I am curious about something....

[Doc]

Neither, apparently, is Michael Jackson, but for completely different reasons.  :P

Occhi
[right][snapback]80780[/snapback][/right]

Touche.

I have no desire to be lumped in with him what so ever.

[whyBish]

genetic mutilation
Occhi
[right][snapback]80723[/snapback][/right]

... I thought it was the European nations allowing backdoors to people wanting gentic mutilation, and the african nations doing the female *genital* mutilation :P

[Occhidiangela]

... I thought it was the European nations allowing backdoors to people wanting gentic mutilation, and the african nations doing the female *genital* mutilation  :P
[right][snapback]80786[/snapback][/right]

Huh? Shadow was commenting on Canada as a refuge. What am I missing here? Some African societies conducting femal genetic mutliation was the topic. Was there a typo up there somewhere?

Occhi

[Minionman]

1) I was not arguing. I was simply stating a fact. For example: France, who had a large army when WWII started, folded to the Nazis within 30 days, and declared Paris an open city, just to save their own skin. This is not an argument. It is a fact.

2) Do not underestimate the importance of someone's backround. For example, I would not presume to argue with Doc about the difficulties of growing up in the South(?) and being black in the 1860's...errr...1960's, or arguing with a woman about pains during labor. Also, I never said that it is the deciding factor, just a factor. Either learn to read, or learn to stop twisting what other people say.
[right][snapback]80775[/snapback][/right]

1 is not a "fact" unless you can find some way to convince the rest of us, which you haven't been doing, except by blustering, where the "tough" line comes from.

on 2: you never said what your background was that somehow makes you better at knowing about how people's minds develope, you gave no description about how people develope that would back you up, justused the "background" to say "I'm better than you in morals, so be quiet". In terms of your "absolutes" argument, you again had nothing in there except the blustering and the "I'm smarter than you" comment.

[Griselda]

Attack the argument, not the poster, or take it off the forum please.

[M0rmegil]

I'm sort of busy right now, so not much time to answer. However, I'll give you the cliffnotes version.
Nazis treated Jews like sub-humans. Muslims treat women like sub-humans.

Of course you might dispute that Muslims treat women in that way, but if that is the case, there is no point in further discussion.
-A
[right][snapback]80614[/snapback][/right]

So, basically, you're saying:

"FACT (not open to discussion): muslims = nazis"

or at least:

"FACT (not open to discussion): muslims = as bad as nazis"

So your question is, in fact, completely equivalent to: "How could any (free) Jew support the Nazis?"

I doubt very many people will try to answer that question... and, therefore, it comes as no surprise to me that most people choose to argue against the part of your question that you consider to be a fact (or at least not open to discussion).

So, I suppose I could try to answer the question you seem to really be asking:

I can see a Jew (or a woman) supporting the nazis (or women-oppressing muslims) for pure personal gain if he or she believes to be able to individually escape the oppression and benefit from it. I think some people (of ANY group) are like that. Individual human beings don't always necessarily show solidarity with the group they are considered to be a part of.

However, one would hope these people are the exception. I believe there will be a far larger group that simply disputes your "facts".

[Ashock]

1 is not a "fact" unless you can find some way to convince the rest of us, which you haven't been doing, except by blustering, where the "tough" line comes from.

on 2: you never said what your background was that somehow makes you better at knowing about how people's minds develope, you gave no description about how people develope that would back you up, justused the "background" to say "I'm better than you in morals, so be quiet".  In terms of your "absolutes" argument, you again had nothing in there except the blustering and the "I'm smarter than you" comment.
[right][snapback]80815[/snapback][/right]

1) It is only those that have not read the history books, that could argue that.

2) I (and even more importantly my parents and grandparents) grew up in an environment that is the epitome of what a truly oppressive regime can do to people's thoughts. I have spent semi-extensive time living in 2 Muslim republics. Even more importantly, my father's side of the family lived there for over 40 years. Does that make me an expert of how they think, what is in their head and what their society is like? That is definately arguable. However, it does make me more of an expert than most if not all of you, and those that are exceptions to that, are not arguuing against me.

3) Do not confuse smarter and wiser.




-A

[Jester]

"France, who had a large army when WWII started, folded to the Nazis within 30 days, and declared Paris an open city, just to save their own skin."

No, that's a fact plus a claim.

This is a fact:

"France, who had a large army when WWII started, folded to the Nazis within 30 days, and declared Paris an open city..."

There's nothing in there that is subject to interpretation. France did have a large army. They did fold within 30 days. They did declare Paris an open city. All of this is well within the realm of the absolutely knowable (insofar as anything is in that realm).

This is a claim:

"... just to save their own skin."

This is interpretation. You can't know the motives of a single person, let alone a whole nation, well enough to say anything that definite about them. Now, I happen to agree with you on this interpretation. But you have no method of verifying this well enough to call it a fact. It may be a very likely claim (it is), but it is still just that. It is open to counter-argument.

You shouldn't attach interpretation on to information and claim both of them as fact. State the facts, and if you've got an interpretation, argue for that interpretation.

Jester

[Sailboat]

I am clearly not white enough to make some folk happy.
[right][snapback]80776[/snapback][/right]

Aw, Doc, you'll always be white enough for me. :)

Sailboat

[Doc]

Aw, Doc, you'll always be white enough for me.  :)

Sailboat
[right][snapback]80843[/snapback][/right]

I would rather you be colour blind and look at me as a human being. :D

[Minionman]

1) It is only those that have not read the history books, that could argue that.

2) I (and even more importantly my parents and grandparents) grew up in an environment that is the epitome of what a truly oppressive regime can do to people's thoughts. I have spent semi-extensive time living in 2 Muslim republics. Even more importantly, my father's side of the family lived there for over 40 years. Does that make me an expert of how they think, what is in their head and what their society is like? That is definately arguable. However, it does make me more of an expert than most if not all of you, and those that are exceptions to that, are not arguuing against me.

3) Do not confuse smarter and wiser.
-A
[right][snapback]80832[/snapback][/right]

The post you talked about "facts" with was about people understanding absolutes above a certain age. There is no possible way to know this relating to background, and you never added any extra information to explain this.

About your background on areas you lived in: probably should have added this earlier, as it does help the argument. Next time do this insterad of blustering. However, that still doesn't explain where the culture comes from that makes people follow the religion the way they do, or how much the religion and other influences can be seperated. Muslims in Europe or the U.S., or in other different countries, can be expected to follow different opinions on a lot of things, even when having the same religion, so the other effects need to get seperated out with out going full on about "islam".

[Minionman]

I would rather you be colour blind and look at me as a human being. :D
[right][snapback]80845[/snapback][/right]

You'll always be a forum bot almost indistinguishable from a human to me. :P

(See "Do you think "doc" is real", for explanation")

[Ashock]

You shouldn't attach interpretation on to information and claim both of them as fact. State the facts, and if you've got an interpretation, argue for that interpretation.

Jester
[right][snapback]80842[/snapback][/right]

Now you're being annoying.


-A

[Occhidiangela]

I would rather you be colour blind and look at me as a human being. :D
[right][snapback]80845[/snapback][/right]

You'll always be a glass cannon, to me.

"Gulzar, you idiot!" :D

Occhi D'Merc

[gekko]

Now you're being annoying.
-A
[right][snapback]80866[/snapback][/right]

I was having trouble deciding if you were just trolling, or had just started this discussion with too closed a mind to actually discuss anything. Thanks for clearing that up.

gekko

[Occhidiangela]

I was having trouble deciding if you were just trolling, or had just started this discussion with too closed a mind to actually discuss anything.  Thanks for clearing that up.

gekko
[right][snapback]80888[/snapback][/right]

Considering how few people answered his original question, as in explaining the reasoning for the phenomenon he observed, I daresay that either a collection of folks came out from under bridges, or did not understand the question in the first place.

Occhi

[Jester]

"Considering how few people answered his original question, as in explaining the reasoning for the phenomenon he observed, I daresay that either a collection of folks came out from under bridges, or did not understand the question in the first place."

Perhaps, rather than conjuring some nebulous Western Feminists from the void, Ashock (or yourself, if you'd care to) should conjure some representative examples of this occuring. I've heard arguments that the abuses that go on are insufficient reason to launch a war halfway across the world. I've heard arguments defending the *general* notion of Muslim society, qualified by the need to improve women's rights (and rights generally). But I've yet to hear a Western Feminist defend the gang-raping bits of Islamic culture.

But if they're out there, maybe bringing them to light might help. Until then, I can only assume that we're dealing with stereotypes and not actual Western Feminists.

It's been put fairly clearly earlier in the thread. If you ask a question which is made impossible (or just unbelievably stupid) by your assumptions, I wouldn't be so surprised if you get people attacking your assumptions rather than answering your questions.

Jester

[Occhidiangela]

I've heard arguments defending the *general* notion of Muslim society, qualified by the need to improve women's rights (and rights generally).[right][snapback]80898[/snapback][/right]

So have I.

I have even made arguments like that myself, in the 90's, about letting Muslim nations evolve toward a more progressive model in their own good time, rather than certain factions try to shrilly force Western sensibilities down their throats on that particular topic. Some Arab societies, as in Iraq under the Baathists, were socially progressive in that sense.

Something about catching flies with honey . . . but it seems that the shrill, in your face attitude of the PC crowd carried into our foreign policy for a while, along with the symbols and images of how to sluttify your society carried by the satellite transmissions.

Occhi

[jahcs]

It's been put fairly clearly earlier in the thread. If you ask a question which is made impossible (or just unbelievably stupid) by your assumptions, I wouldn't be so surprised if you get people attacking your assumptions rather than answering your questions.

Jester
[right][snapback]80898[/snapback][/right]

Agreed. And when a poster isn't willing to look at other points of view why bother to ask the question in the first place? Questions are normally asked in the hope of gaining insight or knowledge. Rhetorical diatribe is not very productive on an internet forum.

[Occhidiangela]

Rhetorical diatribe is not very productive on an internet forum.
[right][snapback]80929[/snapback][/right]

True enough, but it tends to be the coin of the realm, doesn't it? ;)

Occhi