but a rant against Islam

Well, I've just posted her text and don't you feel silly now?


Still sounds like you're defending bigotry to me.

Not to mention white-knighting the paranoid idiots who wrote tfa.
 
2014-04-18 05:29:33 PM  

lantawa: HeartBurnKid: lantawa: HeartBurnKid: lantawa: HeartBurnKid: lantawa: Again I say to you and others who are locked into your echo chambers: Stop being totally dogmatic dicks, and start showing some intellectually integrated perceptual abilities. You are capable of such, so practice it, and stop with the sneering contemptuous approach to those with whom you disagree. You are truly interfering with societal advancement when you do this, i.e., fail to contemplate alternative viewpoints.

You might start with the man in the mirror there, Mr. "Liberal Baathism".

Catch up.  This thread has evolved well past that post to which you are responding.

Yes, I'm aware that you've continued to bring the crazy since that post.

Yeah.  That wiki article is really cray cray   *rolls eyes*

FFS, nobody is saying Baathism doesn't exist.  They're just saying that your attempt to smear American liberals as having anything in common with Baathist is ridiculous, and your either being disingenuous or insane.  The more of your rantings I read, the more I think the latter.

Persons in this thread asked for citations.  I gave them citations.  In particular, the wiki citation has enormous credibility.  This result, the result being continued name-calling and insults, is what I expected, but I did, in fact, want to be certain that there was NO DOUBT that I literally *WON* the debate in regards to this topic. What I claim in this thread is true.  Eastern and Western marxism and socialsim have, in fact, had influence on each other.  Baathism is a part of that admixture.  Now that I have proven it with citations, let's see your citations that DISPROVE it.  You, and others who have dogmatically attacked me, cannot disprove it, because it has in fact been demonstrably provable   Specifically, I proved it, after fending off about a hundred childish remarks by ignorant and/or bad-intentioned persons.


No, you proved nothing.  You linked to a wiki article that defined Baathism and pretended that somehow linked it to American liberalism, and followed it up with link after link of right-wing conspiracy derp.  You deserve every insult that has been heaped upon you in this thread.

Again, if you're upset about childish remarks by ignorant and/or bad-intentioned persons, start with the guy in the mirror.
 
2014-04-18 05:33:38 PM  

lantawa: .


lantawa: .

You are the troll


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-04-18 05:41:30 PM  

HeartBurnKid: No, you proved nothing.  You linked to a wiki article that defined Baathism and pretended that somehow linked it to American liberalism, and followed it up with link after link of right-wing conspiracy derp.  You deserve every insult that has been heaped upon you in this thread.

Again, if you're upset about childish remarks by ignorant and/or bad-intentioned persons, start with the guy in the mirror.


100% incorrect statement on your part. But you go with that if it puts you in good with your lowlife peer group.
 
2014-04-18 05:42:21 PM  
The poster right above me just said something really homoerotic and/or racist, didn't he?
 
2014-04-18 05:43:36 PM  

lantawa: HeartBurnKid: No, you proved nothing.  You linked to a wiki article that defined Baathism and pretended that somehow linked it to American liberalism, and followed it up with link after link of right-wing conspiracy derp.  You deserve every insult that has been heaped upon you in this thread.

Again, if you're upset about childish remarks by ignorant and/or bad-intentioned persons, start with the guy in the mirror.

100% incorrect statement on your part. But you go with that if it puts you in good with your lowlife peer group.


Look, I'll prove you're insane:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity

See?  Totally insane.  What, do you doubt my powerful and compelling wiki link?  Says it right there in black and white.  This is a completely good faith argument, and if you doubt it, you're just in dogmatic lockstep with your lowlife peer group.
 
2014-04-18 05:43:42 PM  

lantawa: TellarHK: My non-existent god, you people are still standing on the bridge and tossing dead chickens to the troll? Sigh, c'mon, Fark. You're better than this.

You are the troll, or should I say one of the trolls; intellectual slobs who fail to answer or respond to legitimate citations that have been lain out before you in good faith.  Yes, why AM I throwing academic effort at idiots who are hurling dead chickens at me (pre-farked, I might add).


Maybe I'm trolling a *little* bit, because I've had a bad week and you seem like a conveniently idiotic target to take a little frustration out on, sure. Which is why I'm bothering to post here, this throwing my own chicken over the side.

Your "citations" basically boil down to "They used the word 'Democratic' and got inspiration from some of the same sources that other people I object to did." as if thus suddenly made "Democratic" a bad word. It's no less a flawed association than the "Elite Republican Guard" makes Republicans a bunch of oppressive people crushing opposition.

People, myself included, are not taking your arguments seriously because you present what spurious facts you claim to have as incontrovertible evidence that they MUST lead to the end result of "OMG Baathist Muslims are taking over law enforcement!" with absolutely zero facts between "These names are similar in English!" and "OMG Baathists!"

So yeah, I'm trolling you. Others are trolling you. You're trolling right back with accusations of "intellectual laziness" or whatever the hell it is and calling us names like idiots (which many of us have returned the favor on) and slobs, which is just a personal attack with no merit or grounding in reality. At least when we call you an idiot, we can cite provable examples of your "logic" that lead us to say this.

You calling us slobs on the other hand, means you must be peeking in my window or something to see that it's almost 3PM and I haven't bothered to shower yet. That's creepy.
 
2014-04-18 05:45:43 PM  
 
2014-04-18 05:51:37 PM  

Herr_Teacher: lantawa:

[www.orangejuiceblog.com image 404x427]


You're just doing what you were trained to do.  Good jerb.  Pun'kin post, so shmart, very message!
 
2014-04-18 05:53:24 PM  
 
2014-04-18 05:59:43 PM  
 
2014-04-18 06:04:10 PM  

lantawa: HeartBurnKid: No, you proved nothing.  You linked to a wiki article that defined Baathism and pretended that somehow linked it to American liberalism, and followed it up with link after link of right-wing conspiracy derp.  You deserve every insult that has been heaped upon you in this thread.

Again, if you're upset about childish remarks by ignorant and/or bad-intentioned persons, start with the guy in the mirror.

100% incorrect statement on your part. But you go with that if it puts you in good with your lowlife peer group.

fc08.deviantart.net
 
2014-04-18 06:04:39 PM  

Gulper Eel: Barricaded Gunman: And who are these "other Republicans" who supported GM before Obama and Clinton?It's easy to express support when you have more to gain than to lose.


And its easy to have more to gain than to lose when your constituency isn't trying to get you to legislate bigotry.
 
2014-04-18 06:04:39 PM  

HeartBurnKid: lantawa: HeartBurnKid: No, you proved nothing.  You linked to a wiki article that defined Baathism and pretended that somehow linked it to American liberalism, and followed it up with link after link of right-wing conspiracy derp.  You deserve every insult that has been heaped upon you in this thread.

Again, if you're upset about childish remarks by ignorant and/or bad-intentioned persons, start with the guy in the mirror.

100% incorrect statement on your part. But you go with that if it puts you in good with your lowlife peer group.

Look, I'll prove you're insane:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity

See?  Totally insane.  What, do you doubt my powerful and compelling wiki link?  Says it right there in black and white.  This is a completely good faith argument, and if you doubt it, you're just in dogmatic lockstep with your lowlife peer group.


What I posted was a wikileaks article that was very comprehensive.  You have not read any part of that cited link, or you would not be posturing as you are.  What you posted was a silly effort at ridicule.  Big difference.
 
2014-04-18 06:12:42 PM  

lantawa: What I posted was a wikileaks article

You aren't making the compelling case you think you are super patriot.
 
2014-04-18 06:30:40 PM  

cchris_39: Infernalist: In short, bigotry is not a valid stance to take in society any longer and those that cling to it openly will suffer for it.

Hence the universal use of that term for any and all objections.

If you want the immigration laws enforced - BIGOT! (xenophobe),
If you oppose anything gay - BIGOT! (homophobe),
If you don't want to buy other people's birth control pills - BIGOT! (war on women),
If you think a viable fetus has the right to be born - BIGOT! (more war on women),
If you bring up black illegitimacy and drop out rates - BIGOT! (racist),
If you think you should have to prove who you are to vote - BIGOT! (more racist),
If you think white western culture has contributed more to humanity than all others combined - BIGOT! (extremely racist).

Pretty much any disagreement with the left will get you the bigot label in one form or another.

Also, if you're religious you can't possibly believe or enjoy science.

And if you think any government program should ever be cut or people should get to keep more of the money they earn, you're an evil straight from Dickens snatching the last morsel from a starving child.

If you think people can and should succeed on their own, you are dreaming of something foolishly "bootstrappy" that they cannot possibly be expected to achieve without government.

/proud bootstrappy bigot.


Good for you. You've managed to reimagine your assholishness as a special kind of victimhood that you can treasure. Most of us have to actually accomplish something so that we can feel special and set apart from the crowd. You managed it without that burden, though. Mazel tov!
 
2014-04-18 06:39:20 PM  

lantawa: HeartBurnKid: lantawa: HeartBurnKid: No, you proved nothing.  You linked to a wiki article that defined Baathism and pretended that somehow linked it to American liberalism, and followed it up with link after link of right-wing conspiracy derp.  You deserve every insult that has been heaped upon you in this thread.

Again, if you're upset about childish remarks by ignorant and/or bad-intentioned persons, start with the guy in the mirror.

100% incorrect statement on your part. But you go with that if it puts you in good with your lowlife peer group.

Look, I'll prove you're insane:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity

See?  Totally insane.  What, do you doubt my powerful and compelling wiki link?  Says it right there in black and white.  This is a completely good faith argument, and if you doubt it, you're just in dogmatic lockstep with your lowlife peer group.

What I posted was a wikileaks article that was very comprehensive.  You have not read any part of that cited link, or you would not be posturing as you are.  What you posted was a silly effort at ridicule.  Big difference.


Oh, is that what you meant when you just said "wiki" over and over and over again?  I completely missed that there was a wikileaks article in your hurricane of derp.  I thought you meant that wikipedia article on Baathism that you kept linking, since, you know, when normal people say "wiki", they usually mean "wikipedia".

Now that I've read your Wikileaks article, it's not particularly compelling either.  Here's what you're asserting, in syllogistic form:

Tony Rezko took a loan from a Baathist
Tony Rezko raised money for Obama
Therefore, all liberals are Baathists

Do you understand how, even if I were to accept your premises as valid, your conclusion doesn't naturally follow?  I mean, probably not, since you seem to have an acute case of apophenia for all things Baathist, but still.
 
2014-04-18 06:42:00 PM  

ScaryBottles: lantawa: What I posted was a wikileaks article
You aren't making the compelling case you think you are super patriot.


Yes.  Yes I am, super terrist.
 
2014-04-18 06:44:14 PM  

lantawa: ScaryBottles: lantawa: What I posted was a wikileaks article
You aren't making the compelling case you think you are super patriot.

Yes.  Yes I am, super terrist.

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-04-18 08:11:47 PM  
Jesus F*ck-Christing sulfur crusted shiatballs.

I GIVE UP.

Goodbye, Fark.

I'm done.
 
2014-04-18 08:18:51 PM  
I'm the one who is morally wrong for asking for any shred of even remotely credible evidence for the assertion that eek there are Baathists infiltrating the federal government.

I'm the one who is wrong.

Not the loopy witted crackhead who demands we believe his ranting with no facts to back anything he says up.

Obviously he's god or some hig exalted thing because I AM SUPPOSED TO JUST BLINDLY BELIEVE FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN THE HOLY SACRED ALL KNOWING lantawa SAYS IT.

F*ck this. F*ck it all.

I quit.
 
2014-04-18 08:21:15 PM  
I CAN'T HAVE MY OWN OPINION ABOUT THINGS BECAUSE I WANT LOGICAL EVIDENCE

Diversity of opinion, YES ITS F*CKING DEAD BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU, lantawa!!
 
2014-04-18 08:55:29 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: As starting off with an air of superiority is an awesome way to pass our values onto another part of the world that hasn't been nearly as fortunate as ours has been for generations is a really good, not trolly way to start...


Fortunate? You think that the secular world and the Islamic world are where they are today because of luck?

Crotchrocket Slim: So basically give them the Holy War they want, but do it really dishonestly and half-assedly. Look, I think they're backwards as fark too, but largely they are happy being backwards as fark. Trying to beat them over the head with the "superiority" of our culture isn't going to advance squat. Exporting our ideas through our media has done a lot more to advance women's rights (or at least embolden women in these countries to start fighting for their rights) a lot more than trying to intellectually depants them.


Happy? I dunno. Let's ask Malala Yousefzai if her classmates back home in Pakistan are happy having to constantly watch for assassins because they dared learn something other than a homicidal interpretation of the Qu'ran. Let's ask a female Egyptian college student if she's happy having to hide any body part more provocative than a wrist lest her male classmates get all rapey. Let's check in with the moms of Saudi Arabia and see how happy they are about their daughters being married off at age 8. There must be tens of millions of gays in the Muslim world. Man, they must be delighted they get to live someplace awesome like Mauritania or Bangladesh instead of horrible, horrible Oklahoma or (ewwwww) Israel.

As for intellectual depantsing, that sort of takes care of itself. If religions were teenagers, Islam would be the one who thinks it's all OG wearing its pants down low, but everybody else thinks they look farking stupid.

On an aside, last weekend I was at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and took a quick look through the Islamic-art section. I couldn't help seeing a thousand-year-old piece like this

www.wnyc.org

...and thinking "man, what the fark happened? You guys used to be cool."

We have farkers here who think it's "hate speech" to even ask such a question.

In the meantime, we have a duty to offend, especially when it comes to busybodies whose existence revolves around finding something to be offended by. At least that's what progressives were fond of saying when it's Rudy Giuliani fuming at some artist plugging his poo-smeared-Jesus show down at the museum. Speak truth to power! and old chestnuts like that. I'm saying it applies to Giuliani, to the imams inciting violent hatred, and to the intellectual cripples in the Brandeis community.
 
2014-04-18 09:01:35 PM  
I've had it made ABUNDANTLY CLEAR to me that I have no right to think anything other than what lantawa demands I think.

I have no right to believe anything other than what lantawa demands I believe, and that I am morally and ethically wrong because I wouldn't accept a premise without facts that confirmed the validity of the premise.
In other words I have no right to think independently.

This is what is known as FREEDOM.
For the very last time, goodbye.

I'm done here.
 
2014-04-18 09:04:33 PM  

Next up on the itinerary:

Wahhabism In Thought And Action:  Why It's Bad For Your Balls

 
2014-04-18 09:28:55 PM  

lantawa: Next up on the itinerary:Wahhabism In Thought And Action:  Why It's Bad For Your Balls


Followed by even more crying from lanawata.
 
2014-04-18 10:13:47 PM  

Gulper Eel: Fortunate? You think that the secular world and the Islamic world are where they are today because of luck?


I'm a student of history. That the West managed to stabilize itself and move into secularism and away from letting the religious run things is indeed do to the relative economic stability we've had for the last 300 years (even with two WWs in its back yard). I'm not some closet racist who ignores how progressive the Muslim world was when Europeans were killing each other for "witchcraft"

Happy? I dunno. Let's ask Malala Yousefzai if her classmates back home in Pakistan are happy having to constantly watch for assassins because they dared learn something other than a homicidal interpretation of the Qu'ran. Let's ask a female Egyptian college student if she's happy having to hide any body part more provocative than a wrist lest her male classmates get all rapey. Let's check in with the moms of Saudi Arabia and see how happy they are about their daughters being married off at age 8. There must be tens of millions of gays in the Muslim world. Man, they must be delighted they get to live someplace awesome like Mauritania or Bangladesh instead of horrible, horrible Oklahoma or (ewwwww) Israel.

I think it's shiatty how the disadvantaged suffer in the Middle East, but they aren't the ones who can do a thing to make the ME less shiatty. The people in power are.

On an aside, last weekend I was at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and took a quick look through the Islamic-art section. I couldn't help seeing a thousand-year-old piece like this

...and thinking "man, what the fark happened? You guys used to be cool."


The Crusades, the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the West dicking over everyone it has had alliances and trade agreements with in the Middle East, Saudi's discovering oil and using Wahabbism to cement their power...

We have farkers here who think it's "hate speech" to even ask such a question.

Strawman

In the meantime, we have a duty to offend, especially when it comes to busybodies whose existence revolves around finding something to be offended by. At least that's what progressives were fond of saying when it's Rudy Giuliani fuming at some artist plugging his poo-smeared-Jesus show down at the museum. Speak truth to power! and old chestnuts like that. I'm saying it applies to Giuliani, to the imams inciting violent hatred, and to the intellectual cripples in the Brandeis community.

As making it apparent you hate someone for the way the are is an awesome place to start from if you're trying to sell them your philosophy...

You sound privileged.
 
2014-04-18 10:15:46 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: Gulper Eel: Fortunate? You think that the secular world and the Islamic world are where they are today because of luck?

I'm a student of history. That the West managed to stabilize itself and move into secularism and away from letting the religious run things is indeed due to the relative economic stability we've had for the last 300 years (even with two WWs in its back yard). I'm not some closet racist who ignores how progressive the Muslim world was when Europeans were killing each other for "witchcraft"


I'm also someone who needs an editor
 
2014-04-18 10:18:58 PM  
I also find it especially ironic that many of the trolls I've run into on Fark who think that all Muslims are the same as Wahhabists or that even most Muslims support Wahhabism would see the West become more Christian as well. Well, not ironic but really telling of how cowardly they are in not admitting to their blatant cultural imperialism.
 
2014-04-18 10:46:52 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: I also find it especially ironic that many of the trolls I've run into on Fark who think that all Muslims are the same as Wahhabists or that even most Muslims support Wahhabism would see the West become more Christian as well. Well, not ironic but really telling of how cowardly they are in not admitting to their blatant cultural imperialism.


Couldn't resist taking a peek, could you.  Then again, we always knew that you were Wahhabi-curious.
 
2014-04-18 11:28:12 PM  

Gulper Eel: On an aside, last weekend I was at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and took a quick look through the Islamic-art section. I couldn't help seeing a thousand-year-old piece like this

www.wnyc.org

...and thinking "man, what the fark happened? You guys used to be cool."


It's the natural result of theocracy.  Christianity had its dark ages a thousand years ago; now it's Islam's turn.  And there's plenty of "good Christian" folk who'd take us back there if we'd let them.  You know the types; they usually form groups with "family" or "freedom" in the name.

Of course, if we all took John Lennon's advice and imagined no religion, these cycles wouldn't keep repeating, but I suppose that's just a bridge too far.
 
2014-04-19 01:11:09 AM  

Kittypie070: I've had it made ABUNDANTLY CLEAR to me that I have no right to think anything other than what lantawa demands I think.

I have no right to believe anything other than what lantawa demands I believe, and that I am morally and ethically wrong because I wouldn't accept a premise without facts that confirmed the validity of the premise.
In other words I have no right to think independently.

This is what is known as FREEDOM.
For the very last time, goodbye.

I'm done here.


Have you ever thought of just shutting the fark up and leaving? I'm sorry if i'm interrupting you're 40th goodbye post, but that's an option.
 
2014-04-19 01:52:33 AM  

thurstonxhowell: Kittypie070: whiiiiine

Have you ever thought of just shutting the fark up and leaving? I'm sorry if i'm interrupting your
40th goodbye post, but that's an option.



Actually no on second thought, I've decided to stay because, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. No problem.

I certainly learned a lesson though and it wasn't what I thought it was.

Facts are facts, being asked to verify the premise of an argument where there is reasonable room for doubting the veracity of that premise is not "oppression", and getting hacky-sacked around for spouting rubbish is also not "oppression".

The premise of "Baathists are definitely infiltrating the government!" wasn't being doubted because what'shisface was presenting it, the premise was being doubted because its logic and alleged evidence were examined by smarter people than me, and found to be invalid.

No matter how I felt earlier, verifiable facts are more morally and ethically valuable than pulled-out-of the-butt-opinions, and cannot be converted into fact by hammering it with BECUZ I SAID SO AND I DEMAND YOU RESPEK MAH AUTHORITAH.

Good NIGHT.

I'll be back.
 
Displayed 44 of 744 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report