BF2S Forums Police: Man ran down 'too Westernized' daughter

Diesel_dyk wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Additionally, I also never said there is no difference between cultures in the Islamic world. There most certainly is. I said there is no distinction made between culture and religion because religion is such an integral part of every single aspect of life for believers of Islam that it cannot be separated. There is a difference. In the West, we do make a distinction between the two. Just as we can't understand not making the distinction, they can't understand us making the distinction.

You know I was trying to engage those people trying to say Islam is a violent religion... I was trying to point out the common origins of the big three religions and I was trying to show violence in the bible. And I was trying to provoke a reaction but since you are not engaging on those points then what's the point.

But, anyway, let me get this part straight
So there is a distinction between their cultures
But there is no distinction between their religion and their culture.
Where did you get that idea from? and please don't tell me that that's what they teach you in church.


Anyway, so what's your view, is Islam a religion of violence or isn't it? all you said is that that was not what you were saying. So go a head and put it out there because that's what the debate is about.

My point is clear, Islam and Christianity are not religions of violence, its cultural hatred of other people and the use of religion by violent people trying to justify their violent actions.


BTW the one article that I found interesting was the article out of the Nortwest that had their first black church burning compared to the over 50 in the South. And you are correct that white churches were burned too... which is a why it was a provocation and strong arm argument showing how you can draw false arguments about how religions are violent. For example, take the KKK birmingham bombing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_Stree … ch_bombing now would it be fair to draw a conclusion that Christianity is a religion of violence from that event?... because we all know the KKK hold themselves out a christian crusaders. And before you cry but but but that was 50 years ago, nevertheless, the point still stands and question has been asked.



As far as the OK story... I always said that that guy was a hot head and he obviously had problems and now its public that apparently he does have other problems... What I was saying was that people lining up to support him were redneck John Wayne type POS. And yes, I do know Indians who have had problems with troopers and have been stopped for DWB, aka driving while brown. Perhaps you should ask your friends about what they know about DWB in Indian country.

\Because violence in the bible has got nothing to do with active violence wuthin Islam in the here and now. no one wants to listen to bullshit anymore about how violence 3000 years ago means it is the same fuckin context as running over your fuckin daughter because she has become westernized.

It is a desperate attempt to say, because of this, there is no difference in beliefs actions or cultures. It is an argument that is not based on the realities of that region, that culture and that religion.

Beduin wrote:

Dr.PhiL wrote:

Shit like this happen everyday in europe...
Yesterday (sorry can only find a danish link) a arab guy (palestinian) assaulted a teacher at a parent meeting.....  rules in cases like this should be one strike and OUT!

I know a lot of Danes with arab background.
Taxi and bus drivers. Owners of small shawarma places to exclusive hotels. Hard working factory workers, directors, doctors and engineers. Policemen and soldiers representing us abroad.

You never talk about them. All you do is bitch.

How about he just wait until they run over their daughters before he talks about them. Just a matter of time apparently.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

lowing wrote:

\Because violence in the bible has got nothing to do with active violence wuthin Islam in the here and now. no one wants to listen to bullshit anymore about how violence 3000 years ago means it is the same fuckin context as running over your fuckin daughter because she has become westernized.

It is a desperate attempt to say, because of this, there is no difference in beliefs actions or cultures. It is an argument that is not based on the realities of that region, that culture and that religion.

Agreed, I wasn't trying to set up an excuse.

I quoted one passage to show that even 3000 years ago you had people running around saying "I kill them and god told me do it." Point is that that passage flows into each of the three religions so they all have a history of doing that and that's in the scripture.

IMO People are stupid and violent because people are stupid and violent and its more to do with culture than religion... I think of religion as being likened to heredity or genetics and culture as being likened to a learned trait or environment. In both cases, religion and culture are often stated as an excuse for and individuals action whether it given as a "I didn't have a choice," or as a "you don't understand how we do things around here." In the end we are all accountable for our individual actions and there is no cover to be had in a religious excuse or a cultural excuse/defense.


And IMO saying that a certain religion is violent does nothing but feed into that excuse, and it perhaps work to demonize a people and make it easier for the followers of another religion to crusade and to do violence to them. Whether that's Islam, David Koresh, the FLDS compound, Jews or whatever. Its better to take those excuses off the table for all circumstances. No more excuses, no more crusades.

Yer right except like no other, Islam the religion and Islam the culture are so intertwined it is one in the same. This fuckhead did this based on his Islamic beliefs. Beliefs that are destructive, violent and intolerant. It is not an excuse for his behavior, but it is most definitely the reason for it.

Last edited by lowing (2009-10-23 14:54:16)

Diesel_dyk wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Additionally, I also never said there is no difference between cultures in the Islamic world. There most certainly is. I said there is no distinction made between culture and religion because religion is such an integral part of every single aspect of life for believers of Islam that it cannot be separated. There is a difference. In the West, we do make a distinction between the two. Just as we can't understand not making the distinction, they can't understand us making the distinction.

You know I was trying to engage those people trying to say Islam is a violent religion... I was trying to point out the common origins of the big three religions and I was trying to show violence in the bible. And I was trying to provoke a reaction but since you are not engaging on those points then what's the point.

But, anyway, let me get this part straight
So there is a distinction between their cultures
But there is no distinction between their religion and their culture.
Where did you get that idea from? and please don't tell me that that's what they teach you in church.

There is no distinction in the Islamic world between religion and culture. They are one and the same. That is the point I was making. That does not mean that there is not a difference between cultures in the Islamic world. It's not really that difficult of a concept.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Anyway, so what's your view, is Islam a religion of violence or isn't it? all you said is that that was not what you were saying. So go a head and put it out there because that's what the debate is about.

That's not what I was debating you about. I was debating your ridiculous stereotypes about the south and how that would give non-US people reading this forum an erroneous view that those stereotypes were true.

As for your question, it's no more a religion of violence than any other religion. It is what man makes it, what man twists it to become.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

My point is clear, Islam and Christianity are not religions of violence, its cultural hatred of other people and the use of religion by violent people trying to justify their violent actions.

I wrote the above before reading this. We are in complete agreement. We have been from the beginning. Again, I'm not sure why you're arguing with me on this point.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

BTW the one article that I found interesting was the article out of the Nortwest that had their first black church burning compared to the over 50 in the South. And you are correct that white churches were burned too... which is a why it was a provocation and strong arm argument showing how you can draw false arguments about how religions are violent. For example, take the KKK birmingham bombing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_Stree … ch_bombing now would it be fair to draw a conclusion that Christianity is a religion of violence from that event?... because we all know the KKK hold themselves out a christian crusaders. And before you cry but but but that was 50 years ago, nevertheless, the point still stands and question has been asked.

And my response would be that has nothing to do with Christian doctrine, thus nothing to do with Christianity being a religion of violence.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

As far as the OK story... I always said that that guy was a hot head and he obviously had problems and now its public that apparently he does have other problems... What I was saying was that people lining up to support him were redneck John Wayne type POS. And yes, I do know Indians who have had problems with troopers and have been stopped for DWB, aka driving while brown. Perhaps you should ask your friends about what they know about DWB in Indian country.

They're not my friends. They're my relatives. Maybe you can have some more "conversations" with people. That seems to be far more informative than knowing Indians who live in Indian country your entire life.

Last edited by FEOS (2009-10-24 20:07:42)

lowing wrote:

rammunition wrote:

lowing wrote:

Then you will forgive me if continue I hate that religion and culture and want to keep it out of western society until they adopt western values. Or stay the fuck in the ME.

Here's the hypocrisy.

You hate it when "they" bring their culture over here, but want them to adopt "your" culture? Why should they adopt "your" culture when you won't adopt "theirs"?

If I move to the ME I damn sure should adopt their culture, however, they are moving here, so they need to adopt our culture. Sorry Ramm, no hypocrisy here.

lol says the citizen of a country who is trying to force "western democracy" on Islamic countries.

doctastrangelove1964 wrote:

I agree to the extent that I call for moving this thread to junk drawer.

FEOS wrote:

There is no distinction in the Islamic world between religion and culture. They are one and the same. That is the point I was making. That does not mean that there is not a difference between cultures in the Islamic world. It's not really that difficult of a concept.

This is not how things are. Culture play much greater role than religion, no matter if it is jews christians or muslims. Some areas have traditions and values that have nothing to do with religion.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

So stereotyping is your pet peeve is it.

Yes. Particularly when that stereotype is wrong.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

You don't want to engage a debate based on the op, but you want to come into the middle of debate and cherry pick a few lines, make a claim of offensive stereotyping, and lay claim to moral high ground because others are stereotyping.

I didn't cherrypick anything. There was a central piece of your argument that involved southern culture being a certain way--which was a broad-brushed stereotype. And it was wrong. And it was central to your argument. I don't see how an incorrect stereotype central to your argument was "cherrypicking".

Diesel_dyk wrote:

While in fact you like to make your own stereotypes that fit with your world view

Actually, I didn't. And the ease with which I will disprove it below will be just plain sad for you. So let's get to it, shall we?

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Look here

FEOS wrote:

There is no distinction in the Islamic world between religion and culture. They are one and the same.

^^^^^^^^^^^^That's a stereotype

wiki wrote:

The Sharia (literally: "the path leading to the watering place") is Islamic law formed by traditional Islamic scholarship, which most Muslim groups adhere to. In Islam, Sharia is the expression of the divine will, and "constitutes a system of duties that are incumbent upon a Muslim by virtue of his religious belief".[56]

Islamic law covers all aspects of life, from matters of state, like governance and foreign relations, to issues of daily living. The Qur'an defines hudud as the punishments for five specific crimes: unlawful intercourse, false accusation of unlawful intercourse, consumption of alcohol, theft, and highway robbery. The Qur'an and Sunnah also contain laws of inheritance, marriage, and restitution for injuries and murder, as well as rules for fasting, charity, and prayer. However, these prescriptions and prohibitions may be broad, so their application in practice varies. Islamic scholars (known as ulema) have elaborated systems of law on the basis of these rules and their interpretations.[57]

Fiqh, or "jurisprudence", is defined as the knowledge of the practical rules of the religion. The method Islamic jurists use to derive rulings is known as usul al-fiqh ("legal theory", or "principles of jurisprudence"). According to Islamic legal theory, law has four fundamental roots, which are given precedence in this order: the Qur'an, the Sunnah (actions and sayings of Muhammad), the consensus of the Muslim jurists (ijma), and analogical reasoning (qiyas). For early Islamic jurists, theory was less important than pragmatic application of the law. In the 9th century, the jurist ash-Shafi'i provided a theoretical basis for Islamic law by codifying the principles of jurisprudence (including the four fundamental roots) in his book ar-Risālah.[58]
Religion and state

Mainstream Islamic law does not distinguish between "matters of church" and "matters of state"; the ulema function as both jurists and theologians. In practice, Islamic rulers frequently bypassed the Sharia courts with a parallel system of so-called "Grievance courts" over which they had sole control. As the Muslim world came into contact with Western secular ideals, Muslim societies responded in different ways. Turkey has been governed as a secular state ever since the reforms of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. In contrast, the 1979 Iranian Revolution replaced a mostly secular regime with an Islamic republic led by the Ayatollah Khomeini.[59]

I explained what I meant by that statement. Quite clearly. The explanation showed that while there were differences due to tribal histories and whatnot, predominant cultural mores are driven more by Islamic tradition than by anything else. Thus, not an untrue stereotype...unlike your southern baptist segregationist bullshit one, which was an untrue stereotype.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The only "side" that is waging any war in the name of their religion is the Islamic fundamentalist nutjob side. And everyone knows they are just using Islam as a crutch and that the West isn't actually waging war in the name of Christianity on Islam or any other such nonsense.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ and another stereotype, like there is nobody from saying there is crusade, shit W. even says it.

See the highlighted portion. And again: Nobody in the west is actually waging a war in the name of Christianity on Islam or any other such nonsense. W isn't POTUS and doesn't speak for the West.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Here I dug this up from another thread...

FEOS wrote:

And vice versa. There are plenty of uneducated redneck Democrats. They are called Southern Democrats. This is the kind of bullshit statement that sets me off. The powerbase of the Republican Party is so far from that that it's not even laughable. The problem is that the only ones who get any press are the fringe elements, so those who don't live here and whose sole source of information is the press that selectively portrays one side or the other think that is the norm. It's infuriatingly frustrating.

^^^^^^^^^^^^ that's a stereotype. I particularly like this one because here you are stereotyping the south as uneducated and redneck.

I'm stereotyping by saying there is a subset of people in the south who are uneducated and redneck? That's actually the exact fucking opposite of stereotyping.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Fact is you like to stereotype, but when you do it you claim unassailable truth is involved ***cough*** ***cough*** ***bullshit**** I guess its an acceptable stereotype when you agree with yourself.

Well, I don't call people uneducated, but since you live here you ought to know I guess.

Actually, you do. But I guess you get your info from conversations with people who have passed through places, rather than personal experience, right?

Diesel_dyk wrote:

My main peeve is racism, which you seem to excuse on every thread you posted that I had the displeasure of reading. You also seem to think that stereotyping racism is too harsh and sheds a bad light on the US in general and the south in particular and that feeds into some sort of worldwide misconception.... Are you sure the world has a misconception? because I live here and its apparent to me. The history of racism in America didn't sudden stop as some would wish it had. /slaps the ostrich's ass

What color is the sky on your world Diesel? Seriously? I have never--not fucking once--excused racism of any sort. You seem to think it's OK to disparage everyone based on the actions of a few in the past. You seem to think that everyone in a region behaves in a certain way because someone's grandparents were racists...and you have no problems promulgating the idea that everyone is still that way when you haven't the slightest idea what it's really like. Because you've read something and "had some conversations with people"...then you disparage people who have actually lived there and have first-hand experience that differs from your not-even-third-hand-academic-only experience with the issue. You'll excuse me if I have zero sympathy for your position on the matter.

And please tell my black best friend, asian daughter, native american cousins, and sundry other minority groups I deal with every day about my racist tendencies. Please do. They'll likely laugh at you...just like I do when you spout that nonsense.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Another peeve of mine is bullies. Now I was contemplating why I always seem to back the victim, its just engrained in me and I've done it ever since kindergarten. Some kids flock to the bully like submissive cowards or because they like the idea of getting into groups and feeling powerful and/or enjoy hurting others. And others see that cowardly BS for what it is. Now, if I see a bully I'm not intimidated and if I see some one siding with a bully, I always suspect their motives and their character. Which is probably why I did worked for groups like NARF, so I really am not interested in your stories about your family on the Rez
OR is that your cousin

It's my cousin and her family. I'm sure your mommy's proud of your charity work. Is your work with NARF (which will give you ONE NARROW perspective) supposed to somehow trump my own personal experience? I think not.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

FEOS wrote:

My cousin is an OK state trooper. Yes, he has an accent you could cut with a knife. He also has a degree in electrical engineering and owns his own business with his wife. And cares for a special-needs child as well as contributing philanthropically to his community.

So the question is "were you lying then or are you lying now." Anyway, I think the trooper in that case should be fired, if not for the first beating then surely for the second, or at least he needs help and certainly shouldn't have a badge and gun until he gets it.

WTF are you on about? I wasn't lying then, and I'm not lying now.

The EMT AND the trooper were both in the wrong on the first incident. Pretty sure I said that at the time. Also pretty sure that I pointed out that his actions with the EMT clearly had nothing to do with Indians (as you stated), as the EMT was black. The trooper has been suspended for his latest problems. He's established a trend. I don't disagree that the guy needs help...now that a trend has been established.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

IMO it pays to overturn the rocks and let the sunlight shine on the creepy crawlies. So, so sorry to tell you that when I see racism or a bully I'm going to highlight it and let the cleansing light in and IMO focusing on it is the only way to defeat it. And like they say "The only thing necessary for triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." and frankly I'm too jaded to be bullied.

I'm not arguing that point. Go ahead and beat your self-important chest.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

As for stereotypes, they of course break down at some point, everyone knows that and only an idiot would take a stereotype to be the absolute truth. I know that there are lots of good individuals around who aren't racist. So stop cherry picking my rants.

Then how about this: police yourself a bit. Don't assume that when you make a stereotype-based argument that someone who's not familiar will know that it's not applicable beyond a small group...or that you're being sarcastic or something else. You can make pretty decent arguments without disparaging entire groups of people. How about you give it a shot?

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Now I propose a truce, I won't complain about your stereotyping and you don't complain about mine... Because frankly I've got better things to think about than answer off op crap like this, because frankly I don't owe you an answer and I've got better things to do.

When you can find any actual stereotyping that I've done...gittyup. Until then...truce.

She is dead... congrats Dad on running over your own flesh and blood and killing her... 
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,571 … 0000:b0:z5

A needle awaits you! Bye bye