Multiculturalism is dead

**Beskar** · 10-31-2010, 02:37

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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.

Nope, only ignorance does that.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 10-31-2010, 13:11

Originally Posted by Beskar

Nope, only ignorance does that.

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.

**Fragony** · 10-31-2010, 13:54

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Although, the New Atheists are pretty ignorant about Christianity and violently oppose it - so I suppose you do have a corralation in fact.

How so? Violent no disrespectful yes, imho you should just deal with that, asking me to alter my daily business out of respect for your imaginary friends is much more intrusive than mocking said intrusion could ever be.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 10-31-2010, 18:03

Originally Posted by Fragony

How so? Violent no disrespectful yes, imho you should just deal with that, asking me to alter my daily business out of respect for your imaginary friends is much more intrusive than mocking said intrusion could ever be.

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?

**Fragony** · 10-31-2010, 18:52

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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?

Obvious attacks, but I agree with them, and they can go in with a stretched leg I don't mind really

**Hax** · 10-31-2010, 20:17

Still, India would be a much more miserable place today were it not for Western interference.

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.

**Fragony** · 10-31-2010, 21:12

Anything non-islamic can be that, it means 'house of war', land of unbelievers.

**Sasaki Kojiro** · 10-31-2010, 21:23

Originally Posted by Hax

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.

Non sequitur.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 11-01-2010, 12:40

Originally Posted by Fragony

Obvious attacks, but I agree with them, and they can go in with a stretched leg I don't mind really

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?

**Rhyfelwyr** · 10-31-2010, 21:59

Originally Posted by Beskar

Nope, only ignorance does that.

This ignores the reactionary nature of almost every extreme political/social movement.

Originally Posted by Fragony

How so? Violent no disrespectful yes, imho you should just deal with that, asking me to alter my daily business out of respect for your imaginary friends is much more intrusive than mocking said intrusion could ever be.

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...

**Furunculus** · 10-31-2010, 22:32

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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.

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.

**Hax** · 10-31-2010, 22:52

Don't bs me I know my stuff, it simply means territory not yet under islam.

Don't be silly now. The ~~Muzzies~~ Muslims 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?

**Fragony** · 11-01-2010, 02:59

Originally Posted by Hax

Don't be silly now. The ~~Muzzies~~ Muslims 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?

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. No such thing as burning witches in the bible, but it happened anyway.