And they're planning to end that, too. Thinking of moving to Belgium, or France.The only reason people know your country exists is because whores and smack are legal
And they're planning to end that, too. Thinking of moving to Belgium, or France.The only reason people know your country exists is because whores and smack are legal
This space intentionally left blank.
I think that many others have legal or semi-legal positions on both of those issues, but first to market matters - Vaigra is not the best treatment out there, but it's the one everyone knows.
![]()
An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
"If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill
I thought Viagra is Canadian for exports?
- Tellos Athenaios
CUF tool - XIDX - PACK tool - SD tool - EVT tool - EB Install Guide - How to track down loading CTD's - EB 1.1 Maps thread
“ὁ δ᾽ ἠλίθιος ὣσπερ πρόβατον βῆ βῆ λέγων βαδίζει” – Kratinos in Dionysalexandros.
multiculturalism has always been more like pan culturalism...
We do not sow.
If you have accepted the above then some cultures are morally and practically better than others. So measuring them is not only possible, it is also litterally a philosopgical imperative.
As I said, multiculturalism doesn't work - as has been demonstrated time and again.As I am at pains to explain, multiculturalism is not about measuring one culture or society against another. It is about mutual toleration based on understanding and negotiation.
Whatever. If your purpose IS to blend cultures and identities into the best composite, then clearly multiculturalism is useless. My point is that that is not what multiculturalism is for -nor is it why its proponents like it!
Last edited by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus; 10-30-2010 at 22:59.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Maybe you could argue that multiculturalism does have some philosophical use in terms of promoting some absolute truths, since the value of peace that comes from harmony between different cultures is greater than the conflict that would be caused by allowing inferior cultures to be assimilated.
For example, when people feel their way of life is under threat, they often take it to an extreme to protect their identity. And this polarisation is what gives us Wahhabis and Jihadists etc.
Just a thought, couldn't leave without arguing with you PVC.![]()
At the end of the day politics is just trash compared to the Gospel.
Except.... not everyone shares our Christian desire to see man in a state of universal peace and love.
Such cultures must be struck down with righteous fury!
Ahem.
Sorry, I had a medieval moment there.
Still, India would be a much more miserable place today were it not for Western interference.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Days since the Apocalypse began
"We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
"Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."
I dissagree, one can feel threatened because of one's ignorance but ultimately it is the percieved threat, not the ignorance, that provokes the violent reaction.
Although, the New Atheists are pretty ignorant about Christianity and violently oppose it - so I suppose you do have a corralation in fact.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Last edited by Fragony; 10-31-2010 at 13:55.
Not physically violent, but if you look at the invective that Dawkins, "religion is the cause of most wars" Hitches "religion ruins everything" or Pullman "I want to destroy the foundation of Christianity" you get the distinct impression this is more than just reasoned dislike, or even disdain.
Do you not think?
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
In the eyes of people from the West, yeah, and I agree. However, Muslim Indian scholars viewed the British raj as the Dar al-Harb.Still, India would be a much more miserable place today were it not for Western interference.
This space intentionally left blank.
Anything non-islamic can be that, it means 'house of war', land of unbelievers.
I'm quite aware, thank you very much. I must correct you however, land of unbelievers is "dar al-kufr", meaning (literally) "house of the non-believers.Anything non-islamic can be that, it means 'house of war', land of unbelievers.
However, several Islamic scholars (especially from Persia) have said that a non-Shari'a state can very well be a dar al-salaam.
This space intentionally left blank.
I don't know, it might be very important.Non sequitur.
Since there apparently is a problem with Islam?
EDIT: Also, hey look, a self-describing post!
This space intentionally left blank.
This ignores the reactionary nature of almost every extreme political/social movement.
With you 100%, atheists should be free to hate on me all they like and I should be free to be a Bible-bashing lunatic. If I hear one more person talk about the importance of 'respect' between different people then I will go and pimp-slap the **** out of them. I feel the urge to pimp-slap people a lot these days...
'Respect' is one of those buzzwords the left likes to use to guilt-trip everyone into thinking like them and loving the people they do. There is no force more unstoppable or followed so blindly than "leftist moral outrage", my favourite term that I havent' used for a whlie now.
I hear people talking a lot about Christians moralising but I don't see it, it always seems to be a leftie that has to find something to be offended about. And worse they have to control everyone so that they can't offend them.
Bear in mind though, these are the attitudes not just of actual lefties, but also the centre-right. They're going to start pushing me to the old-style "far-right" as it is inappropriately called if things continue...
At the end of the day politics is just trash compared to the Gospel.
this is why i prefer the ye olde' english ideal of; "Does it really matter what these affectionate people do — so long as they don’t do it in the streets and frighten the horses!"
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mrs_Patrick_Campbell
don't interfere with my life, and i won't interfere in yours.
Last edited by Furunculus; 10-31-2010 at 22:35.
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
Don't be silly now. TheDon't bs me I know my stuff, it simply means territory not yet under islam.MuzziesMuslims themselves can hardly agree on what constitutes "dar al-salaam", "dar al-harb" and "dar al-kufr". It's not something you, especially not you or me in that respect can pinpoint. Besides, it's not even a term from the Qur'an or Hadiths, but something a 13th century scholar made up to divide the world neatly into a world of non-believers and believers when it was important, military. You know, with the Mongols and all that?
This space intentionally left blank.
Oh no, no, no. The concept of dar al-Islam was something of a vague term until the 13th century scholar Abu Hanifa.Goes further back it's a core principle, bit like it was for the coralignans to devide the world into this and that, but that was then and now is now anyway.
This space intentionally left blank.
Agreeing with them is one thing, hurling hatred and bile at a significant proportion of the population because they don't agree with you is not healthy. In fact, believing religion is "evil" or that religious beliefs "cause evil" is also unhealthy, because it assumes that, up until no more than 200 years ago pretty much everyone and everything was motivated by evil.
That's a Renaissance prejudice against the "ignorant" people of the past, it's a form of cultural self-hate, and it is inacurate.
So, it can't really be seen as intellectually very healthy.
Can it?
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Your wrong, from the beginning there was the house of war 'Dar al Harb' and 'Dar al Islaam'. Don't know if it came from Abu Hanifa, but I do know he lived 500 years earlier. I think you are confused with the age of humanism where there was discussion on changing it to 'Dar al Salaam' and 'Dar al Kaffir'
@PVC I understand what you are saying, some will kick a man when he's down and you don't deserve such contempt. But did you ever have someone at your door trying to convince you of atheism, or saw atheist protests against a shop that's open on a certain day, 'you' limit me more yhan vica versa. I'm an atheist but I don't hate religious people, I just think it's silly.
Last edited by Fragony; 11-01-2010 at 13:26.
So you would measure these cultures on what scale? The scale of how western and liberal they are? Their technological creativity? Wealth? How much they value religion and how devout they are? How they treat strangers? How they treat women? How they treat the weak?
Please do provide me with an absolute measure for the "worth" of a culture, which can be disambiguated from any cultural values themselves -and hence not dictated by your own personal valuation of things.
Bookmarks