Pages: 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 11

 

2009-06-08 21:09:06
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6662|'Murka

lowing wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

cba to read through seven pages of posts...
this thread has long been hijacked by lowing for the purposes if his anti-islam crusade. no point in being on-topic anymore, i guess.

@lowing: lol, dude, you quote me a christian site as a source of info on islam? wow...
I do not hijack any threads, I posted my opinion on appeasement and answered to the responses of it. If this thread is hijacked it is by those that join the lowing bash fest without actually contributing to the thread. I contribute to the thread and I do not post personal attacks ( hardly). If you feel this thread has been hijacked then look at those that agree with your opinion and not mine.
No one has answered the question I posed.

How is it appeasement?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-06-09 00:36:15
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7061|Nårvei

FEOS wrote:

lowing wrote:

Shahter wrote:

this thread has long been hijacked by lowing for the purposes if his anti-islam crusade. no point in being on-topic anymore, i guess.

@lowing: lol, dude, you quote me a christian site as a source of info on islam? wow...
I do not hijack any threads, I posted my opinion on appeasement and answered to the responses of it. If this thread is hijacked it is by those that join the lowing bash fest without actually contributing to the thread. I contribute to the thread and I do not post personal attacks ( hardly). If you feel this thread has been hijacked then look at those that agree with your opinion and not mine.
No one has answered the question I posed.

How is it appeasement?
It was answered somewhere on page 7 by Bertster: http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 1#p2664731
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2009-06-09 05:39:15
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6662|'Murka

Varegg wrote:

FEOS wrote:

lowing wrote:


I do not hijack any threads, I posted my opinion on appeasement and answered to the responses of it. If this thread is hijacked it is by those that join the lowing bash fest without actually contributing to the thread. I contribute to the thread and I do not post personal attacks ( hardly). If you feel this thread has been hijacked then look at those that agree with your opinion and not mine.
No one has answered the question I posed.

How is it appeasement?
It was answered somewhere on page 7 by Bertster: http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 1#p2664731
Then this isn't appeasement. The OP didn't say anything about demands from that group.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-06-09 08:29:27
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6541|Éire

lowing wrote:

I have long acknowledged that my opinions sometimes run in the face of the Constitution and can be construed as hypocrisy, Braddock. However I still am honest about them. I also justify it (for right or wrong) the notion that I believe Islam has no place in a free equal and modern tolerant, society.
The statement "I believe that (insert anything here) has no place in a free, equal and modern tolerant society" is inherently flawed lowing.

...but let's run with it a little despite this - so your free, equal and modern tolerant society wants to ban a religion that gives hope, dignity and structure to millions (like so many other religions and belief systems) because of the actions of a violent but miniscule minority who happen to occupy a disproportionate amount of media airtime? How free, equal and tolerant of you!
2009-06-09 10:15:41
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6833|SE London

FEOS wrote:

Varegg wrote:

FEOS wrote:


No one has answered the question I posed.

How is it appeasement?
It was answered somewhere on page 7 by Bertster: http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 1#p2664731
Then this isn't appeasement. The OP didn't say anything about demands from that group.
Yes it did.

CameronPoe wrote:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0605/1224248100723.html?via=mr

Up to ten Orthodox Jewish students who should be sitting a rescheduled state examination in English this Saturday (the Sabbath) are having their religious observances facilitated by the state. They are being quarantined on the Saturday and being permitted to sit the exam on Sunday instead.

What are your thoughts on this? Appeasement? Pragmatism? Right? Wrong?
Because of their religious demands, they are getting special treatment. Not that I care, but it is a clear example of appeasement.
2009-06-09 11:51:38
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6902|USA

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Varegg wrote:


It was answered somewhere on page 7 by Bertster: http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 1#p2664731
Then this isn't appeasement. The OP didn't say anything about demands from that group.
Yes it did.

CameronPoe wrote:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0605/1224248100723.html?via=mr

Up to ten Orthodox Jewish students who should be sitting a rescheduled state examination in English this Saturday (the Sabbath) are having their religious observances facilitated by the state. They are being quarantined on the Saturday and being permitted to sit the exam on Sunday instead.

What are your thoughts on this? Appeasement? Pragmatism? Right? Wrong?
Because of their religious demands, they are getting special treatment. Not that I care, but it is a clear example of appeasement.
I said this way early on, this is appeasement.
2009-06-09 11:55:23
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6902|USA

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

I have long acknowledged that my opinions sometimes run in the face of the Constitution and can be construed as hypocrisy, Braddock. However I still am honest about them. I also justify it (for right or wrong) the notion that I believe Islam has no place in a free equal and modern tolerant, society.
The statement "I believe that (insert anything here) has no place in a free, equal and modern tolerant society" is inherently flawed lowing.

...but let's run with it a little despite this - so your free, equal and modern tolerant society wants to ban a religion that gives hope, dignity and structure to millions (like so many other religions and belief systems) because of the actions of a violent but miniscule minority who happen to occupy a disproportionate amount of media airtime? How free, equal and tolerant of you!
Wow, I coulda swore, I already admitted the hypocrisy of my opinion in the very paragraph you quoted. good catch.

If Muslims want to change their religion to something that does not teach violence and intolerance to those that do not succomb to its teachings, I am all for it, but they are gunna need to call it something else, since Islam is already taken.

Last edited by lowing (2009-06-09 11:57:50)

2009-06-09 11:57:10
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6902|USA

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Uh like I said the article is fair, the very fact that he spent time writting the damn thing suggests that he, at least, recognizes the violence and intolerance within Islam. Which is my argument.

It kills me that you refuse to acknowledge these facts about Islam, yet the internet is filled with Muslims and non-Muslims doing so.

http://reformislam.org/

OUR GOALS
to educate Muslims about dangers presented by Islamic religious texts and why Islam must be reformed
to educate non-Muslims about the differences between moderate Muslims and Islamists (a.k.a. Islamic Religious Fanatics, Radical Muslims, Muslim Fundamentalists, Islamic Extremists or Islamofascists)


first, now why would these MUSLIMS think Islam needs to be reforemed if it is not full of hate and violence?

Second, notice how it differenciates themselves form Muslim and "Islamists". I speak of Islam, I do not speak of Muslims. Even these Muslims recognize the violence abd intolerance of Islam, and aretrying to change it. Maybe it best serve their cause if you recognized it as well and pulled your head out ofthe sand.
It's an article written in response to statements made by various religious figures. It may seem to you that he wrote it because he thinks Islam is a religion of hatred and violence, but that just makes you seem even more delusional.

Note the bit at the bottom of the article saying he's going to write a similar article about the Bible (now that I would expect to be highly biased - can't be having religious figures analysing the texts from their own religions and expect to be taken too seriously).


Yes there are Muslims calling for reform of Islam, because of the conflicting aspects of the Koran which does promote defensive violence. But likewise the Bible promotes the just use of force/violence by a state - which is really exceedingly similar. It is not the religion but the individuals and the willfull misinterpretation of the ideals promoted that are the problem - not the text itself. It is clear that the Bible has often been taken out of context by various groups in the past (and present) the Spanish Inquisition, various papally instigated genocides, witch burning and the WBC are a few examples. In the height of some major violent incidents instigated by the Christian church, there have always been those who called for reform.
"Mark Durie investigates this question in the wake of many Muslims’ hostile reaction to Pope Benedict’s September address". the first sentence if not the fuckin title alone suggests there is something to discuss aobut Islam and violence.

Also, well done avoiding the rest.
What have I avoided?

Where has he said anywhere in the entire article that the Koran promotes anything other than defensive violence?

How is the fact he's written an article about violence in Islam in response to stuff said by various public figures any different to the fact that the next month he wrote an article about violence in the Bible in response to stuff being said by various public figures?

How does the article support your argument?

Mark Durie investigates this question in the wake of many Muslims’ hostile reaction to Pope Benedict’s September address
Sounds quite similar to:

It is a commonly-held view that the Bible is a violent book. Mark Durie investigates.
you have avoided this:
http://reformislam.org/

OUR GOALS
to educate Muslims about dangers presented by Islamic religious texts and why Islam must be reformed
to educate non-Muslims about the differences between moderate Muslims and Islamists (a.k.a. Islamic Religious Fanatics, Radical Muslims, Muslim Fundamentalists, Islamic Extremists or Islamofascists)


first, now why would these MUSLIMS think Islam needs to be reformed if it is not full of hate and violence?

Second, notice how it differenciates themselves form Muslim and "Islamists". I speak of Islam, I do not speak of Muslims. Even these Muslims recognize the violence abd intolerance of Islam, and are trying to change it. Maybe it best serves their cause if you recognized it as well and pulled your head out of the sand.
2009-06-09 12:35:43
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7061|Nårvei

Appeasement isn't automatically a negatively charged word ... remember that
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2009-06-09 13:13:43
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6902|USA

Varegg wrote:

Appeasement isn't automatically a negatively charged word ... remember that
Yes it is, it caters to special interest groups, and not to the masses.
2009-06-09 13:56:54
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6656|North Carolina

Varegg wrote:

Appeasement isn't automatically a negatively charged word ... remember that
Appeasement is negative.  Cooperation is positive.

The difference between the two is mostly subjective.
2009-06-09 14:35:40
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|6916|NT, like Mick Dundee

If you read the whole article the Irish had to allow the Jewish students to sit the exam on another day, as if forced to sit it on the Sabbath it could have gone to the high court as challenge to the constitution of Ireland.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
2009-06-09 15:08:19
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6662|'Murka

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Varegg wrote:

It was answered somewhere on page 7 by Bertster: http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 1#p2664731
Then this isn't appeasement. The OP didn't say anything about demands from that group.
Yes it did.
No, it didn't.

Bert wrote:

Because of their religious demands, they are getting special treatment. Not that I care, but it is a clear example of appeasement.
Just re-read the OP's article. Nowhere does it say anyone demanded this accommodation from the SEC. Nobody threatened anyone over it...so again...how is this appeasement?

dictionary.com wrote:

appeasement

to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.
-------------
The policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace.
-------------
A political policy of conceding to aggression by a warlike nation.
-------------
To appease is to make anxious overtures and often undue concessions to satisfy the demands of someone with a greed for power, territory, etc.
It's not.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-06-09 15:44:33
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6902|USA

Turquoise wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Appeasement isn't automatically a negatively charged word ... remember that
Appeasement is negative.  Cooperation is positive.

The difference between the two is mostly subjective.
Not if you are only cooperating with certain groups.
2009-06-10 01:19:16
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6833|SE London

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:


Then this isn't appeasement. The OP didn't say anything about demands from that group.
Yes it did.
No, it didn't.

Bert wrote:

Because of their religious demands, they are getting special treatment. Not that I care, but it is a clear example of appeasement.
Just re-read the OP's article. Nowhere does it say anyone demanded this accommodation from the SEC. Nobody threatened anyone over it...so again...how is this appeasement?

dictionary.com wrote:

appeasement

to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.
-------------
The policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace.
-------------
A political policy of conceding to aggression by a warlike nation.
-------------
To appease is to make anxious overtures and often undue concessions to satisfy the demands of someone with a greed for power, territory, etc.
It's not.
What complete drivel.

Appeasement does not inherently demand anyone be threatened. You've been quite selective in your choice of dictionary examples.

Dictionary.com also has down lots of other things, which are not compatible with your view that threats are required for it to be appeasement.

1.     to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment; pacify; soothe: to appease an angry king.
2.     to satisfy, allay, or relieve; assuage: The fruit appeased his hunger.
3.     to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.
To bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment - no threatening connotations there. You've just restricted the use of the word in your own head to imply making concessions to threats, but that's not what it means. Look at the "fruit appeased his hunger" example - where is the threat there?

Before you start challenging everyone on what words mean, you should be sure that you know. Otherwise you wind up looking rather silly.
2009-06-10 01:50:30
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6357|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

How is it appeasement?
UK Society is adjusting its normal processes to accomodate the religious requirements of a small minority.
Presumably they requested it, their request has been met, they have been appeased.
Fuck Israel
2009-06-10 03:14:33
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7026|Moscow, Russia

lowing wrote:

If Muslims want to change their religion to something that does not teach violence and intolerance to those that do not succomb to its teachings, I am all for it, but they are gunna need to call it something else, since Islam is already taken.
any religion can be changed to teach whatever one wants it to. that's the whole point of religious teaching in the first place: they are obtuse, self contradictory and figurative - all because they need to be easy to adapt for different social situations and political purposes. if you ever bothered to read bible, for example, you'd have known that christianity "teaches" violence and intolerance just about as much as islam.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2009-06-10 03:33:59
JahManRed
wank
+646|6879|IRELAND

Appeasement is compromise. The world does not work without compromise. Its been proven time and time again. Look at every conflict area and how they where sorted out and their is always compromise.
2009-06-10 03:50:48
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7026|Moscow, Russia

JahManRed wrote:

Appeasement is compromise. The world does not work without compromise. Its been proven time and time again. Look at every conflict area and how they where sorted out and their is always compromise.
compromise implies that both sides have their interests observed, partially at least. in this case state didn't get anything out of it except additional expences.
religion is a leech, it contributes absolutely nothing to society and needs to be dealt with accordingly. therefore, as a said already, religious boobies should have all their religion-related expences charged back to them.

edit: spelling.

Last edited by Shahter (2009-06-10 04:20:36)

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2009-06-10 04:10:28
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6662|'Murka

Bertster7 wrote:

What complete drivel.

Appeasement does not inherently demand anyone be threatened. You've been quite selective in your choice of dictionary examples.

Dictionary.com also has down lots of other things, which are not compatible with your view that threats are required for it to be appeasement.

1.     to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment; pacify; soothe: to appease an angry king.
2.     to satisfy, allay, or relieve; assuage: The fruit appeased his hunger.
3.     to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.
To bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment - no threatening connotations there. You've just restricted the use of the word in your own head to imply making concessions to threats, but that's not what it means. Look at the "fruit appeased his hunger" example - where is the threat there?

Before you start challenging everyone on what words mean, you should be sure that you know. Otherwise you wind up looking rather silly.
OK smarty-pants...how's this?

"Appeasement" in terms of its historical use in this forum clearly falls under the Chamberlain-esque definition, which is why I limited it to the ones presented in my previous post. It has nothing to do with satiating hunger or inner peace. It has everything to do with compromising one's values/laws in order to placate a threat.

When talking about adjusting a set of policies to accommodate a given group (in the past, it has been Muslims in Europe where appeasement has been bandied about), there is an implied threat and accommodation of said threat. There was no threat here, thus no appeasement to the Jews, as implied by the OP.

I know what the the words mean, Bertster. And I also know the context in which they are used and the meaning implied by that context. If you can't keep up...why you just "wind up looking rather silly".

Last edited by FEOS (2009-06-10 05:16:10)

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-06-10 04:43:19
JahManRed
wank
+646|6879|IRELAND

Shahter wrote:

JahManRed wrote:

Appeasement is compromise. The world does not work without compromise. Its been proven time and time again. Look at every conflict area and how they where sorted out and their is always compromise.
compromise implies that both sides have their interests observed, partially at least. in this case state didn't get anything out of it except additional expences.
religion is a leech, it contributes absolutely nothing to society and needs to be dealt with accordingly. therefore, as a said already, religious boobies should have all their religion-related expences charged back to them.

edit: spelling.
Im not a fan of religion. But it exists and the majority of the population prescribes to one or the other.
Compromise is rarely equal on both sides. One side usually has to compromise more than the other. That compromise should be reciprocated by the other side at some point. A previous compromise can be used to get said group to compromise on another issue themselves at some point in the future. Religion has compromised over the years. Look at the power the church wielded a couple of hundred years ago. That power has been diluted by compromise.
I remember being asked by a Jewish man to lift his child off the street and carry him into his house on the sabbath in Manchester. I'm an atheist, but compromised my views by helping him out even tho his request was totally ludicrous to me. Appeaser me.
2009-06-10 06:13:35
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6902|USA

Shahter wrote:

lowing wrote:

If Muslims want to change their religion to something that does not teach violence and intolerance to those that do not succomb to its teachings, I am all for it, but they are gunna need to call it something else, since Islam is already taken.
any religion can be changed to teach whatever one wants it to. that's the whole point of religious teaching in the first place: they are obtuse, self contradictory and figurative - all because they need to be easy to adapt for different social situations and political purposes. if you ever bothered to read bible, for example, you'd have known that christianity "teaches" violence and intolerance just about as much as islam.
No, the teachings are already written, Muhammad's actions already documented. There is no changing anything, only ignoring or accepting it.

I contend if a Muslim chooses to ignore the teachings, then they are ignoring the religion and might as well call whatever it is they are following something else. Islam has its teachings in stone.

If a Christian chooses NOT to follow Christ and follow something else, then he might as well give up calling himself a Christian, and find a new name for whatever the hell hee is following.
2009-06-10 06:45:33
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7061|Nårvei

lowing wrote:

Shahter wrote:

lowing wrote:

If Muslims want to change their religion to something that does not teach violence and intolerance to those that do not succomb to its teachings, I am all for it, but they are gunna need to call it something else, since Islam is already taken.
any religion can be changed to teach whatever one wants it to. that's the whole point of religious teaching in the first place: they are obtuse, self contradictory and figurative - all because they need to be easy to adapt for different social situations and political purposes. if you ever bothered to read bible, for example, you'd have known that christianity "teaches" violence and intolerance just about as much as islam.
No, the teachings are already written, Muhammad's actions already documented. There is no changing anything, only ignoring or accepting it.

I contend if a Muslim chooses to ignore the teachings, then they are ignoring the religion and might as well call whatever it is they are following something else. Islam has its teachings in stone.

If a Christian chooses NOT to follow Christ and follow something else, then he might as well give up calling himself a Christian, and find a new name for whatever the hell hee is following.
So if a Christian can disregard the old testament and only read and follow the teachings in the new one and still call himself a Christian why can't Muslims do the same with parts of the Quran?

Because if your assumption is true it really means all Muslims are viloent and intolerant if they don't disregard the entire Quran ... or am I missing something from your assumptions?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2009-06-10 07:00:41
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|6993|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann
it's not appeasment it's their constitutional right being protected by the state.
2009-06-10 07:01:04
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6357|eXtreme to the maX

lowing wrote:

If a Christian chooses NOT to follow Christ and follow something else, then he might as well give up calling himself a Christian, and find a new name for whatever the hell hee is following.
Ah you mean Catholics.
Fuck Israel

 

Pages: 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 11

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard