Political Correctness Sexual Assault in Europe Thread Two

[Enrique Vargas]

This is genius, I've been thinking the same thing for a long time: "The attraction communists feel for islam is not a coincidence. The determinism, the dissolution of individuum, the sacred militancy, the order that squashes an individual.... All of this attracts them more than the Christian doctrine about the free will and and the value of human personality" Nadezhda Mandelstam.

Agree completely: http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2015/0...on-the-parallels-between-islam-and-communism/

 

[Steve]

I'm reporting Enrique for posting obviously Zionist driven propaganda.

I will not post again on this thread because it has gone way past rational discussion.It has gone beyond a joke.

In fact it is a disgrace.

It is obvious to me that I have found myself amongst racist narrow minded dickheads with delusions of superiority, deluding themselves somehow that they are not so.

Right in front of my eyes in this discussion apparently

Right on Michael, the irony seems lost on them.

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

The appeasers are more despicable than those who perpetrate those barbaric actions. At least, they have been brought up in this horrific culture. Their Western apologists, supposedly, have been brought up in the culture that respects individual freedoms and gender equality.... Supposedly...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-amid-warnings-gangs-ordinating-attacks.html

Your definition of appeaser does seem to stretch the term at least by a bit?

Can't there be something between a cultural relativist and someone advocating mass deportations in the name of fighting a religion with billions of adherents?

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

This isn't meant against you Steve, it's Sciborg and Reece who started it ;), but could we all try to keep this thread to the OP?

My point is that biased media reporting extends beyond the problems in the Western world. See the issues in South Asian and in the Middle East with the kidnapping of young girls + death threats if one doesn't accept conversion.

That seems relevant to the thread?

 

[Enrique Vargas]

Your definition of appeaser does seem to stretch the term at least by a bit?

Can't there be something between a cultural relativist and someone advocating mass deportations in the name of fighting a religion with billions of adherents?

IMO, 1) somebody who actively promotes massive muslim immigration into Europe and 2) dismisses, negates, in a semi-clandestine way justifies crimes and aberrations caused by practitioners of this particular ideology is an appeaser, if not collaborationist. I've seen the same in academic circles in relation to communism. Reading history of nazism, we can find lots of examples of nazi appeasers-collaborationists omn the 30's. Europe is at the brink of serious disturbances, if not, and it horrifies me to say it, civil war. Not just my opinion: I posted various articles with opinions of leading european military. Here is another one: http://www.infowars.com/norwegian-army-chief-europe-will-have-to-fight-to-preserve-its-values/
So, to answer your question, no, I don't consider calling these people collaborationists a stratch.

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

IMO, 1) somebody who actively promotes massive muslim immigration into Europe and 2) dismisses, negates, in a semi-clandestine way justifies crimes and aberrations caused by practitioners of this particular ideology is an appeaser, if not collaborationist. I've seen the same in academic circles in relation to communism. Reading history of nazism, we can find lots of examples of nazi appeasers-collaborationists omn the 30's. Europe is at the brink of serious disturbances, if not, and it horrifies me to say it, civil war. Not just my opinion: I posted various articles with opinions of leading european military. Here is another one: http://www.infowars.com/norwegian-army-chief-europe-will-have-to-fight-to-preserve-its-values/
So, to answer your question, no, I don't consider calling these people collaborationists a stratch.

"Actively promotes" seems widely open to interpretation. Anyone believing that there should be some refugees taken in would theoretically fit. Heck it seems you could say anyone opposed to mass deportation would as well.

The word "semi-clandestine" is rather open. I mean anyone who simply notes not all Muslims are doing this, or that the harassment against women is not isolated to refugees, would be a "collaborator" in your view.

Drawing comparisons to the Nazis just seems to be an emotional tactic, and I don't think it adds to the argument.

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

I'm reporting Enrique for posting obviously Zionist driven propaganda.

I will not post again on this thread because it has gone way past rational discussion.It has gone beyond a joke.

In fact it is a disgrace.

It is obvious to me that I have found myself amongst racist narrow minded dickheads with delusions of superiority, deluding themselves somehow that they are not so.

Right on Michael, the irony seems lost on them.

I don't think it's fair to label anyone racist (though perhaps I skipped over a post or two)? You can't be racist against a religion after all.

As the Stardock CEO once noted - "Religion is software, race is hardware."

 

[Enrique Vargas]

"Actively promotes" seems widely open to interpretation. Anyone believing that there should be some refugees taken in would theoretically fit. Heck it seems you could say anyone opposed to mass deportation would as well.

The word "semi-clandestine" is rather open. I mean anyone who simply notes not all Muslims are doing this, or that the harassment against women is not isolated to refugees, would be a "collaborator" in your view.

Drawing comparisons to the Nazis just seems to be an emotional tactic, and I don't think it adds to the argument.

1) to say that "not only7 muslims do this" is like saying, in a discussion of Cambodian holocaust, "there are murders in Western democracies, too". Or, in other words, a completely nonsensical apologetics fit., 2) No, comparison to nazism is completely warranted: there have been three totalitarian, genocidal, enslaving, dehumanizing ideologies in history: nazism, communism and islam. This is why there is such affinity between the three:

http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/hitler-muslim-brotherhood.html

 

[Enrique Vargas]

As to the "racist" label: one has to be a moron to imply that to be anti-islam is racist. There are Arab, Persian, Slavic, Tartar, Uygur, Tajik, Uzbek, Bosnian, Croatian, Caucasian (chechen, Abjaz), as well as European converts of all nationalities. One has to have an IQ of overcooked broccoli to use this ad hom. :D

 

[Michael2]

I don't think it's fair to label anyone racist (though perhaps I skipped over a post or two)? You can't be racist against a religion after all.

As the Stardock CEO once noted - "Religion is software, race is hardware."

And calling someone a "collaborationist" is just a tiny smidge on this side of ok?

Enrique has been on a pretty good role for a good long time now throwing his accusations about with wild abandon.

Here a partial list of his favorite words and phrases:

"whithwash this evil ideology"
"apeasement of evil is as aberrant as evil itself"
"They are as contemptible as nazy collabortionists and should be treated as such"
"It's because of "compromisers" like you gays, Jews, women, children can't feel safe in numerous parts of Europe"
"The appeasers have sold out their wives and daughters..."
"this individuum demonstrates a complete intellectual dishonesty.."
"The same tactics nazi appeasers used in the 30's.."
"The apologists of evil, however. just don't give a damn."
"These are the tactics of fanatics who can't refute reality.."
"..you dimwit..."
" this is why I calling people like you "collabotarionists"
"appeasers of evil like you"
"The appeasers are more despicable than those those who perpetrate those barbaric actions"
"fanatics like you"
"you are capable of the most vile betrayal of womenh and children"
"You are as despicable as nazi collaborationists in the 30's"
"You have no shame"
"You are despicable"
"one has to be a morone"
"One has to have an IQ of overcooked broccoli to use this ad hom"

This last one from the master practitioner of the ad hom. Chappeau indeed.

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

1) to say that "not only7 muslims do this" is like saying, in a discussion of Cambodian holocaust, "there are murders in Western democracies, too". Or, in other words, a completely nonsensical apologetics fit., 2) No, comparison to nazism is completely warranted: there have been three totalitarian, genocidal, enslaving, dehumanizing ideologies in history: nazism, communism and islam. This is why there is such affinity between the three:

http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/hitler-muslim-brotherhood.html

Across all of history? I'd say it's a bit more than that. Look at colonialism + slave trade, the wiping out of pagans of Europe, Native American genocide, Indian caste system, etc. There also seems to be a good deal of damage done by capitalism as well though I do prefer that system to communism.

On the "Not all Muslims" actually I do think it makes sense and need to be "apologetics". Apologetics would be an attempt to rationalize the crimes, simply noting that billions of Muslims worldwide exist who aren't criminals is noting the issue of poor sampling.

This continued attempt at painting all of Islam as some kind of evil cult weakens rather than strengthens your argument. It seems enough to note the crux of religion + culture and the issue of importing a criminal element.

I think there is a problem with how the media covers these issues, but I would say that goes for "political correctness" as well as groups that want to use the actions of a few to perpetuate some kind of race war.

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

And calling someone a "collaborationist" is just a tiny smidge on this side of ok?

Enrique has been on a pretty good role for a good long time now throwing his accusatiosn about with wild abandon.

I criticized his posts in my last post.

But X being wrong doesn't make Y correct?

I would say both claiming Islam as a whole is some kind of Evil cult *or* accusing anyone bringing up links between Islam (or Hinduism, or Judaism, etc) and immoral actions of racism are both unhelpful strategies?

 

[Enrique Vargas]

Across all of history? I'd say it's a bit more than that. Look at colonialism + slave trade, the wiping out of pagans of Europe, Native American genocide, Indian caste system, etc. There also seems to be a good deal of damage done by capitalism as well though I do prefer that system to communism.

On the "Not all Muslims" actually I do think it makes sense and need to be "apologetics". Apologetics would be an attempt to rationalize the crimes, simply noting that billions of Muslims worldwide exist who aren't criminals is noting the issue of poor sampling.

This continued attempt at painting all of Islam as some kind of evil cult weakens rather than strengthens your argument. It seems enough to note the crux of religion + culture and the issue of importing a criminal element.

I think there is a problem with how the media covers these issues, but I would say that goes for "political correctness" as well as groups that want to use the actions of a few to perpetuate some kind of race war.

Capitalism, unlike comminism, has nothing to do with social engeneering, creation of "new man", nor is it an ideology. It's simply free market system, unlike ideologies, it doesn't kill. Of course the the West commited numerous atrocities, it's beside the point. Western civilization also created the most humane society known to man. It doesn't deserve to be destroyed by any totalitarian ideology. And islam IS an ideology disguised as religion. It's a governing body, which, unlike any other religion, accepts non-islamic, secular law and authority. Please read the coran and the hadith. You will realise that islam is a totalitarian ideology, very much like communism or nazism

 

[Reece]

I'm not saying you did, others have though. I can't disagree with anything you've said there with the exception of "leave things better". Why do you have that expectation of the refugees? Did the US and the coalition-of-the-willing leave things better than how it found them in Iraq or in Afghanistan? Did Turkey,the GCC, US, EU, Russia (list keeps growing I guess) leave things better than how it found them in Syria? Or is that an unfair comparison in your view and, if so, why?

It's not a fair comparison.

I agree fully with the ill treatment of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and so many others by Western powers. I was actually almost the only person that I was aware of around me that was against the war in Afghanistan. I was against the war in Iraq, too, but I was far from alone in this case. There were bigger protests against the Iraq War before it started than at any other time in history. This includes the protests against the Vietnam War. This tells me what I already know: there's a 100% complete division between those in charge and people like us. The powers that be do what they want. They want to go to war in Iraq? They do it despite unprecedented protests. I do believe they'd rather have our moral support so that we'll go fight, and they normally get this through false flags and false media, but they'll do what they want regardless.

So to get to what you're asking: it's an unfair comparison because you're comparing those who rule us with those on the ground. I live in the U.S. and I have as little control over their (our) war decisions as I do over France's. If someone raped George Bush, Dick Cheney, or Barrack Obama that would be different; actually if someone raped their handlers or the people behind them might be more like it. They would be paying for their decisions.

Also in light of this, and though I don't necessarily like it, this assumes that nation states and their boundaries are as real as we're led to believe. I don't really think they are. I believe that people with power rule across borders and that nation states are to some degree (though not fully) here in namesake only. This changes to a considerable degree whose shoulders the karmic debt falls on. I've done plenty that I have to pay for and bear the burden for, but war in Syria, Afghanistan, or Iraq ain't amongst them.

I would l agree that I benefit from living in a Western country, of course. But the only real way to get leaders to respond to things like anti-war sentiments is violence. Period. They don't respond to votes and moral arguments. (There are many examples of this, but one of the better ones is the civil rights movement: congress passed legislation after 9 weeks of rioting in Birmingham . . . not after a million man march on Washington.)

 

[Michael2]

I criticized his posts in my last post.

But X being wrong doesn't make Y correct?

I would say both claiming Islam as a whole is some kind of Evil cult *or* accusing anyone bringing up links between Islam (or Hinduism, or Judaism, etc) and immoral actions of racism are both unhelpful strategies?

Normally they would be unhelpful. But I just have to ask: what do you do with a guy like Enrique.... who uses bully tactics replete with colorful, if repetitive, ad homs so casually that not also calling him out is severely unbalanced.

Edit: not that I'm saying it's your job to call him out for that. Is it someone job? If so, who would that be?

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

Capitalism, unlike comminism, has nothing to do with social engeneering, creation of "new man", nor is it an ideology. It's simply free market system, unlike ideologies, it doesn't kill. Of course the the West commited numerous atrocities, it's beside the point. Western civilization also created the most humane society known to man. It doesn't deserve to be destroyed by any totalitarian ideology. And islam IS an ideology disguised as religion. It's a governing body, which, unlike any other religion, accepts non-islamic, secular law and authority. Please read the coran and the hadith. You will realise that islam is a totalitarian ideology, very much like communism or nazism

My point was that studying history might provide some perspective on the fact that just about any set of ideas and accepted principles can lead to human suffering. It has nothing to do with blaming the West or anything like that.

As Vortex noted it seems less about a sharp distinction between Islam and other religions and more a cultural distinction between modern and pre-modern attitudes.

I'm sure there are passages in Islamic texts encouraging violence against nonbelievers and prejudice against gays/women, you can find that sort of thing in a variety of religious texts.

I find the comparisons between Nazism, Islam, and Communism unconvincing to be honest. What exactly makes an "ideology" in your view?

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

Normally they would be unhelpful. But I just have to ask: what do you do with a guy like Enrique.... who uses bully tactics replete with colorful, if repetitive, ad homs so casually that not also calling him out is severely unbalanced.

If rational argument is hopeless then humanity is a lost cause.

 

[Enrique Vargas]

i have every right to call certain actions by some people as I see fit Those who deny islam's danger for Western democracies is, in my opinion, an appeaser. It is not a gratuitous insult but a description of modus pensanti/operandi. I find it similal to the modus operandi of communist appeasers back in the Cold War times. My admired friend, Alexander Solzhenitsyn shared this opinion. You can call it "bully tactics" all you want, but, historical parallels ar unavoidable

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

i have every right to call certain actions by some people as I see fir. Those who deny islam's danger for Western democracies is, in my opinion, an appeaser. It is not a gratuitous insult but a description of modus pensanti/operandi. I find it similal to the modus operandi of communist appeasers back in the Cold War times. My admired friend, Alexander Solzhenitsyn shared this opinion. You can call it "bully tactics" all you want, but, historical parallels ar unavoidable

Going back to rhetoric doesn't suggest a strong position.

One can note there is a danger involving a subset of Islamic believers, and note that media coverage that ignores the connection between violent acts and this subset is a problem, without trying to paint an entire religion and its billions of believers as conspiring against the Western World?

 

[Enrique Vargas]

My point was that studying history might provide some perspective on the fact that just about any set of ideas and accepted principles can lead to human suffering. It has nothing to do with blaming the West or anything like that.

As Vortex noted it seems less about a sharp distinction between Islam and other religions and more a cultural distinction between modern and pre-modern attitudes.

I'm sure there are passages in Islamic texts encouraging violence against nonbelievers and prejudice against gays/women, you can find that sort of thing in a variety of religious texts.

I find the comparisons between Nazism, Islam, and Communism unconvincing to be honest. What exactly makes an "ideology" in your view?

I have alreay posted various arguments re islam=totalitarian ideology. Not to repeat them, I'll just post a few links: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2004/10/islam-a-totalitarian-ideology