They’ve changed a lot actually you’ve only noticed me until I reached a tipping point of pragmatic and consequentialism based views which has changed my view on things entirely.
1. Well, I remember not long after you and I both came here you described yourself as a "neocon". Back when you had Rodin's "The Thinker" as your avatar.
2. Yeah, see, you're a consequentialist. I'm not. Or at least I'm not for the most part-- where deontological ethics aren't clear, I will err on the consequentialist side, and sometimes a decision can be based primarily on concerns of deontological justice, but secondarily on consequentialist concerns. But overall , consequentialism is the road to hell, and, ironically it's a very Leninist kinda ethics. You know your neocon heroes never really shed their Leninist roots, right?
You are actually starting to share some thoughts now.
I always was sharing thoughts-- you just didn't like those thoughts or the way I was expressing them. In fact, if writing is not the expression of thoughts, then what is it?
This is good, now why couldn’t we do this before all the swearing, name calling and negativity?
Cause Fuck You, that's why.
Seriously, though, although I think you're a nice guy, you support, politically, much that I'm against. You are authoritarian, I'm anti-authoritarian. If I insult you every now and then it's because, well, you're the fuckin enemy, and sometimes that overshadows the fact you're a nice guy as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure my grandpa wasted plenty of Krauts in WWII that if there hadn't been a war on, he would have loved to hang out with and have a beer with.
(which btw, in my opinion implement the ideas of people like Locke/Jefferson for the safe keeping of individual rights and religion tolerance where applicable).
Where applicable? Nah, fuck that. I'll take the idea of personal autonomy and limited civil government as a total package and not just apply it where it suits me, thank you very much.
I am sure at this stage you agree with me.
No, no I don't.
because just like having an enemy you profoundly disagree with, it is a good thing since it shows you stand up for something.
Yeh, I dunno about that-- Hitler and Stalin had plenty of enemies after all. They stood for something, but that something is important.
This is what I call sharing thoughts and learning from each other.
D'okay
3: No women freely wears a burqa Q-Man. I really hope this makes sense. Any woman who says “I wear it because I want to” says that because she has been indoctrinated from a young age or at some point in her life to think wildly incorrectly. For the lady who wears it because of indoctrination – this is unacceptable.
Everybody is indoctrinated in something or other. This is no excuse for the state to step in. You will indoctrinate your children according to your belief system, as will I should I ever have kids. I was subject to semi-secular indoctrination in the public schools I attended-- I broke free of this indoctrination as have others.
Men is Islam are not forced to wear one, and do they wear one? No.
How bout the Taureg?
Those are Berber Muslims where the women are not expected to cover their faces, but men are.
Women on the other hand are forced to wear one, and so they wear it. If you experienced the shouting matches between my sisters and mother Q-Man, perhaps this would be ingraved in you emotionally like it is in me.
Your personal experience, however emotionally powerful, is ifuckinrelevant. My mom's marriage to my dad ended with my pop being shot down on my front steps, then a few years later him ending up in prison. So fucking what? Do you see me arguing for laws to prohibit sleazy Egyptians from knocking up and marrying young White women?
As for the grown up women who wear one, say recent converts, well just like it is idiotic of them to go drink driving, I would say it is idiotic of them to wear one because of the negative consequneces is has on society including social division (e.g. asking a burqa woman a question at a bus stop) and promoting such a ridiculous fashion accessory when evolution over millions of years wanted her to show her face in order to COMMUNICATE with people.
Gotcha. You don't respect her choice cause you think it's idiotic, so you link it up with some horrible consequences to justify the state banning it.
Which the burqa does, I really do think. It affects Muslims sons and daughters growing up. It affects the society at large for social integration. Do you accept this? If you do no, we *completely* disagree and can't help each other if (I think) you can't see the blindingly obvious *facts* here (obvious to me, that is).
So, then, let me ask you-- should the state be allowed to stop Christian families from teaching their children creationist ideas? Should the government prevent Orthodox Jewish families from teaching their children that women should wear wigs and garments that cover their arms and legs? Or that men should not shave and wear yarmulkes or hats? How far are you willing to go with this?
Which comes back to the issue of having a platform whereby law and order has a feedback mechanism for control. Wilders will be fine, because there is this platform. The Wilders hate speech trial has collapsed for this reason.
Read DeTocqueville, and a history book while you're at it. Majoritarian rule doesn't always have such cheery outcomes.
If the state is thinking better than it's populous, has rational, scientific, mathematical, social and subject matter expert reasoning to doing so; together with a platform for alterations, protests, demonstrations, being sued in the courts; then I think there are very good reasons (namely progress) for allowing the state do what is best for it's people, which means change and putting through laws. Look, I don't like some of the rushed technology bills/acts being put through, but there is a platform to change this. Law and order is very important just like bureaucracy (procedures, protocols, regulations) is important in multinational organisations for them to survive when there are thousands of workers. Yes, sometimes it is wrong, but with a platform to correct it, the pipes and filters of law and order which affects millions of people need to be constructed as time goes on otherwise you are halting progress for country/continent/human advancement.
Wow, just, wow!
To me it feels like you are saying, "I'm not sure this will work, it feels like a slippery slope, I'm scared, so I will do nothing". Wake up, please wake up, progress comes with change mon ami.
Bwahahahaha! You're arguing with someone who advocates social revolution and accuse them of fearing change. That's too fuckin awesome, man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtORI3ZlPeg&feature=related
Poll
Topic: Another question for ex-Muslims