BF2S Forums Switzerland bans minarets

Uzique wrote:

man, your style of debating is so classically bad, you're neatly summed up somewhere between reductio ad absurdum and ad hominem in the classic-little-book-of-rhetoric.

he said that xenophobia is conditioned - which it is - and your argument then quickly flows to such posits as "to ever think a classless society could exist is delusional". nobody is talking about economic or social class, we're talking about xenophobia.

Wrong, he was talking about divisions between people.

oug wrote:

slowly and gradually we come into a status quo that promotes division

Did you not see this or were you so hasty to jump on the attack against me that you neglected it?

Uzique wrote:

'fear of the unknown' as an instinctive, root-level psychological and sociological process? sure. minarets are not "the unknown". you're taking this into deep deep extremes of bullshit pretension.

Am I? Does your average person have more than a thin idea of what Islam is? No, therefor it's unknown and a minaret is a representation of the unknown in this case.

Uzique wrote:

"thoughts and ideas are not equal" just takes that pretension and ups it a notch into the bizarre and fucking irrelevant. nobody is theorizing nonsense here about a marxist mentality.

That was part of a running conversation I've been having with oug. Pay attention.

Uzique wrote:

haha, jesus. and your assertion that 'militant islam is anathema to our society' is, firstly questionable ("our society" is multicultural and doesn't take a definitive stance on anything, rarely) and secondly, nobody is talking about militant islam.

No? Could've fooled me. That poster on the first page sure looks like it's promoting Islam as a scary religion worthy of condemnation. Enough people in Switzerland believed it to vote against it.

Uzique wrote:

now at this point, if i was a pompous pseudo-intellectual such as yourself (here's that irony i was talking about, hint hint) I would say that you are too badly stuck into your ideological paradigm; you're a living talking walking example of the typical american mentality.

What exactly makes me a typical American?

Uzique wrote:

jeez man, you just need to liberate yourself before you can truly call yourself open-minded. throw off the shackles of intellectual dumbery and resist the urge to be lazy and stereotypical! non-pseudo intellectuals of the world, unite! etc.etc. god, you talk such gash...

It's ok uzique, I'd say that my representation of you in this thread was correct. The karma I got says other people agree with me. Take that for what it's worth.

You are a fantastic puppet though. I'll give you credit for that. You managed to reword everything I said about you and toss it back at me. Pro tip - extra points are awarded for originality and in this you fail. Go back to critiquing authors whose success you can't match.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-12-01 11:52:11)

Uzique wrote:

i take it for what it's worth: common bandwagon bullshit. nobody has ever intelligently shown me as being 'pseudo-intellectual' in a fashion that hasn't made themselves seem like a desperately contrived faux-smartarse themself. a single karma is hardly a life-crushing realization. you're conflating the conversation we're having about islam, xenophobia, liberal europe etc. with the decision that switzerland have already voted on which we have concluded is wrongful, backwards, regressive, reactionary etc. etc. in discussing xenophobia and islam generally, there is no universal 'fear of unknown religions', and in talking about islam and the banning of muslim architecture, we are not talking about the banning of militant, terrorist, world-conquering soul-sucking architecture. of course, the nice bit of art-analysis (by rdx i believe) of the agitprop campaign posters have already proven well-enough that switzerland are just as backwards and conservative as their neighbours were circa 1940-- but in debating whether or not xenophobia is inherent, or whether or not the european continent (and on a wider scale, the occidental world's) view towards islam is one of fear and militant intimidation, i'd like to think we're not confusing us rational brits/americans with the swiss.

and what the fuck are you having a running conversation about the equivocality of thoughts for. lets all engage in a socratic dialogue about the green-ness of grass, shall we? redundant discussion, really.

Why should the occidental world not fear Islam? Have many of them not shown in actions that they dislike us and would more than happily kill us? Are you going to throw away fifteen hundred years of history? There was a time when Islamic nations were enlightened and open to new thoughts and ideas but that was many centuries ago. Since then they've become ever more authoritarian.

What's the rationale here? Open your arms wide, welcome them into your country and hope to change their culture? The system under which they lived in their home countries is the system they've transported with them. It's what they know and it doesn't mesh with western culture.

You're asking people to be tolerant of a religion that devalues education as dangerous, which removes almost all rights from women and which spits on your idea of justice as weak. Since everyone assumes that Europe will become Muslim dominated in the future I guess you do not value the culture in which you grew up. That tolerant, progressive society which you seem so proud of will regress back to the religious dominated society that it was for sixteen centuries. You're ok with that? I applaud the Swiss because they seem to be the only ones standing up for their own culture... and 'progressiveness'.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-12-01 12:05:42)

JohnG@lt wrote:

Xenophobia is definitely a part of who and what we are. It's a feature of evolution to fear the unknown. It keeps you from eating unknown foods in the wild that could harm you and it also keeps you from associating freely with members not of your own tribe. We are very much still tribal in nature. Is there really any difference between wolves and their home territories and humans and their nations or states or cities? No. The same with class structures. Are all members of a pack of wolves equal? No, they have alpha males, beta males etc. So does every other society of animals on the planet. To ever think a classless society could exist is delusional. No matter how much you may wish it, people are not and never will be equal. The same goes for thoughts and ideas, they are not all equal. In this regard, militant Islam is anathema to our own society so a reaction against it is to be expected.

Who defines what is "xeno" (foreign) to us? Example: After 9/11 Americans' xenophobia has focused on Arab-looking dark skinned bearded forks. But guess what. Since then, I too get these looks as if I'm some kind of suicide bomber ready to blow everyone sky high with my ipod just because my tan lasts longer and my electric razor's broken down.
So don't tell me it's in our nature to fear the unknown, I know that and it's irrelevant. Xenophobia is conditioned like uzique said. We're not a pack of wolves, we're people who read the news and watch the tele and we're being told who to fear and who to trust. Switzerland is a peaceful nation of multiple cultures for many a decade. Yet somehow out of the blue Muslims pose a threat and we need to ban their religion?
As for the class issue, I don't know where you came up with that knee-jerk reaction because this is not a class issue. Rich Muslims are being fucked just like poor ones. Whether classless societies are possible is debatable btw.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Why should the occidental world not fear Islam? Have many of them not shown in actions that they dislike us and would more than happily kill us? Are you going to throw away fifteen hundred years of history? There was a time when Islamic nations were enlightened and open to new thoughts and ideas but that was many centuries ago. Since then they've become ever more authoritarian.

What's the rationale here? Open your arms wide, welcome them into your country and hope to change their culture? The system under which they lived in their home countries is the system they've transported with them. It's what they know and it doesn't mesh with western culture.

You're asking people to be tolerant of a religion that devalues education as dangerous, which removes almost all rights from women and which spits on your idea of justice as weak. Since everyone assumes that Europe will become Muslim dominated in the future I guess you do not value the culture in which you grew up. That tolerant, progressive society which you seem so proud of will regress back to the religious dominated society that it was for sixteen centuries. You're ok with that? I applaud the Swiss because they seem to be the only ones standing up for their own culture... and 'progressiveness'.

In your post, replace "Islam" with "the West". It works both ways. Which is why I said that if you're gonna ban minarets you better ban churches too. Otherwise you're a racist cunt.

because islam doesnt go against everything 'i' stand for, nor does it contradict what britain stands for, nor does it invalidate what europe stands for

that's the obvious answer to your fucking question that ive had established as a fundamental fact before i even begin to discuss why it's appropriate to ban 'x' religion's architecture. multiculturalism has been in effective practice for decades here now. i don't need to waste my time blowing words at an american that has been conditioned with the skewed world-view that "them ayrabs are the devil" and that they're out to subvert and deconstruct 1,500 years of our culture.

cannot believe i have to say this stuff. you pose as a fairly intelligent, rational guy. the fuck are we even talking about this for, as if it's a credible debate? BNP --> that way.

Last edited by Uzique (2009-12-01 12:19:29)

Uzique wrote:

because islam doesnt go against everything 'i' stand for, nor does it contradict what britain stands for, nor does it invalidate what europe stands for

that's the obvious answer to your fucking question that ive had established as a fundamental fact before i even begin to discuss why it's appropriate to ban 'x' religion's architecture. multiculturalism has been in effective practice for decades here now. i don't need to waste my time blowing words at an american that has been conditioned with the skewed world-view that "them ayrabs are the devil" and that they're out to subvert and deconstruct 1,500 years of our culture.

cannot believe i have to say this stuff. you pose as a fairly intelligent, rational guy. the fuck are we even talking about this for, as if it's a credible debate? BNP --> that way.

Skewed world view? I can travel five miles west if I need any proof that the cultures don't mix. Are you one of those that believe the WTC attacks were perpetrated by the American government as well?

As far as my own world view. Yes, it's tainted. I spent a year deployed in Baghdad and I experienced Arab culture first hand. I experienced a culture where the vast majority are illiterate and live in filth. The streets of Baghdad are lined with rubbish. Yes, almost all of it can be blamed on Saddam but his totalitarian regime is no different from the one in Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia or any of the rest where a ruling elite keep the populace destitute and ignorant in order to control them better. To want to escape this and move to a place like Europe where they have a chance of making a better life is noble, but many of them are bringing their bad habits with them. I don't have a problem with Arabs themselves, I have a problem with Islam and what the religion represents. I feel the same way about evangelical Christianity or any other extreme religious belief.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Uzique wrote:

because islam doesnt go against everything 'i' stand for, nor does it contradict what britain stands for, nor does it invalidate what europe stands for

that's the obvious answer to your fucking question that ive had established as a fundamental fact before i even begin to discuss why it's appropriate to ban 'x' religion's architecture. multiculturalism has been in effective practice for decades here now. i don't need to waste my time blowing words at an american that has been conditioned with the skewed world-view that "them ayrabs are the devil" and that they're out to subvert and deconstruct 1,500 years of our culture.

cannot believe i have to say this stuff. you pose as a fairly intelligent, rational guy. the fuck are we even talking about this for, as if it's a credible debate? BNP --> that way.

Skewed world view? I can travel five miles west if I need any proof that the cultures don't mix. Are you one of those that believe the WTC attacks were perpetrated by the American government as well?

As far as my own world view. Yes, it's tainted. I spent a year deployed in Baghdad and I experienced Arab culture first hand. I experienced a culture where the vast majority are illiterate and live in filth. The streets of Baghdad are lined with rubbish. Yes, almost all of it can be blamed on Saddam but his totalitarian regime is no different from the one in Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia or any of the rest where a ruling elite keep the populace destitute and ignorant in order to control them better. To want to escape this and move to a place like Europe where they have a chance of making a better life is noble, but many of them are bringing their bad habits with them. I don't have a problem with Arabs themselves, I have a problem with Islam and what the religion represents. I feel the same way about evangelical Christianity or any other extreme religious belief.

so just because i refuse to condemn ALL OF ISLAM IN ALL OF EUROPE after 9/11, im a conspiracy nut? are you making this shit up? also, im surprised that you served in baghdad and experienced all of the bitterness and horridness of the place without properly understanding the geopolitical context and causes of the shithole. "yes, almost all of it can be blamed on saddam"... yes, which in turn is blamed on... look closer to home. the middle-east is hardly a violent and unstable shithole by choice, or because despotic islamists have been hellbent on world destruction. sure, there have been civil and internal issues- some even requiring intervention, granted - but i think you're being incredibly naive if you don't think that western influence had a hell of a lot to do with the rise of islamic extremism and anti-western sentiment. but i digress, im clearly not going to convince a war-veteran with a serious patriot-streak ("what? you like muslims? i bet you had a hard-on when 9/11 was on CNN...") that Islam as a religion ain't so bad, and is probably equal to the other world-religions in terms of its shittiness-- as well as in its entitlement to have architecture.

i'll try this different angle, knowing where im beaten when it comes to battling stigma and ideological narrowmindedness. democracy. western democracy. founded on the fundamental aristotelian basis of freedom and equality. now some people are arguing that this swiss decision is a triumph for democracy-- rather i see it as a 'triumph' of crowd-behaviour and giving the power to ignorant right-wing nutjobs. for switzerland to be a true democracy, all of their citizens (including muslims) deserve total equality. right? that's the underlying tenet of all of our countries. im not asking you to hug a muslim or to blame 9/11 on george w. bush in order to agree with me here. if christians and jews can have their places of worship, then muslims whom have been given citizenship by the swiss government should get the same treatment. discuss.

Uzique wrote:

so just because i refuse to condemn ALL OF ISLAM IN ALL OF EUROPE after 9/11, im a conspiracy nut? are you making this shit up? also, im surprised that you served in baghdad and experienced all of the bitterness and horridness of the place without properly understanding the geopolitical context and causes of the shithole. "yes, almost all of it can be blamed on saddam"... yes, which in turn is blamed on... look closer to home. the middle-east is hardly a violent and unstable shithole by choice, or because despotic islamists have been hellbent on world destruction. sure, there have been civil and internal issues- some even requiring intervention, granted - but i think you're being incredibly naive if you don't think that western influence had a hell of a lot to do with the rise of islamic extremism and anti-western sentiment. but i digress, im clearly not going to convince a war-veteran with a serious patriot-streak ("what? you like muslims? i bet you had a hard-on when 9/11 was on CNN...") that Islam as a religion ain't so bad, and is probably equal to the other world-religions in terms of its shittiness-- as well as in its entitlement to have architecture.

i'll try this different angle, knowing where im beaten when it comes to battling stigma and ideological narrowmindedness. democracy. western democracy. founded on the fundamental aristotelian basis of freedom and equality. now some people are arguing that this swiss decision is a triumph for democracy-- rather i see it as a 'triumph' of crowd-behaviour and giving the power to ignorant right-wing nutjobs. for switzerland to be a true democracy, all of their citizens (including muslims) deserve total equality. right? that's the underlying tenet of all of our countries. im not asking you to hug a muslim or to blame 9/11 on george w. bush in order to agree with me here. if christians and jews can have their places of worship, then muslims whom have been given citizenship by the swiss government should get the same treatment. discuss.

I'm actually not patriotic in the slightest. I don't wave a flag or say that my culture is superior. I do think the founding tenets of my nation are the best that the world has ever come up with and I do take a sense of pride in that. But I'm really no more American than the Muslims that have been in Europe for multiple generations now. My grandparents all emigrated from Sweden and Germany either before or after WWII. I joined the military, not out of a sense of patriotic duty, but because it is now paying for my college degree. Nationalism of any sort is anathema to freedom.

As for the history of the middle east, it's not my forte but I am aware that much of the strife in the region is because of British and French colonialism in the past. Hell, most of the political lines on the map are artificial creations made by the Brits to make it easier to consolidate and rule the region. It's why Iraq is made up of 179 or so tribes all speaking various dialects and why instead of it being three separate and distinct nations, it was consolidated into one vast territory. Yes, America is not completely innocent, I can understand a backlash against us drilling oil and supporting their totalitarian governments. I'd be mad as well. I never said the 9/11 attack was completely unwarranted or unjustified, but really, the world has changed and if they wanted to, they could've nationalized the oil wells the same way Venezuela has done. You don't see us running off to Venezuela and knocking Chavez about the head with anything more than rhetoric. Have we done so in the past? Undoubtedly. In todays world with 24/7 news coverage it would be almost impossible to get away with and I think all Western governments have come to realize this. Osama's fight was really with his own royal family but he lashed out at us instead because we support them openly.

Anyway, I don't believe in direct democracy. It is totalitarian in it's own right because instead of one single despotic monarch (or whatever label you wish to use), you get millions of petty tyrants. "Tyranny of the majority" was an apt term used by JS Mill and it describes it brilliantly. To me, democracy is nothing more than mob rule. It is rule by whim and wish instead of reality because it is guided by emotion rather than reason. The minaret banning is a perfect example.

P.S. - For much of this thread I was playing devil's advocate. I really could care less whether a minaret is built. Would I want to hear a call to prayer first thing in the morning? No more than I'd want to hear Rush Limbaugh's voice first thing But that's a completely different topic.

smuder201 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

As far as my own world view. Yes, it's tainted. I spent a year deployed in Baghdad and I experienced Arab culture first hand. I experienced a culture where the vast majority are illiterate and live in filth. The streets of Baghdad are lined with rubbish. Yes, almost all of it can be blamed on Saddam

No most of this can be blamed on the coalition blowing the shit outta the Iraqi infrastructure & the coalition then not replacing it quick enough. At least the UK forces in the south tried the hearts & minds stuff, everyone else stayed in fortified camps & then sent out patrols & fuck the natives.

Do you really need the government to motivate you to go out in the street in front of your house and pick up the trash? No.

Uzique wrote:

p.s. i dont really agree with a lot of your geopolitical world-history stuff, notably downplaying the american involvement in the middle-east and south americas during the 20th century. you're conveniently placing a lot of culpability on french/british colonialism in the middle-east when really the issue of islamic extremism is something a little more relevant to you americans and your activities there since the cold-war soviet era. that's a debate for another day though, im sure, you don't want to be engaging in any anti-american stuff with a left-wing socialist hippy intellectual brit such as myself- even proposing equality for muslims was contentious enough!

As I said, it's not my historical forte. If you asked me questions on the American Revolution or Civil War, Napoleonic Wars, Hundred Years War, WWII or Vietnam I could've given a more than adequate representation of the events that led to any of them Middle eastern history, outside of ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, is given only a cursory glance in history courses on this side of the ocean. Anti-American stuff doesn't bother me as long as it's rational. Most of the anti-American stuff that I've come across has been fueled by emotion against war in general. That, and that our own 'intellectual elite' try so hard to emulate yours is a source of friction as well.

Uzique wrote:

yah i only have to read the posts of nubichek to understand that your american intelligentsia are desperately clinging on to the british-european academics in their ivory towers- the ivy league and your garish academics seem to be a parody of our own more-classy sensibilities and cultural qualities. definite source of friction; every one of nubichek's posts that i read seems like a farcical parody of one of my professors. not even an entertaining one, either.

im not really anti-american, i guess i just have a wholly cynical geopolitical world-view. im not particularly well-read on it, either, only the usual polemics and reports/essays/statistics, but generally enough to have a grasp of the 20th century in panorama. i guess my cynicism extends to an 'understanding' of why not a lot of middle-eastern or soviet history is taught in american schools. probably why we're not told of the great economic benefits of hitler's policies during the german depression.

Haha, if you want a guide to being an American liberal I will provide it:

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/full-li … ople-like/

please explain to me how atheism is a 'religion'. please formally define 'religion' in your terms first, though, to avoid any confusion.

i agree that the militant idiots that parade around proclaiming atheism as the next awakening are morons- but every faction has their disgraces. i do not see as a whole how the atheist or agnostic spiritual orientations could be seen in any way, formally or informally, as a 'religion'.

funny link, john. american liberals are different politically and characteristically to british/european liberals.

Last edited by Uzique (2009-12-01 14:08:30)

DesertFox- wrote:

I like how I catalyzed the argument of the past page, however:

JohnG@lt wrote:

jord wrote:

Mmmm I think he's an Atheist trying to construe that he wishes for all Religion to be removed as much as possible, not just Islam. I tend to agree, when in Rome...

I'm well aware. But he'd cheer on a ban of all religions but would cry if they rounded him up and banned all atheists.

I don't quite get these atheists who want to see other religions banned/fail. Atheism's still a religion, albeit nowhere near as centralized or uniform as the other belief systems. Claiming others are wrong/yours is right makes one no better than the religious folk they ridicule. Now, if someone were areligious, that's a horse of a different color, but that's quite hard to be these days.

Atheism simply means you do not believe in god. Some create a semi-religion around it because they were exposed to religion their whole lives and it's what they know. There's really no difference between say a militant atheist and a born again christian. They're both trying to tell other people that they are correct and the other person is wrong. It's why I don't call myself an atheist anymore but a humanist.