No use throwing fuel on the fire.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 07-01-2012).]

quote Originally posted by yellowstone: Or maybe they will have no more need for all the supernatural magic stuff? That would be awesome! Unfortunately, the number of muslims worldwide seems to be increasing rapidly...

There is nothing specifically in that section that states that Islam is growing to a larger percentage than other religions. What it does suggest is that the population is growing, but is it growing at the same rate and frequency as the global population is? This appears to not be the case from many other articles that I've seen. It's still rampant in poor areas, but in developing worlds, today's reformed youth, even in Iran and Iraq... they don't want to be associated with the stigma that follows Islam, and rightfully so. Some convert to Christianity, and some become athiests, or just agnostic for that matter. This is all because of their hatred for what Islam quite often stands for.

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: Todd--I agree with a lot of what you have posted in this thread. I'm skeptical, though, that the percentage of people worldwide who profess Islam is going to come down. "The problem is radical Islam. The solution is moderate Islam."--Daniel Pipes. http://www.danielpipes.org/

Although many on here hate Islam outright, I don't particularly have anything against it. Until 9/11 actually woke up me to the reality, I was really quite indifferent. I did have more respect for Buddhism as I knew the entire premise for that religion was peace. I also very much respected Hinduism as I spent a good deal of time in India as a kid and really learned to appreciate the culture that goes with it.

My hatred for radical Islam isn't because of my love of Christianity... many seem to misunderstand this. There is a double-standard here. When Christians blow up abortion clinics or picket with signs saying that God Hates Gays and that the Gay Military Soldiers should all die... we come down HARD on them, as a community, and we squash that crap to within the limits of our constitution. I do NOT see that in predominantly Islamic countries.

I've read quite a few articles on the advancement of the Islamic people, and much of what they write suggests using native countrie's own laws against them, in order to take over... purely for the spread of Islam. This is what is happening in Europe right now. Anyway, I don't have any friends right now who are Muslim, but I have in the past, and I know that people can exist as moderates in today's society. Many of the original good tenents of Islam are completely ignored in the radical Islamic society... and most of what they go after is post-Mohammed. If I could flick my fingers and convert all radical Islamists to moderates, I would in a heart beat.

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: Support that gross overstatement with something substantial and perhaps I'll stop giggling.

I realize it's fun for you to pretend like you've taken the high road... but you still continue to ignore everything I've said while you focus on the only thing you THINK you can "win" in the discussion. You purposly ignore EVERYTHING ELSE as you know that you don't have anything to say about it. You, like many other Muslims like you, are upset about it, but would rather pretend that it doesn't exist, than actually speak out about it.

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Until 9/11 actually woke up me to the reality, I was really quite indifferent.

I think a lot of Americans are like this. By default we are pretty tolerant of everyone's beliefs, and understanding of 'differences' around the world.. But after 9/11 that attitude changed for a lot of us, drastically.

i did about 1/2 hour of googling, and the striking thing to me (since i really don't care about the specifics of any one religion) is just how hard it is to come up with any credible numbers at all. i'm sure they are out there, but there seems to be some digging and a lot of interpretation involved. anyway, here are the best (IMO) numbers out there:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm/

Religion Date Founded Sacred Texts Membership 4 % of World 5
Christianity 30 CE The Bible 2,039 million 32% (dropping)
Islam 622 CE Qur'an & Hadith 1,570 million 22% (growing)
Hinduism 1500 BCE with truly ancient roots Bhagavad-Gita, Upanishads, & Rig Veda 950 million 13% (stable)

islam is supposedly growing as a proportion of world population, but the rate of growth is slowing, so any estimates of future growth are speculative. if it's this difficult to come up with something as "simple" as a head count, conclusions about small subsets are going to be suspect, at best.

quote Originally posted by newf: Not at all, I guess I just don't see you calling them out like you do the Muslims.

You mean like my comments in the most recent Uhlanstan gay bashing thread? You're right--to be honest, I should have said a LOT more.
You know another conservative that has given Avengador as hard a time as I have?

quote Although I don't believe that all Muslims are represented by those who committed the barbaric acts of 9-11 any more than I believe for example all U.S. Military personal are represented by Abu Graib, Trophy killings in afghanastan, Murders in Iraq etc.

I don't believe they are either. I believe tho, that there is a good bit of playing a waiting game to see how things play out in the long run, and then take a stand with the "winning" element, meanwhile tiptoeing around not wishing to get on the wrong saide of their friends, neighbors, Imams, and fellow worshippers.

What I said..

https://www.fiero.nl/forum/F...ML/094688-2.html#p56

maryjane is a great guy and all, but we can't expect him to do all the heavy lifting. in theory it's all about the merits of the argument, not who makes the argument. the uhlanstan situation was a special case, since stan was pretty tightly wrapped up in the flag.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: You mean like my comments in the most recent Uhlanstan gay bashing thread? You're right--to be honest, I should have said a LOT more. You know another conservative that has given Avengador as hard a time as I have

No I don't mean like that, I'm glad you do hold INDIVIDUALS on here to the same standard. My point is you seem to have to see the Muslim world rise up En-Masse but for others it's only an individual that counts.

My belief is that many Muslims don't feel a kinship with the radicals just as members of other groups don't feel any kinship with radicals of their own groups and thus don't feel a large need to rise up en-masse publically.

Also I believe that the majority of Muslims are peaceful people who basically want what most other humans want and are in disagreement with what any terrorist group may do or claim. I think that this disagreement is largely ignored by many.

Some just seem to need a boogie man for some reason.

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: I suspect that loafer87gt and ... are "hit and run artists"--they pop up from time to time in the O/T forum, misuse the words "Muslim" and "Al-Qaida" interchangeably (as if these were one and the same thing) and then conveniently disappear ...

It's not just Muslims. Based on his posts spanning a long period here on PFF, I'd say that loafer87gt is an equal-opportunity bigot (Muslims, blacks, native peoples, women, etc.).

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I realize it's fun for you to pretend like you've taken the high road...

There's a pattern here:

1) 82-T/A [At Work] posts some proposterous and usually inflammatory claim.

2) Someone insists that he provide some credible substantiation for that claim.

3) 82-T/A [At Work] bobs, weaves, and evades, but never responds to the challenge.

4) The other party insists that 82-T/A [At Work] get back on topic and respond to his original challenge.

5) 82-T/A [At Work] escalates the rhetoric, even more aggressively bobbing, weaving, and evading, but never providing any substantiation for his original assertion. He may also resort to insults and/or offensive language as evasion tactics.

Todd, you mav indeed have, as you claim, "read a number of books on arguing," but you have no concept of how to carry on a civil discussion with someone who disagrees with you or how to separate fact from unsubstantiated opinion.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 07-02-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: How many wars have been fought where one or both sides haven't firmly believed that God was aligned with them? How many militaries in the world don't teach, overtly or subliminally, that they are doing the work of God? A few, perhaps, but not many -- everyone seems convinced that God is on their side whenever they go to war and engage in the difficult task of slaughtering other human beings. Indeed, is there any time that people are more convinced of having "God on their side" than when they are killing other humans in large numbers?

I think about that quite often. How would I know that God wasn't on their side? Seems kinda cocky of me to think He'd definitely be on mine.

quote Originally posted by yellowstone: Or maybe they will have no more need for all the supernatural magic stuff? That would be awesome! Unfortunately, the number of muslims worldwide seems to be increasing rapidly...

If I understand correctly, Buddhism isn't really any supernatural "religion" but more of a philosophy of life.

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: Indeed, is there any time that people are more convinced of having "God on their side" than when they are killing other humans in large numbers?

Sports: often you see both sides giving thanks to the same god after scoring. That is both illogical and preposterous...

Politics: both Ms. Bachmann and Mr. Perry were called on by their god to run for president. But then god went for the mormon instead, it seems. Isn't that hilarious?

quote Originally posted by newf: My belief is that many Muslims don't feel a kinship with the radicals just as members of other groups don't feel any kinship with radicals of their own groups and thus don't feel a large need to rise up en-masse publically. Also I believe that the majority of Muslims are peaceful people who basically want what most other humans want and are in disagreement with what any terrorist group may do or claim. I think that this disagreement is largely ignored by many. Some just seem to need a boogie man for some reason.

And I think the same thing goes on in inner-city communities in the U.S. where there may be gangs living in their neaborhood.
The majority of people there probibly want them gone, but they wouldn't exactly say that out loud, if they still want to live.
That doesn't mean they support them.

Yes, keeping quite about injustice may not be honorable, but it can keep you alive.
And I will go out on a limb and say EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US is guilty of it, at one time or another.
Not just from what we see in our OWN country, but others as well.

Even me, and I have been outside the pack my whole life.
Not only does that exclude me from the comfort and protection of the pack, but it also puts me in danger from that very pack.
And that is without saying a single WORD about the pack.
"If you're not with us, you're against us"?

Every single one of us walk a very thin line between "speaking out loud", and "keeping our head down & minding our own damn business" (self-preservation).
Except in war (the final stage of "I don't like it and I ain't gonna' just stand silently by any longer"), where everyone puts everything on the line?

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 07-02-2012).]

bah...thats ok....we got christians who regularly call for genocide....

these damn conservative religious azzhatts.....nothing but a drain on mankind

quote Also I believe that the majority of Muslims are peaceful people who basically want what most other humans want and are in disagreement with what any terrorist group may do or claim. I think that this disagreement is largely ignored by many.

And therein lies the problem. The dynamic ( or lack thereof) that leads the loafer87gt and F355spiders of the world to be able to make the jump to (paraphrased and perhaps over-simplified) "all Muslims are bad" can be (and should already have been) eliminated by an undeniable outpouring of outrage by the larger peaceful Muslim world and it's leaders. It's not so much what someone blew up somewhere or how many they killed that causes this mistaken conclusion--it's the abscence of a denial of acceptance that's large enough to overshadow those events and put them in their proper perspective. What HAS happened, is a camparatively small number of individual denials by courageous members of that peaceful Muslim world--what Newf would normally call "anecdotal evidence". People tend to look at the most visible and most pronounced evidence in any case, and the most visible evidence in this scenario still remains those 2 towers falling down, as well as the 11 years of struggle that has gone on worldwide since that day. IOW. there has been very little done on a large enough scale to place that image into the smaller compartment it should be.

What you--Newf and Lurker-- are doing is to ask me to look at myself as a hipocrite. Ok--guilty as charged, as I don't take every single accuser of bigotry to task on a daily basis, but that in no way changes why a far too large % of the world looks at Islam as a non-peaceful religion. What looms larger in the minds of the globa population?

The almost daily bombings that continue in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Mumbai, attack, the 2 separate WTC bombings, the East Timor attacks, the Cole attack, the Beiruit barracks attack, the the ongoing Sudan and Yemen conflict, et al------or the few assertions by courageous and peace loving Muslims like Doni Hagan that come out publicly against such violence?

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: But according to those countries being infiltrated by Christian "missionaries", they are being invaded. To them, it is a war.

If THAT, is any kind of valid argument for an "invasion" defintion, then it must also work in reverse, and be viewed in reference to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam#Demographics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...owing_religion#Islam

quote According to the Guinness Book of World Records, Islam is the world’s fastest-growing religion by number of conversions each year: Although the religion began in Arabia, by 2002 80% of all believers in Islam lived outside the Arab world. In the period 1990-2000, approximately 12.5 million more people converted to Islam than to Christianity.[23] Part of the books quote can be seen online from this extract from Google Books.[23] This was again shown in the 2005, 50th anniversary edition of Guinness Book of World Records, although the number of conversions was not mentioned this time.[24] In 1990, 935 million people were Muslims and this figure had risen to around 1.2 billion by the year 2000, meaning that around this time one in five people were followers of Islam. According to the BBC, a comprehensive American study concluded in 2009 the number stood at 1 in 4 with 60% of Muslims spread all over the Asian continent: A report from an American think-tank has estimated 1.57 billion Muslims populate the world - with 60% in Asia.[25][26] The report was done by the Pew Forum Research Centre.[26] The forum also projected that in 2010 out of the total number of Muslims in the world 62.1% will live in Asia

Islam is still, according to virtually all reliable sources, the fastest growing religious demographic in the world, spreading to virtually every continent and almost evey nation, making significant inroads into historically Christian, Buhddist, and Hindu countries and communities worldwide. So, it begs the question---Who is invading whom?

But, it is a straw argument. IF Islam were in fact a violent religion, we wouldn't be just looking at comparetively isolated attacks like those listed above. With 2,1 billion followers, we would be in the throes of open global warfare of a scale which the world has never seen--warfare that would overwhelmingly dwarf both world wars combined in geographic scale and bloodshed.


Can an outpouring of admonishment against a minority dispell the belief that Islam is violent? Of course it can. A little-reported and otherwise insignificant event happened at the White House last week, in which 2 people in a tour were photgraphed flipping off the portrait of Ronald Reagan. (A First Amendment right) That photograph and the fact that it happened was quickly followed by both a White House chastising and a very public statement by every liberal organization and media source, (including all the liberal talking heads) that these 2 did NOT represent the overall liberal base. Whatever pleasure or glee those 2 may have gotten at the moment of the photograph was dwarfed by their being castigated by their peers. It works on scales large and small.

There's always some fringe movement both in and out of religion trying to incite violence and advance their ideals--however misplaced those ideals may be--ranging from John Brown to Charles Manson--to Osama Bin Laden. The biiger the splash they make, the more they think their cause is advanced. The best way to minimize that splash is to make a larger one in admonition of their rhetoric.

(I don't have time to edit spelling/grammar errors--sorry)

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 07-02-2012).]

quote Originally posted by maryjane: What you--Newf and Lurker-- are doing is to ask me to look at myself as a hipocrite.

i think you have me confused with someone else. even if i said something which you took that way, it's not what i intended. if you care to show me where i said something like that i'll be happy to clarify or, if need be, apologize.

Another factor in the absence of mass condemnation by Muslims of Muslim outrages commited,might well be the fact that many ( the greater preponderance?) live in a Society which does not avail the majority from MAKING public denouncements, such as TV and internet. And they also live in a far more densely Muslim area, where Alqaeda And those living within the 'Christian' predominance feel less inclined to protest their 'own' in Public because,let's face it: The rogue Muslims (Alqaeda et al) are far more likely to exact their wrath on those people where they live,( and are easily identified BY going Public), than ANY group of Christian 'Radicals' are likely to 'punish' Christians who protest the bad behaviour OF Christians. I simply can't IMAGINE a group of disenchanted Muslims going out on the streets to denouce Radical Muslim behaviour in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan, simply because they would DEFINITELY risk their lives, and those of their families, by doing so. Control by fear.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Islam is still, according to virtually all reliable sources, the fastest growing religious demographic in the world, spreading to virtually every continent and almost evey nation, making significant inroads into historically Christian, Buhddist, and Hindu countries and communities worldwide. So, it begs the question---Who is invading whom? But, it is a straw argument. IF Islam were in fact a violent religion, we wouldn't be just looking at comparetively isolated attacks like those listed above. With 2,1 billion followers, we would be in the throes of open global warfare of a scale which the world has never seen--warfare that would overwhelmingly dwarf both world wars combined in geographic scale and bloodshed. Can an outpouring of admonishment against a minority dispell the belief that Islam is violent? Of course it can. A little-reported and otherwise insignificant event happened at the White House last week, in which 2 people in a tour were photgraphed flipping off the portrait of Ronald Reagan. (A First Amendment right) That photograph and the fact that it happened was quickly followed by both a White House chastising and a very public statement by every liberal organization and media source, (including all the liberal talking heads) that these 2 did NOT represent the overall liberal base. Whatever pleasure or glee those 2 may have gotten at the moment of the photograph was dwarfed by their being castigated by their peers. It works on scales large and small. There's always some fringe movement both in and out of religion trying to incite violence and advance their ideals--however misplaced those ideals may be--ranging from John Brown to Charles Manson--to Osama Bin Laden. The biiger the splash they make, the more they think their cause is advanced. The best way to minimize that splash is to make a larger one in admonition of their rhetoric. (I don't have time to edit spelling/grammar errors--sorry)

I just don't get it I guess, there are countless cases of minorities of a group doing barbaric, acts among other things, that do not result in a larger splash. I guess I just don't see why it SEEMS like it's only the Muslims that you require such acts from to believe they are basically the same as most other people.

Also you have seen the different links of Muslims doing just what you asked in previous posts haven't you? What amount would be good enough?

Hypocrite? Maybe, but I'm sure as Boonie said we all walk that line depending on the situation.

quote Originally posted by newf: snip

Not all Germans were Nazis but all Nazis were German. And the passivity of the German populous to the rise of tryanny is what led to the association of Nazi atrocities with being German. The same standard applies to the Mulim Community who regulalry ignores the tryannical element within its ranks.

You may not agree that they should be sanctioned along with the actual perpetrators of the terror acts but that would be a cop out and , frankly, wrong.

quote Originally posted by newf: I just don't get it I guess, there are countless cases of minorities of a group doing barbaric, acts among other things, that do not result in a larger splash. I guess I just don't see why it SEEMS like it's only the Muslims that you require such acts from to believe they are basically the same as most other people. Also you have seen the different links of Muslims doing just what you asked in previous posts haven't you? What amount would be good enough?

Yes, I've seen them--a miniscule drop in the bucket #s wise--I very much suspect the paltry numbers in those streets don't even equal the numbers of active terrorists in the world.
How many?
Gee I dunno--an amt equal to the those filling the squares for weeks at a time in the Arab Spring protests in Egypt? An amount equal to those crowds we saw whipped into an anti-West frenzy dozens of times over the decades? An amountlarge enough to send an unmistakable message to those who would do such barabric acts in the name of the religion of Islam? Take your pick. I chose this type of public indicator for Muslims because those types of en masse gatherings to vent and show the world their displeasure has tradiitionally been their way of doing things. If their method was a quiet circulated petition, I would have suggested that as well or in the place of.

.[/QUOTE]

You are correct--you don't get it. Public dissent in large numbers throughout history has been the impetus for change in any number of social endeavors, it has overthrown dictators, changed social norms, freed countless nations from colonial rule, got us out of Vietnam, forced changes thru anti-segregation laws, brought down aristocracies in France, and Russia, forced China into a more lax policy on property ownership and a free market, and --well, the list is endless. It works. 2 billion strong, Sitting passively by as a silent majority does not.

Lurker, you are right, I misread one of new's post as yours--sorry.

quote also Muslims may make up fewer than one percent of the U.S. population but they were nearly 13 percent of victims of religious-based hate crimes in 2010, "The Nation" magazine reports (July 2nd). Where are the protests in the streets by the U.S. people who don't support this, if I don't see it it's obvious that all Americans support the rise in violence against Muslims....correct (OK Ok that's going a bit far I know

Again--more spin and deflection via "Don't look here--look there".
You want the public perception of Islam to be reflective of what is true? Let them take the neccessary steps to change it--otherwise, the current belief of some will continue as there has simply been nothing substantial enough to change that erroneous perception. You can argue whether it is unfair to ask them to do in this matter what they and the rest of history has done for centuries, or you can continue to give them a bye and hope for the best, forevermore putting up with those who voice their own opinions to the contrary. Public action always trumps inaction. The ones with the loudest voices will be heard and when they can point to exploding cars and hijacked airliners, crickets chirping aren't going to silence them, nor will all the hyper links in the universe. The ball is in Islam's court--they can run with it or from it--their choice.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 07-02-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Not all Germans were Nazis but all Nazis were German.

Sorry, but you're completely wrong on that one.

Italy: http://de.wikipedia.org/wik...o_Nazionale_Fascista
Britain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...sh_Union_of_Fascists
Austria: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...n_National_Socialism
Denmark: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...%27_Party_of_Denmark
Netherlands: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...ialistische_Beweging
Albania: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...banian_Fascist_Party
Belgium: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...emish_National_Union
France: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouvement_Franciste, http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...ulaire_Fran%C3%A7ais and http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...t_National_Populaire
Greece: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...onal_Socialist_Party
Hungary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_Cross_Party
Norway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasjonal_Samling
Romania: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Guard

After the defeat of fascism, the other countries were just very good in pretending that it never happened, especially the French...

[This message has been edited by yellowstone (edited 07-02-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Not all Germans were Nazis but all Nazis were German. And the passivity of the German populous to the rise of tryanny is what led to the association of Nazi atrocities with being German. The same standard applies to the Muslim Community who regulalry ignores the tryannical element within its ranks. You may not agree that they should be sanctioned along with the actual perpetrators of the terror acts but that would be a cop out and , frankly, wrong.

What is the "Muslim Community"? What does a law-abiding U.S. Muslim who practices medicine (for example) have to do with some "Muslim" nut from overseas who suggests starting forest fires on an al-Qaida webpage? That's what the Original Post was about.

quote The same standard applies to the Muslim Community who regulalry ignores the tyrannical element within its ranks.

So--we should we expect law-abiding Muslims in the U.S. and Canada to pour into the streets in high visibility mass protests every single time that a new al-Qaida video or Internet provocation like this one (forest fire arson) emerges?

But it's OK for certain PFF posters to tarnish Muslims in general as "al-Qaida" or "terrorists", as soon as another new al-Qaida video or Internet provocation like this emerges?

The Original Poster should be taken to task for purposely misrepresenting this article. It doesn't say that "the Muslims" did or didn't do anything. It says that "al-Qaida" put something new on the Internet.

All I would expect and hope for (in this case) is that law-abiding Muslims ignore this latest al-Qaida webpage stupidity about forest fires--that's the way to respond to video or Internet webpage stupidities like this that emerge all the time.

The Nazis? Remember the way that the Nazis had of using "Jew" and "Communist" interchangeably--as if they were one and the same? Communism was certainly a big threat in those days--and a certain percentage of Jews worldwide and even in Germany were undeniably Communists. Jews...Communists. Muslims...terrorists. So there we go...

I think that there is more wrong than right in what Toddster just posted (above), given the whole context of this thread which is about a new al-Qaida Internet provocation, which probably happens every week--and some very careless words by a couple of PFF posters.

Peace.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-03-2012).]

If I remember right, the only people marching with blacks during the civil rights struggle during the '60's, were mostly those "worthless lazy hippies".
A lot of people who felt as these "hippies" did, never marched, never spoke up in favor of them, and even let those they worked & socalized with believe that they felt the same way they did about those "uppity negros" and "those ******lovers".

It is still going on today right where I live and with some of the people I have come to know here.
I have heard them say they are not predudice, but how they talk about others within the protection of their own group betrays that.*

Our own country has a long history of holding it's tounge and just "going along" when they knew it was wrong.

*The tricky question I do not want to answer is what do I do when I am IN that group and witness this behavour?
Do I join in?
Do I stick up for the "target"?
Or do I just remain silent (and not condem them) and let them believe what they will?

What do YOU do?

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 07-02-2012).]

no shortage of nazis here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American_Bund
but not just german-americans,
http://www.rationalrevoluti...ers_of_the_europ.htm

and then there are these charming people, so repugnant that i hesitate to post their link.

http://www.americannaziparty.com/
Click to show

[This message has been edited by lurker (edited 07-02-2012).]

quote Originally posted by lurker: no shortage of nazis here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American_Bund but not just german-americans, http://www.rationalrevoluti...ers_of_the_europ.htm and then there are these charming people, so repugnant that i hesitate to post their link. http://www.americannaziparty.com/ Click to show

Everyone in this country has a right to be what they want and to speak. Regardless of who likes what they have to say. Some of them think you are just as offensive as you think they are. Why are you right and they are wrong?

[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 07-02-2012).]

quote Originally posted by User00013170: Everyone in this country has a right to be what they want and to speak. Regardless of who likes what they have to say. Some of them think you are just as offensive as you think they are. Why are you right and they are wrong?

"Right" as in a constitutional freedom, or "right" as in "right" vs "wrong"..?

History has already passed judgement on Nazism, as far as "right" vs "wrong".

quote Originally posted by User00013170: I think you now what you would do. The same as most of us.

Oh, I know what I do.
I split the difference.

Them: "Those _______are________!"
Me: "Well, not all of them are like that. Lots are just plain hard working folks like us."

It's easy for me to make that choice becouse I have never been part of anyones pack, anyway.
But I DO have to live in the packs territory.

And becouse of that, I SHOULD condem them, but I don't.
But that don't mean I support them.

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 07-02-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: *The tricky question I do not want to answer is what do I do when I am IN that group and witness this behavour? Do I join in? Do I stick up for the "target"? Or do I just remain silent (and not condem them) and let them believe what they will? What do YOU do?

Never join in! What do I do? If it's the kind of mindless raving that is daily fare here on PFF I usually just let it go. But in case of more offensive or bigoted talk I also employ something that I learned many years ago, and it usually works. I simply but emphatically say:

"I don't like to hear to that kind of talk."
... or, more commonly and more succinctly ...
"I don't want to hear it."

This seems particularly effective when addressing peers or subordinates in a work situation. It is less advised for use with superiors or important clients unless you're prepared to relocate. That said, I have indeed "fired" a couple of clients over the years due to repeated expressions of bigotry, but those were very rare events. I have probably had to "fire" more clients for verbally abusing my employees.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 07-02-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: What do I do? If it's the kind of mindless raving that is daily fare here on PFF I usually just let it go. But in case of more offensive or bigoted talk I also employ something that I learned many years ago, and it usually works. I simply but emphatically say: "I don't like to hear to that kind of talk." ... or, more commonly and more succinctly ... "I don't want to hear it." This seems particularly effective when addressing peers or subordinates in an office situation. It is less advised for use with superiors or important clients. That said, I have "fired" a couple of clients over the years due to repeated expressions of bigotry. I also

Yup.
The things that are said at work that you vocally agree or disagree with may very well be the tightest wire we ever walk.
It could doom you, from top to bottom.

I was hired once to spy on employees that were padding their overtime.
It was one of the worst mistakes I ever made, accepting that job.

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 07-02-2012).]

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: "Right" as in a constitutional freedom, or "right" as in "right" vs "wrong"..?

Both.

And anyone that doesn't feel another citizen has that right because they don't like what they say, is a hypocrite and should be stripped of that right.

Note that I'm talking the right to speak and wave your flag, not to go burn a person's house down.

I also don't subscribe to the concept of hate speech. Its only hateful if you don't like it.

[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 07-02-2012).]

quote Originally posted by User00013170: Being a spy is a honorable job if you are watching people that are doing wrong things.

Try working in a building where you can't get fired and everyone hates you.
Guess who gets the worst schedual, equipment, treatment, etc.?

How would you like to walk into a room and everyone either gets quiet or walks away?
Day after day.
It's soul-crushing.

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 07-02-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: Try working in a building where you can't get fired and everyone hates you. Guess who gets the worst schedual, equipment, treatment, etc.? How would you like to walk into a room and everyone either gets quite or walks away? Day after day. It's soul-crushing.

I have been there, and i had no problem with it at all. If they were not 'cheating' there would have been no problems..

But then again, i have no soul.

[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 07-02-2012).]

T O/T is such a strange place. The same conversation happening in so many threads.

quote Originally posted by mptighe: T O/T is such a strange place. The same conversation happening in so many threads.

Maybe because everything can be boiled down to being based on one thing: Fear.

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: Maybe because everything can be boiled down to being based on one thing: Fear.

I dont fear.

quote Originally posted by User00013170: I dont fear.

I think if you really look at it objectivly, everything a human does can be traced back to fear.
Fear of being poor, alone, sick, etc. drives us to NOT be that.

Fear may be the first, and base from which all other emotions come from.
Fear (and the control of it) was probibly more importent to our beginnings & survival then any other single thing.
We have come a long way, but I believe that is still the basis of what & where we really are.

But I ain't no genius.

quote Originally posted by User00013170: Why are you right and they are wrong?

they are welcome to their opinions. however, they are willing to act on those opinions by resort to violence against my rights as a citizen and human being, and against my person. i am unwilling to resort to violence, until provoked by violence. i will exercise my right to speak against them. do i make myself clear?

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: I think if you really look at it objectivly, everything a human does can be traced back to fear. Fear of being poor, alone, sick, etc. drives us to NOT be that. Fear may be the first, and base from which all other emotions come from. Fear (and the control of it) was probibly more importent to our beginnings & survival then any other single thing. We have come a long way, but I believe that is still the basis of what & where we really are. But I ain't no genius.

I consider 'concern' and 'fear' and 'logical actions' as being different things.

If a bear was running up to me, id not be 'afraid' as i would have actions i could take to mitigate the attack. If a rock was falling on me, i dont think id 'fear' it as not a hell of a lot i could do about it.

Losing my job and trying to figure out how to eat, its more of a concern and not 'fear'.

Its all subjective i agree. Perhaps I've been thru too much to 'fear'.

[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 07-02-2012).]