Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

Options
1…113114116118119…137

Comments

  • Options
    #3452
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,359 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    silverharp wrote: »
    that's a bulls1t definition, anyone can submit a definition, its not the Oxford dictionary. so if you use the term snowflake you are a NAZI :rolleyes:

    here for example Claire Fox in the UK who I don't believe is a Nazi leaning individual

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/generation-snowflake-how-we-train-our-kids-to-be-censorious-cry-babies/

    Well it's the top definition. I see you've some up with a personal opinion from a newspaper. What's your point?


  • Options
    #3453
    Christy42
    Registered Users Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭Christy42


    NinjaKirby wrote: »
    This is a problem I have with the whole "left and right" dichotomy.

    The left are accused of being snowflakes and the response is not "no we are not snowflakes" rather the response is "well there are snowflakes on the right too".

    So it's actually an admission that the "snowflake" criticism of the left is valid but we are expected to ignore it because the right engage in the same behavior?

    Doesn't this simply guarantee that the conflict goes on forever with no resolution?

    The Left: We need Safe Spaces
    The Right: Safe Spaces are a stupid idea. You are all pathetic snowflakes.
    Trump: I am blocking people I don't like on Twitter.
    The Left: Haha look at stupid Trump! He needs a safe space! What a snowflake, amirite?

    The Left: Hate Speech is not Free Speech.
    The Right: I find this content over here to be hateful, shut it down.
    The Left: Haha! The stupid Right, I thought they were in favor of free speech but they want to shut down speech they see as hateful! Idiots, amirite?

    It's one thing to point out hypocrisy. It's another thing entirely to think that when We do something then it's OK but when They do the things that We do then They are are a bunch of morons.

    Both sides are encouraged to become hypocrites because they are encouraged to take up distinctive "sides" in the first place. You end up with people who feel forced into defending their side no matter what and also attacking the other side no matter what.

    I would have thought that a "snowflake" is just someone who thinks they are somehow special, is easily offended and who can't handle any kind of criticism? There is plenty of that going around.

    I would say that once you start reading this stuff online it doesn't take very long before you are starting to pick a side and then I wonder how long it takes before you are completely blinded by your bias.

    How many of us reckon we have a pretty good sense of self-awareness?

    Obviously there are snowflakes on the left. They are well discussed at this point. Like most criticism some is right and some is reactionary.

    The point I was making is that silverharp is doing their best to ensure that the term can't be used to referred to a right wing person. I agree with your definition of snowflake. Silverharp does not. You seem to agree with me as opposed to harp on this one.

    Yes some on the left are snowflakes. I just don't see how you can give out about them so much and then happily elect someone who elects someone who fits the definition perfectly (at least without a well we know he has this flaw but..).

    I am also confused as to why working class people can't be snowflakes according to silverharp. It takes no time at all to get offended and working class. I have also seen plenty of working class people where certain subjects need to be tiptoed about (generally parents/grandparents of friends/myself or older relatives).

    Really it seems like a way of giving out about college students as opposed to applying the definition to anyone who fits the definition (which I would be happy about).

    Yup everyone tends to think these definitions don't fit them. Applies to all negative labels though. I do try and see if I can use logic to justify left positions or right positions though presumably my bias slants my view. All you can do is your best as no one is free from bias (and anyone who says otherwise is lying to you or themselves).


  • Options
    #3454
    NinjaKirby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 221 ✭✭NinjaKirby


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Nope. Crucial to being an acceptable POTUS would be to put country before self-aggrandisement. Most recent POTUS (POTUSI?) have done so.

    As this is a thread about Trump, how many of the NPD criteria do you think Trump meets?

    Pretty much all of them.

    Not sure I'd have needed a team of psychologists and psychiatrists to point that out to me though. :P

    When Captain Professor Obvious is pointing out that Donald Trump, of all people, is a narcissist with an overblown ego for the umpteenth time then excuse me if if I just roll my eyes and make a joke about it.

    We are all snowflakes. :cool:


  • Options
    #3455
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,359 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    NinjaKirby wrote: »
    Pretty much all of them.

    Not sure I'd have needed a team of psychologists and psychiatrists to point that out to me though. :P

    When Captain Professor Obvious is pointing out that Donald Trump, of all people, is a narcissist with an overblown ego for the umpteenth time then excuse me if if I just roll my eyes and make a joke about it.

    We are all snowflakes. :cool:

    Hmmm. Ad hominem et reductio ad absurdum. Anything of substance to say?


  • Options
    #3456
    NinjaKirby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 221 ✭✭NinjaKirby


    Christy42 wrote: »
    Obviously there are snowflakes on the left. They are well discussed at this point. Like most criticism some is right and some is reactionary.

    The point I was making is that silverharp is doing their best to ensure that the term can't be used to referred to a right wing person. I agree with your definition of snowflake. Silverharp does not. You seem to agree with me as opposed to harp on this one.

    Yes some on the left are snowflakes. I just don't see how you can give out about them so much and then happily elect someone who elects someone who fits the definition perfectly (at least without a well we know he has this flaw but..).

    I am also confused as to why working class people can't be snowflakes according to silverharp. It takes no time at all to get offended and working class. I have also seen plenty of working class people where certain subjects need to be tiptoed about (generally parents/grandparents of friends/myself or older relatives).

    Really it seems like a way of giving out about college students as opposed to applying the definition to anyone who fits the definition (which I would be happy about).

    Yup everyone tends to think these definitions don't fit them. Applies to all negative labels though. I do try and see if I can use logic to justify left positions or right positions though presumably my bias slants my view. All you can do is your best as no one is free from bias (and anyone who says otherwise is lying to you or themselves).

    I dunno, I suspect Silverharp might be having a bit of fun arguing over the definition of a snowflake.

    It's hard to gauge the tone online but people seem really serious and super pedantic around all this SJW/snowlake/Alt-Right stuff.

    (I'm still not even sure I actually know how to define "Alt-Right". I thought it was for young folks who believed in the Right Wing Conservative point of view but without the old school KKK-style racism. Seems like that's wrong and it's all about frog memes and banning transgender people from bathrooms.)

    I think college kids are just about one of the most disrespected groups in society. People seem to think they all have easy lives. Seen as rich kids who are privileged enough to qualify for further education (either through money or talent or both) and so they are derided as not knowing how good they've got it.

    I am OK with it. I don't see "snowflake" as a serious insult and you'd wanna be a snowflake to get worked up about people using the term. If the shoe fits... :P

    I'm not sure if Trump is a snowflake but if I were going to insult The Donald then I don't think snowflake would be my insult of choice.

    President Snowflake does seem like a nice fit for the USA though.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3457
    NinjaKirby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 221 ✭✭NinjaKirby


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Hmmm. Ad hominem et reductio ad absurdum. Anything of substance to say?

    Sorry. I don't speak... whatever that is.

    Be careful you don't melt there buddy.

    Sorry it's blatantly obvious statements substance you want...

    Donald Trump is probably the worst President ever. The man is a narcissistic, egotistical, buffoon who should never be anywhere near the White House.

    Shadilay, my dude, and don't forget to praise KEK. :D


  • Options
    #3458
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,359 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    NinjaKirby wrote: »
    Sorry. I don't speak... whatever that is.

    Be careful you don't melt there buddy.

    Sorry it's blatantly obvious statements substance you want...

    Donald Trump is probably the worst President ever. The man is a narcissistic, egotistical, buffoon who should never be anywhere near the White House.

    Shadilay, my dude, and don't forget to praise KEK. :D
    It's Latin.

    Regarding Trump, we have consensual reality.

    I'm shagged on the last line - I'm not groovy enough.


  • Options
    #3459
    NinjaKirby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 221 ✭✭NinjaKirby


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    It's Latin.

    Regarding Trump, we have consensual reality.

    I'm shagged on the last line - I'm not groovy enough.

    I knew it was Latin and I know what both "Ad Hominem" and "Reductio ad Absurdum" are. Why do you always have to act so smart Professor?

    The last line is a reference to a bunch of memes surrounding the Trump campaign in the election. It was just a joke (or maybe it was bait to see if someone would react) but I actually find the whole internet culture surrounding Trump and the Left and teh Right to be so fascinating and so bizarre.

    https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/

    This is how utterly absurd American politics has become and why I cannot take it seriously.

    This Kek, and Shadilay and Pepe nonsense is linked to how the Trump campaign played out online and is an example of what is getting people worked up in 2017...

    (stolen from Reddit)
    "Kek came from World of Warcraft. When a horde player types "lol" in chat, it comes out as "kek" to alliance players. This itself was a reference to how koreans type the sound of laughter as "kekeke".

    Using "kek" instead of "lol" was mostly a sleeper meme, though it gained prominence in the last few years. Then, someone found a brand of pastries named "top kek" and it was catapulted to popularity.

    Meanwhile, Pepe the frog gained prominence as a meme. The character was created by Matt Furie for a comic named Boys' Club. 4chan adopted him to use in reaction images, first with the "feels good man" variant, which was pulled straight from one of Furie's comics. Edits appeared, then Pepe spread beyond the chans and people got mad and spawned the poo poo pee pee meme.

    Regardless, Pepe reaction images became widespread, around the same time as kek gained prominence as a replacement for lol.

    This is where memetics began appearing. Someone found out about Kuk, also known as Kek, an Egyptian deity, which took the appearance of a frog. Better yet, a "prophecy of Kek" looked suspiciously like a man sitting in front of a computer monitor. People began digging and found out that he's the bringer of light, learned about "meme magic", and the whole thing just kind of fell together.

    Basically, people felt that it wasn't a coincidence that we started going "kek" and posting about a frog at the same time. Combine it with the general feeling that things are going to **** and that we need a leader to bring us out of the darkness, and...

    Now, Shadilay. Just to add to the madness, someone found out about a song from the 80's. It's from an artist named Pepe. There is a frog on the disc. The lyrics are about the strange nature of the universe. It's named Shadilay.

    This whole thing is no coincidence if you ask me. It's synchronicity. Patterns re-emerging due to the collective unconscious. And it's fascinating."


  • Options
    #3460
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,359 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    NinjaKirby wrote: »
    I knew it was Latin and I know what both "Ad Hominem" and "Reductio ad Absurdum" are. Why do you always have to act so smart Professor?

    The last line is a reference to a bunch of memes surrounding the Trump campaign in the election. It was just a joke (or maybe it was bait to see if someone would react) but I actually find the whole internet culture surrounding Trump and the Left and teh Right to be so fascinating and so utterly absurd.

    https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/

    This is how utterly absurd American politics has become and why I cannot take it seriously.

    This Kek, and Shadilay and Pepe nonsense is linked to how the Trump campaign played out online and is an example of what is getting people worked up in 2017...

    (stolen from Reddit)
    "Kek came from World of Warcraft. When a horde player types "lol" in chat, it comes out as "kek" to alliance players. This itself was a reference to how koreans type the sound of laughter as "kekeke".

    Using "kek" instead of "lol" was mostly a sleeper meme, though it gained prominence in the last few years. Then, someone found a brand of pastries named "top kek" and it was catapulted to popularity.

    Meanwhile, Pepe the frog gained prominence as a meme. The character was created by Matt Furie for a comic named Boys' Club. 4chan adopted him to use in reaction images, first with the "feels good man" variant, which was pulled straight from one of Furie's comics. Edits appeared, then Pepe spread beyond the chans and people got mad and spawned the poo poo pee pee meme.

    Regardless, Pepe reaction images became widespread, around the same time as kek gained prominence as a replacement for lol.

    This is where memetics began appearing. Someone found out about Kuk, also known as Kek, an Egyptian deity, which took the appearance of a frog. Better yet, a "prophecy of Kek" looked suspiciously like a man sitting in front of a computer monitor. People began digging and found out that he's the bringer of light, learned about "meme magic", and the whole thing just kind of fell together.

    Basically, people felt that it wasn't a coincidence that we started going "kek" and posting about a frog at the same time. Combine it with the general feeling that things are going to **** and that we need a leader to bring us out of the darkness, and...

    Now, Shadilay. Just to add to the madness, someone found out about a song from the 80's. It's from an artist named Pepe. There is a frog on the disc. The lyrics are about the strange nature of the universe. It's named Shadilay.

    This whole thing is no coincidence if you ask me. It's synchronicity. Patterns re-emerging due to the collective unconscious. And it's fascinating."

    "I knew it was Latin and I know what both "Ad Hominem" and "Reductio ad Absurdum" are. Why do you always have to act so smart Professor?"

    Ahem.


    Anyway, that article explains why the association of white supremacy with Pepe the frog means that Trump Junior's tweet was, well, deplorable. In fact, I agree with everything the article says. As an aside, how does Jungian theory explain Pepe the frog?


  • Options
    #3461
    NinjaKirby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 221 ✭✭NinjaKirby


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    "I knew it was Latin and I know what both "Ad Hominem" and "Reductio ad Absurdum" are. Why do you always have to act so smart Professor?"

    Ahem.

    Anyway, that article explains why the association of white supremacy with Pepe the frog means that Trump Junior's tweet was, well, deplorable. In fact, I agree with everything the article says. As an aside, how does Jungian theory explain Pepe the frog?

    I think we see here maybe the ways that communication via the internet or via message boards is a complete failure.

    I am not being serious. I don't see the point in always seriously discussing Trump or American politics as it has all basically gone to sh*t and it doesn't look like sanity is coming back any time soon.

    Look at the President. President Donald Trump. Let that sink in. This is politics in 2017. Presidental Reality TV. The Alt-Right. SJWs. Who's a snowflake? You're a snowflake? No, I'm a snowflake.

    The point I hoped I was making is that it is all absurd and probably even pointless. So maybe it's OK to have a wee laugh at the situation once in a while.

    The best you've got is "Donald Trump is an narcissist". Yeah tell me something I don't know.

    We are all stating the obvious because I think, I hope, that we are reasonable people but the lunatics might actually be taking over the asylum.

    The far left and the far right cannot have the solution for the future of society because both demand changes that are too radical and could only ever be implemented through oppression or imprisonment of, or violence towards, opposition.

    They are the loudest voices though and they have power to influence now, it seems.

    So it's up to "normal" people to figure it out but we aren't normal anymore as we get sucked into the world of online discussion where nobody wants to be wrong and nobody wants to give an inch. So I guess we end up giving in to bias.

    You have your persona right? The intelligent guy/girl who makes witty comments about Trump and Trump supporters but also believes that this is deadly serious.

    You are trying to have serious political discussion in an arena where there is only absurdity and ridiculousness. President Donald Trump. Communicating to the people via Twitter.

    How can we take ourselves seriously?

    I see people arguing online with cartoon bears and guys who call themselves "Proud Kekistani" and laugh my head off because it's just so ridiculous.
    Hillary Clinton's campaign were posting articles about how a cartoon frog memes are horrifying. "This is horrifying." "Yes." No it's just a joke.

    A damn cartoon frog became a focal point for a US presidential election.

    I replied to your list of NPD criteria with "so basically the list of Job Requirements for President of the United States of America" and it was supposed to just be a wee joke, you know.

    But you're all over it like it has to be a serious discussion like I don't know exactly who Donald Trump is and how insane it is that he was elected to be President.

    It's not always serious though.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3462
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    NinjaKirby wrote: »
    I don't see the point in always seriously discussing Trump or American politics...

    I don't see the point in butting into serious discussions to tell people you don't see the point in serious discussions.


  • Options
    #3463
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,359 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    NinjaKirby wrote: »
    I think we see here maybe the ways that communication via the internet or via
    message boards is a complete failure.
    Yet...
    I am not being serious. I don't see the point in always seriously discussing
    Trump or American politics as it has all basically gone to sh*t and it doesn't
    look like sanity is coming back any time soon.
    Agreed. Sometimes I'm serious, sometimes I'm not.
    Look at the President. President Donald Trump. Let that sink in. This is
    politics in 2017. Presidental Reality TV. The Alt-Right. SJWs. Who's a
    snowflake? You're a snowflake? No, I'm a snowflake.
    Agreed. this is the era of unjustified anger and fake news.
    The point I hoped I was making is that it is all absurd and probably even
    pointless. So maybe it's OK to have a wee laugh at the situation once in a
    while.
    Laughter is the best medicine.
    The best you've got is "Donald Trump is an narcissist". Yeah tell me something
    I don't know.
    Without being, well, narcissistic, it's not the best I've got. Anyway, if you read back the thread, you'll see that I introduced Trump's narcissism to demonstrate that he isn't a snowflake but a narcissist. Or egotist, if you're tired of the word 'narcissist'.
    We are all stating the obvious because I think, I hope, that we are reasonable
    people but the lunatics might actually be taking over the asylum.
    I think that horse has bolted.

    The far left and the far right cannot have the solution for the future of

    society because both demand changes that are too radical and could only ever
    be
    implemented through oppression or imprisonment of, or violence towards,

    opposition.

    They are the loudest voices though and they have power to influence now,
    it seems.
    Agreed.
    So it's up to "normal" people to figure it out but we aren't normal anymore as
    we get sucked into the world of online discussion where nobody wants to be wrong
    and nobody wants to give an inch. So I guess we end up giving in to bias.
    Sometimes. I take your point but I find informed debate very informative and enlightening.
    You have your persona right? The intelligent guy/girl who makes witty comments
    about Trump and Trump supporters but also believes that this is deadly serious.
    Great if you think I'm intelligent and witty. Most kind. However, I am me. This is not a persona. If you think about it, how could a person who isn't witty and intelligent adopt a witty and intelligent persona?
    You are trying to have serious political discussion in an arena where there is
    only absurdity and ridiculousness. President Donald Trump. Communicating to
    the people via Twitter.
    Yeah, but it's all we have it now, it would seem.
    How can we take ourselves seriously?

    When necessary. Otherwise, best not.
    I see people arguing online with cartoon bears and guys who call themselves
    "Proud Kekistani" and laugh my head off because it's just so ridiculous.
    With respect, you call yourself a 'Ninja'.
    Hillary Clinton's campaign were posting articles about how a cartoon frog
    memes are horrifying. "This is horrifying." "Yes." No it's just a
    joke.

    A damn cartoon frog became a focal point for a US presidential
    election.
    I refer to my earlier comment and the article to which you linked.
    I replied to your list of NPD criteria with "so basically the list of Job
    Requirements for President of the United States of America" and it was supposed
    to just be a wee joke, you know
    .

    I got that. And it was true and funny.
    But you're all over it like it has to be a serious discussion like I don't know
    exactly who Donald Trump is and how insane it is that he was elected to be
    President.
    Nope.
    It's not always serious though
    .

    Nope.


  • Options
    #3464
    NinjaKirby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 221 ✭✭NinjaKirby


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I don't see the point in butting into serious discussions to tell people you don't see the point in serious discussions.

    Did I say "I don't see the point in serious discussions"?

    Nope.

    I said that I don't see the point in always seriously discussing Trump or American politics. (meaning that there is still room for joking around and not taking it seriously 100% of the time)

    You should know the difference because you quoted me but apparently you don't.

    You quote me but then you paraphrase my words to change their meaning.

    You seem to be one of those posters where if there is even the slightest opportunity to misrepresent or "misunderstand" someone then you will take it.

    It's not the first time I've had this issue with you and I really wish you wouldn't do that.


  • Options
    #3465
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    NinjaKirby wrote: »
    Did I say "I don't see the point in serious discussions"?

    Nope.

    I said that I don't see the point in always seriously discussing Trump or American politics. (meaning that there is still room for joking around and not taking it seriously 100% of the time)
    I'm not sure where you get the idea that this thread, or indeed any discussion of Trump on this site, is serious 100% of the time. Hell, a quick glance at the thread title should have given you pause.

    So, I'm still at a loss as to why someone would butt into a conversation that is by no means serious 100% of the time with an objection to taking the topic seriously 100% of the time.


  • Options
    #3466
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,848 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    I see Johnny Depp was trying to be edgy by asking when was the last time an actor assassinated a President. they really do want some on the edge liberal to go out shooting. thankfully they will probably be an awful shot :D

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #3467
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,143 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Depp, hasn't much more credibility than Trump, at this stage.


  • Options
    #3468
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,848 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Water John wrote: »
    Depp, hasn't much more credibility than Trump, at this stage.

    I think relevance is the issue, with the cathy griffin thing I'd vaguely heard of her but couldnt place her. it seems like they want to get their mojo back but failing miserably

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #3469
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    A close friend of Pope Frank criticizes the "apocalyptic geopolitics" of Bannon and notes the increasing similarity between the hardline catholics and hardline protestants.

    The FT's comments on it are here and the original Italian version is here.
    FT wrote:
    "Those who profess themselves to be Catholic express themselves in ways that until recently were unknown in their tradition and using tones much closer to Evangelicals," Mr Spadaro wrote. He said their "shared objectives" were focused on social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage and they harboured a "nostalgic dream of a theocratic type of state. [...] However, the most dangerous prospect for this strange ecumenism is attributable to its xenophobic and Islamophobic vision that wants walls and purifying deportations," he added. 

    The tone of the piece suggests an even deeper concern than expected within the Vatican about the direction of the US under Mr Trump. Pope Francis and Mr Trump held a private meeting at the Vatican in late May, in an attempt to establish a positive dialogue after some indirect — and direct — clashes in recent years over climate change and immigration. 

    [...]


  • Options
    #3470
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    robindch wrote: »
    The FT's comments on it are here and the original Italian version is here.
    And the version you can read is here.

    I dunno, it looks more like the age old battle for dominance between catholics and protestants to me. Pope claims his right to be the exclusive interpreter on what the bible meant to say. Others prefer to read it themselves.

    The belt of the crozier...
    Vatican wrote:
    ...the authors accuse Mr Trump’s team of using a selective interpretation of the Bible...
    ...belligerence can acquire a theological justification and there are pastors who seek a biblical foundation for it, using the scriptural texts out of context.
    The Riposte....
    Trump wrote:
    For a religious leader to question a person’s faith is disgraceful.“No leader, especially a religious leader, has the right to question another man’s religion or faith”


  • Options
    #3471
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,359 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    recedite wrote: »
    And the version you can read is here.

    I dunno, it looks more like the age old battle for dominance between catholics and protestants to me. Pope claims his right to be the exclusive interpreter on what the bible meant to say. Others prefer to read it themselves.

    The belt of the crozier...The Riposte....

    Trump questions Islam and Muslims. Time and time again. His 'riposte' is simply hypocrisy.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3472
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    His 'riposte' is simply hypocrisy.
    Islam is more than a religion though, its an ideology.


  • Options
    #3473
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,359 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    recedite wrote: »
    Islam is more than a religion though, its an ideology.

    No. It's a religion by definition. If you go down the semantic route, then all religions have ideological elements. But that won't support your argument either.


  • Options
    #3474
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    The 13 countries where you can legally be killed for being an atheist all happen to be Islamic. And misogynistic. And homophobic. An amazing coinkydinks?

    Trump is correct that Islamic values are incompatible with western values.

    It is of course possible to find misogynistic and homophobic quotes in the bible, just as it is possible to find quotes urging christians to "love thy neighbour". But regardless of which (if any) quotes are "taken out of context" christians are generally happy to create a society in which the laws of ordinary civil life are not dictated by the bible. That's the difference between a religion and an ideology.


  • Options
    #3475
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,359 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    recedite wrote: »
    The 13 countries where you can legally be killed for being an atheist all happen to be Islamic. And misogynistic. And homophobic. An amazing coinkydinks?

    Trump is correct that Islamic values are incompatible with western values.

    It is of course possible to find misogynistic and homophobic quotes in the bible, just as it is possible to find quotes urging christians to "love thy neighbour". But regardless of which (if any) quotes are "taken out of context" christians are generally happy to create a society in which the laws of ordinary civil life are not dictated by the bible. That's the difference between a religion and an ideology.

    Coinkydinks! That's my new favourite word.


  • Options
    #3476
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,143 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    You cannot be executed in Western European countries, certainly the EU. Are they western values? Then the USA doesn't qualify.


  • Options
    #3477
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    recedite wrote: »
    The 13 countries where you can legally be killed for being an atheist all happen to be Islamic. And misogynistic. And homophobic. An amazing coinkydinks?

    Trump is correct that Islamic values are incompatible with western values.

    It is of course possible to find misogynistic and homophobic quotes in the bible, just as it is possible to find quotes urging christians to "love thy neighbour". But regardless of which (if any) quotes are "taken out of context" christians are generally happy to create a society in which the laws of ordinary civil life are not dictated by the bible. That's the difference between a religion and an ideology.

    We also have occurrences of American chritians working in African countries to outlaw hommosexuality and in some cases, Uganda for example, lobby for the death penalty.

    Whilst I don't necessarily disagree that there are issues with aspects of islam, Trump ought to get his house in order. Whilst the US government won't put you to death for being gay or transsexual a certain party there is trying real hard to make life a lot harder.

    MrP


  • Options
    #3478
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,039 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    recedite wrote: »
    Trump is correct that Islamic values are incompatible with western values.

    So-called "catholic social teaching" isn't compatible with contemporary western values either.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Options
    #3479
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,117 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Well, campaigns to "ban the burqa" aren't compatible with western values either, for that matter.

    It all depends on what you decree "western values" to be. Since people can (and do) decree pretty well anything they like to be a fundamental western value, it's not a terribly helpful concept.

    For the record, Recedite, of the thirteen countries listed in the Independent article whose claims you seem so uncritically to accept, at least one - Nigeria - is not a Muslim country. It's about equally divided between Christians and Muslims; there's a constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion, a constitutional prohibition on any requirement to profess any religion or participate in any religious practice, and a constitutional prohibition on laws which which confer any advantage or impose any disadvantage on the basis of religion. So, not an Islamic state, then.

    Furthermore, I'm deeply sceptical of the claim that in the thirteen countries listed you can be sentenced to death for being an atheist. The Independent report doesn't actually cite any laws allowing this, or offer any authority for the claim, and it's clearly wrong in at least the case of Nigeria.


  • Options
    #3480
    CabanSail
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 9,047 CMod ✭✭✭✭CabanSail


    Had a look at that list. I was surprised that Malaysia was included.

    Just looked up the list of crimes which can be punished by death in Malaysia.
    The following is a list of the criminal offences that carry the death penalty

    Waging or attempting to wage war or abetting the waging of war against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, a Ruler or Yang di-Pertua Negeri – Section 121 Penal Code (see: Al-Ma'unah)
    Offences against the person of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Ruler or Yang di-Pertua Negeri – Section 121A Penal Code (mandatory)
    Committing terrorist acts – Section 130C Penal Code (mandatory)
    Abetment of mutiny within Malaysian Armed Forces, if mutiny is committed in consequence thereof – Section 132 Penal Code
    Murder – Section 302 Penal Code (mandatory) (see: Mona Fandey)
    Abetment of suicide of child or insane person – Section 305 Penal Code
    Attempt to murder – Section 307(2) Penal Code (mandatory)
    Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder – Section 364 Penal Code
    Hostage-taking – Section 374A Penal Code (mandatory) (see: Pudu Prison siege)
    Rape resulting in death – Section 376(3) Penal Code (mandatory)
    Gang-robbery with murder – Section 396 Penal Code
    Trafficking in dangerous drugs – Section 39B Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (mandatory) (see: Barlow and Chambers execution)
    Discharging a firearm in the commission of a scheduled offence – Section 3 Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act 1971 (mandatory)
    Being an accomplice in case of discharge of firearm – Section 3A Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act 1971 (mandatory)
    Offences in security areas for possession of firearm, ammunition and explosives – Section 57(1) Internal Security Act 1960 (mandatory) (see: Botak Chin)
    Consorting with person carrying or having possession of arms or explosives in security areas – Section 58(1) Internal Security Act 1960
    Abduction, wrongful restraint or wrongful confinement for ransom – Section 3(1) Kidnapping Act 1961

    Nothing on the list about being an atheist. Have not looked any further but it looks like that article is discredited.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3481
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    CabanSail wrote: »
    .. it looks like that article is discredited.
    The article is based on an IHEU report.
    I'm far from being an expert in the Malaysian constitution, but my understanding of it is that there are two parallel legal systems backed by the state, and the death penalty can theoretically be applied to "apostates" who reject islam; people who were previously muslim. But the same penalty would not apply to an atheist who was previously christian. AFAIK In Malaysia everyone is required to have their religion listed on their ID card. If muslim, you are subject to sharia law, and you cannot have the muslim designation removed without permission from a sharia court. Therefore you would be subject to local sharia laws from birth.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Malaysia#Scope_of_Islamic_law_in_Malaysia

    In Nigeria, it is well known that the central govt. does not control the whole country, and even in areas that they do control there are tribal regions where sharia law is the norm.


Advertisement