Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

"...Western society will either die out or be Islamised" Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Donnahh)
    Lol, I agree with the latter part, mind you, like you mentioned, pretty much all religion teaches good morals, fairness and equality. But, as I'm sure you'll agree, it tends to me a fair part of Islamic followers that cause lots of destruction etc.
    Oh I do not disagree. But what we must understand is: these people are NOT muslim. Twisting a religion to satisfy your own selfish, base desires implies you are not a follower. Radicals preach "kill the infidels." Mohammed simply preached "love all." There is the difference.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ∑ Я ĩ k ė s ħ ξ)
    Oh I do not disagree. But what we must understand is: these people are NOT muslim. Twisting a religion to satisfy your own selfish, base desires implies you are not a follower. Radicals preach "kill the infidels." Mohammed simply preached "love all." There is the difference.
    Ah, I see but these claim " In the name of Allah! " etc. I've seen countless footage and writing of this :woo:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    None of them had anything to do with Christianity.

    The first was about imperialism, quite simply.

    The second was started neo-pagan and an atheist.


    She said that Muslims seem to cause alot of destruction.

    I said, so do christians, for example the two world wars which were fought by christian nations. It doesn't matter who started them. You are denying that Christians havent caused as much, if not more destruction than Muslims?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Donnahh)
    Ah, I see but these claim " In the name of Allah! " etc. I've seen countless footage and writing of this :woo:
    That is simply like saying "oh jesus christ" in vain, even though you don't take yourself to be christian. Its very easy to say, don't you agree lol :p:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ∑ Я ĩ k ė s ħ ξ)
    That is simply like saying "oh jesus christ" in vain, even though you don't take yourself to be christian. Its very easy to say, don't you agree lol :p:
    I get your point, but, needless to say I don't bomb places or do anything cultish ( new word ) or act violent and then say " God told me to " or " In the name of Jesus "
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    She said that Muslims seem to cause alot of destruction.

    I said, so do christians, for example the two world wars which were fought by christian nations. It doesn't matter who started them. You are denying that Christians havent caused as much, if not more destruction than Muslims?
    Not all these people are "christians " pfft, I love how you talk about me
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Donnahh)
    I get your point, but, needless to say I don't bomb places or do anything cultish ( new word ) or act violent and then say " God told me to " or " In the name of Jesus "

    Yeah but these people say it out of compulsion and lack of intelligence. Tomorrow I could wake up and say "God told me to not do your chore mum in my dream last night." I could go outside and kill an ant or stab someone in the "name of God" if I so wanted.
    Or maybe we just havent had radical christian/hindu/jewish jihadists yet
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ∑ Я ĩ k ė s ħ ξ)
    Yeah but these people say it out of compulsion and lack of intelligence. Tomorrow I could wake up and say "God told me to not do your chore mum in my dream last night." I could go outside and kill an ant or stab someone in the "name of God" if I so wanted.
    Or maybe we just havent had radical christian/hindu/jewish jihadists yet
    Hahah, I like your style of thinking. And I concur and like the "yet.." at the end
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Donnahh)
    Hahah, I like your style of thinking. And I concur and like the "yet.." at the end
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    I would still like to know when someone is going to address the issue of Islam being fundamentally incompatible with democracy, and the fact that Islam at its core does not recognize the legitimacy of the state or secular law (two concepts that distinguish, and are fundamental to, the Western world); this incompatibility is innate in the etymology of the faith; the Muslim is 'the one who submits (to God)'... and no other law.

    We cannot have a discussion concerning the spread of Islam in the West without acknowledging these important points.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Donnahh)
    Not all these people are "christians " pfft, I love how you talk about me

    Yes but they are predominately christian, and the maajor acts of destruction were carried out predominately by christian Governments in a predominately christian continent. Don't try and muddy the point.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    :lolwut: Whata' loada' bull.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    I get your point, but, needless to say I don't bomb places or do anything cultish ( new word ) or act violent and then say " God told me to " or " In the name of Jesus "
    To me it seems that the claim that religion is the cause of violence is a rather redundant claim; is it not really the case that the religious element of violence is not the cause of but an expression of a societies grievances and resentments?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    First of all I never said sexism was always a good thing just that there are situations were it is rational to discriminate on the basis of sex. I can't think of examples for racism but there may be some.

    You seem to have accepted my literal definition but you're still clinging on to the view that all discrimination is bad.

    First of all racism and sexism are not the same thing, one is about race and the other about sex.

    And yes you are disctiminating against rapists in your example but it is clearly a rational or justified form of discrimination as rapists are bad people and not suitable to be friends.

    And your definition of "psychological discrimination" (whatever that is supposed to mean) is very vague.
    Of course my definition is vague! So is yours! That's why racism, sexism and tens of other types of discimination are called DISCRIMINATIONS. It's a category, not a single particular notion.

    Cheddar cheese and cottage cheese are both cheeses. Of course they're nothing like each other, but the base is the same: milk.

    Racism and sexism are different. But their base which is refusing service/attacking a person on the grounds of something they cannot control e.g. race, gender, ethnicity is the same. In my example with the rapist the point is that the person did have control over their condition of being a rapist, therefore, although I discriminate literally by not being their friend, I don't discriminate psychologically because that person's condition reflects valid stereotypes e.g. immoral, selfish, etc. That is the difference and that is what we mean by the word "discrimination".
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Globalisation is inevitable, and in my view detrimental to the future of the human race. You clearly find this larger view as a little too much to comprehend, so i excuse you for becoming confused and labeliing me a racist.
    No. In a previous thread you stated you thought a global culture would be a good thing because "divergent culture does nothing but cause conflict" (or something along those lines). That, to me, sounds as though you want it. Not that you think it's "inevitable". Nevertheless, I do find it laughable how, even if it was "inevitable", people like you maintain that there should be no resistance to it. Just because something is a general trend, it shouldn't mean that there's no opposition. I think globalisation is a negative thing, and I'd prefer to keep the positives. I don't care if it's "natural" or whatever.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Well NB, in most cases 'actions speak louder than words'. It's just funny that you call me anti-British and yet between the two of us, i am the one who has put my life at risk for my country. You can accuse me of self interest until the sun goes down, but the fact remains.
    This is pointless because we didn't actually say anything about behaviour. We were talking about attitudes, and you just seemed to throw this in so you could adopt some sort of arbitrary moral high ground.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Well my time in the Middle East enables me to see through all the venom and bile and hatred you post with regards to those who follow Islam on this forum, regardless of demographics.
    You may have your experiences, I don't care. Whatever you may have experienced in the Middle East, it has little or no relation to the Islam in Britain.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Who do you think you are? I took incredible pride in the insitution in which i served, i partook in the traditions and pagantry of which you sit at your desk and get hard over, and i saluted the queen whom you imply i hate... Is everyone but you a traitor to Britain NB? Or maybe you are just delusional.
    I didn't say anything along these lines. You're simply putting words into my mouth. Yet, it's quite obvious that if you don't want national boundaries to exist, you aren't too bothered about such 'traditions and pagantry'. It just seems to me like they may've been a sort of necessary side-effect.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    I have never said i hated the nation state, i have merely stated as above, that i believe Globalisation is inevitable and detrimental. It does not mean i want it to happen tommorow or next year. Unlike you NB i like to think of things in the long run, rather than worrying whether there will be any muslims living in my leafy suburb when im older, as you seem to do.
    No. As I said, you thought it was a good thing in a previous thread. I could find it if you want but I can't really be bothered to search for it. If you're that concerned then try and prove me wrong.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    Of course my definition is vague! So is yours! That's why racism, sexism and tens of other types of discimination are called DISCRIMINATIONS. It's a category, not a single particular notion.

    Cheddar cheese and cottage cheese are both cheeses. Of course they're nothing like each other, but the base is the same: milk.

    Racism and sexism are different. But their base which is refusing service/attacking a person on the grounds of something they cannot control e.g. race, gender, ethnicity is the same. In my example with the rapist the point is that the person did have control over their condition of being a rapist, therefore, although I discriminate literally by not being their friend, I don't discriminate psychologically because that person's condition reflects valid stereotypes e.g. immoral, selfish, etc. That is the difference and that is what we mean by the word "discrimination".
    The point Don is trying to make is that as rational beings humans naturally discriminate, it is a part of everyday decision making. Our discriminatory powers are integral to doing any job well - and we exercise them in almost all aspects of our lives.

    As I have already mentioned all societies depend upon prejudice for their survival - that is, they depend upon 'the inherited store of human wisdom' as Burke put it, i.e. our common culture.

    Theodore Dalrymple even published a book on the necessity of prejudice recently: 'In Praise of Prejudice: The Necessity of Preconceived Ideas'

    http://www.amazon.com/Praise-Prejudi.../dp/1594032025

    I think there are two truths here that liberals find hard to swallow; firstly that the desire to be with your own kind is a natural one, there is nothing unusual about it, this is apparent in our society. Parents of third/fourth generation immigrants still tend to prefer it if their children marry within their own minority community; this is prejudice, and its function is to ensure the survival of that minority community within the UK.

    Secondly, the fact that decisions are made that affect our lives in areas where we exercise no control. In fact, the biggest decisions that affect our lives are almost entirely beyond our control - we don't decide what gender we are, how good looking we are, how intelligent, what social class we were born into, what culture we were born into. And we yet are discriminated based on these constantly throughout our lives, and if this discrimination did not take place society would collapse.

    I think liberals find this very hard to accept, as they do most things where we havn't exercised free will and entered a contract.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    No. In a previous thread you stated you thought a global culture would be a good thing because "divergent culture does nothing but cause conflict" (or something along those lines).
    I was making a logical point. Do you not agree that divergent culture and nationalism destroys more than it creates. Logically the world would be a much more peacefull place if everyone were of the same frame of mind. I am not saying this would be a good thing, it would be very boring(like a global version of your ideal UK). But logically it would be the answer?


    Not that you think it's "inevitable". Nevertheless, I do find it laughable how, even if it was "inevitable", people like you maintain that there should be no resistance to it. Just because something is a general trend, it shouldn't mean that there's no opposition. I think globalisation is a negative thing, and I'd prefer to keep the positives. I don't care if it's "natural" or whatever.

    So If you were in charge of how the world was to be run. You would enforce borders and halt migration and globalisation for eternity? Ensuring the extinction of the Human race? Or would you just close the borders during your life time so you can enjoy your perverted Britain, without having any dirty little brown people ruin you view?



    This is pointless because we didn't actually say anything about behaviour. We were talking about attitudes, and you just seemed to throw this in so you could adopt some sort of arbitrary moral high ground.
    I do not believe they are mutually exclusive. If i hated Britain so much i would not be prepared to go and risk my life for it for a measley twenty grand a year. I could earn more than that working as a postman!



    You may have your experiences, I don't care. Whatever you may have experienced in the Middle East, it has little or no relation to the Islam in Britain.
    Whatever, you clearly do not want to accept the stereotypes you label Islam and the Islamic people with ( I think you once said they all live in disgusting slums?). You are just as bad as radicals within Islam who corrupt their youth by spreading vile stereotypes about the west and how they are destroying Islamic culture. It is people like yourself and these radicals who seem to want an ideaological war, you seem to will it to happen.



    .[/QUOTE]
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    They said the same thing about communism. Bluff fail.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Time Tourist)
    The point Don is trying to make is that as rational beings humans naturally discriminate, it is a part of everyday decision making. Our discriminatory powers are integral to doing any job well - and we exercise them in almost all aspects of our lives.

    As I have already mentioned all societies depend upon prejudice for their survival - that is, they depend upon 'the inherited store of human wisdom' as Burke put it, i.e. our common culture.

    Theodore Dalrymple even published a book on the necessity of prejudice recently: 'In Praise of Prejudice: The Necessity of Preconceived Ideas'

    http://www.amazon.com/Praise-Prejudi.../dp/1594032025

    I think there are two truths here that liberals find hard to swallow; firstly that the desire to be with your own kind is a natural one, there is nothing unusual about it, this is apparent in our society. Parents of third/fourth generation immigrants still tend to prefer it if their children marry within their own minority community; this is prejudice, and its function is to ensure the survival of that minority community within the UK.

    Secondly, the fact that decisions are made that affect our lives in areas where we exercise no control. In fact, the biggest decisions that affect our lives are almost entirely beyond our control - we don't decide what gender we are, how good looking we are, how intelligent, what social class we were born into, what culture we were born into. And we yet are discriminated based on these constantly throughout our lives, and if this discrimination did not take place society would collapse.

    I think liberals find this very hard to accept, as they do most things where we havn't exercised free will and entered a contract.
    My God, this is not the issue! Discrimination is not about people supporting their communities, having certain friends, etc.

    Discrimination is based on the desctructive aspect of things, and not the constructive one. Discrimination is about people getting killed/mistreated/hated/opressed for the sake of it, unnecessarily and destructively. It's not about fighting for your country, protecting your minority, etc.

    Of course it's perfectly natural for someone to offend/kill/opress someone else in order to save themselves/their family/friends, but that's not discrimination - discrimination is strictly limited to the circumstances which have no connection whatsoever to an intrinsically greater good for the opressor, but rather an implicit smaller, perceived good caused by a pointlesss, destructive violence towards the victim.

    Punching a black guy for slapping you is not racist. Punching a black guy for being black is. That's what discrimination is, a behaviour which does no good, but bad. Stating that such behaviour is good is simply illogical.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Time Tourist)
    I would still like to know when someone is going to address the issue of Islam being fundamentally incompatible with democracy, and the fact that Islam at its core does not recognize the legitimacy of the state or secular law (two concepts that distinguish, and are fundamental to, the Western world); this incompatibility is innate in the etymology of the faith; the Muslim is 'the one who submits (to God)'... and no other law.

    We cannot have a discussion concerning the spread of Islam in the West without acknowledging these important points.
    There are many secular Muslims. Millions of them.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 15, 2009
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.