 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/03/09 12:44, Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan<m.n### [at] ieee org> wrote:
>> If you allow the majority to have whatever they want, then it's
>> possible to go back to "No colored people allowed".
>
> Why do you assume that the majority wants that? The western majority being
> racist is nothing more than multiculturalist propaganda.
My statement never made that assumption.
And are you suggesting that at no point in US history did the majority
not want it?
--
If a word is misspelled in the dictionary, how would we ever know?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 12/03/09 12:44, Warp wrote:
>> Neeum Zawan<m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>>> If you allow the majority to have whatever they want, then it's
>>> possible to go back to "No colored people allowed".
>>
>> Why do you assume that the majority wants that? The western
>> majority being
>> racist is nothing more than multiculturalist propaganda.
>
> My statement never made that assumption.
>
> And are you suggesting that at no point in US history did the
> majority not want it?
In before "the US is/isn't 'the west'".
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>> If you allow the majority to have whatever they want, then it's
>> possible to go back to "No colored people allowed".
>
> Why do you assume that the majority wants that? The western majority being
> racist is nothing more than multiculturalist propaganda.
The problem, as it stands, is that if you abuse group X for long enough
that it becomes an identity to that group, you can't just say "oh, uh,
we're going to follow our constitution and just treat everyone equally
now" and assume that entire group will merely pretend they haven't been
abused. Memories are longer than that, and people do hold grudges.
If tomorrow your multiculturalist conspiracy ended, and you were given
the same 'special treatments' as the minorities you see as being
favoured, would you be able to just pretend nothing had ever happened
and not on some level treat people differently because they used to be
part of a favoured minority?
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Democracy doesn't mean "every minority must have its way". It means that
> the majority decides what happens to them. It's that simple.
>
> If minorities get precedence of the majority, that's not democracy anymore.
> The current trend is that minorities *should* have precedence, and hence
> democracy as a concept is a bad thing.
>
> I'm sorry if upholding democracy and freedom of speech offends someone.
> Personally I value them more than some minarets.
Question: are Christian churches likewise banned from constructing
steeples for their churches?
Because if they're not, that is explicitly *forbidding a minority
something that the (presumably majority) has*, rather than by allowing
them that you're giving them something that everybody else doesn't have.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> The problem, as it stands, is that if you abuse group X for long enough
> that it becomes an identity to that group, you can't just say "oh, uh,
> we're going to follow our constitution and just treat everyone equally
> now" and assume that entire group will merely pretend they haven't been
> abused. Memories are longer than that, and people do hold grudges.
Minorities whose ancestors have been oppressed in the past might *want*
special treatment as a kind of retroactive compensation for all the bad
things, but you can't make a right by repeating the same wrong in reverse.
All people should be treated equally and have the same rights regardless
of what some great-grandfathers had to suffer.
> If tomorrow your multiculturalist conspiracy ended, and you were given
> the same 'special treatments' as the minorities you see as being
> favoured, would you be able to just pretend nothing had ever happened
> and not on some level treat people differently because they used to be
> part of a favoured minority?
You might not believe me, but I honestly couldn't care less about who
belongs to what artificially constructed "minority" group, what the color
of their skin might happen to be, or what their political, religious or
sexual views might be, as long as they behave, they don't trouble others,
they do their own little part to benefit everybody and overall don't act
like jerks. You don't construct a safe and productive society by becoming
offended by everything and demanding special treatment because of irrelevant
things like your ethnic or religious background. (You also don't if you get
offended *on behalf* of whatever your pet minority might be, which is
something multiculturalists just love to do.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Question: are Christian churches likewise banned from constructing
> steeples for their churches?
> Because if they're not, that is explicitly *forbidding a minority
> something that the (presumably majority) has*, rather than by allowing
> them that you're giving them something that everybody else doesn't have.
You are only seeing it from the point of view of prohibiting a minority
from doing something that the majority can do.
How about seeing it from the point of view of prohibiting something that
*everybody* is forbidden from doing? For example, most European cities have
strict regulations about what types of buildings can be constructed and where,
sometimes even for purely aesthetical reasons. You just can't go and build
whatever you want wherever you want. For example there are many towns here
where it's forbidden to construct buildings which are higher than a certain
amount of stories, and have all kinds of other aesthetical regulations (such
as the type of roof they can use).
The city officials (usually elected by the citizens, at least here) have
decided what the town should look like, and thus have enacted such strict
restrictions on what types of buildings can be constructed.
If the majority of citizens doesn't like the kind of aesthetics and
symbology that minarets would introduce to their town, they have the
right to decide on that. That's democracy.
A minority coming and demanding that "we should be able to break the
construction regulations, accepted by the majority, because of our religion"
is obnoxious.
If some religion cannot accept local culture, customs and regulations,
do you know where they can shove it?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> How about seeing it from the point of view of prohibiting something that
> *everybody* is forbidden from doing? For example, most European cities have
> strict regulations about what types of buildings can be constructed and where,
> sometimes even for purely aesthetical reasons. You just can't go and build
> whatever you want wherever you want. For example there are many towns here
> where it's forbidden to construct buildings which are higher than a certain
> amount of stories, and have all kinds of other aesthetical regulations (such
> as the type of roof they can use).
That's considerably different wording, saying 'everyone is forbidden
from constructing any building that doesn't follow X design' instead of
'you aren't allowed to build Y structure that happens to be important to
you'.
> A minority coming and demanding that "we should be able to break the
> construction regulations, accepted by the majority, because of our religion"
> is obnoxious.
When a specific construction regulation is put in place to harass a
specific minority, even if it's by majority decision, that's not ok.
And declaring it country-wide? That's far worse. That's de facto
saying "WE DON'T WANT YOUR KIND HERE", not "we'd be able to just all get
along if nobody wanted to do things /different/".
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/03/09 18:44, Warp wrote:
> How about seeing it from the point of view of prohibiting something that
> *everybody* is forbidden from doing? For example, most European cities have
> strict regulations about what types of buildings can be constructed and where,
> sometimes even for purely aesthetical reasons. You just can't go and build
> whatever you want wherever you want. For example there are many towns here
> where it's forbidden to construct buildings which are higher than a certain
> amount of stories, and have all kinds of other aesthetical regulations (such
> as the type of roof they can use).
I haven't read the actual text of what was passed, but the political
party that pushed for this kept arguing, "Minarets are a symbol of
Sharia and/or political Islam, and we can't allow that". Putting aside
the lack of veracity of that statement, it didn't sound like they were
concerned about architecture.
Of course, it's quite conceivable that the actual text talks about
architecture and not Islam in order not to violate some existing laws.
Kind of like how in the past (and present?) home associations put
requirements that tend to be quite expensive "to maintain the upkeep",
when they seem to be more inclined on being interested in keeping
African Americans and (lately) Latinos out.
> The city officials (usually elected by the citizens, at least here) have
> decided what the town should look like, and thus have enacted such strict
> restrictions on what types of buildings can be constructed.
>
> If the majority of citizens doesn't like the kind of aesthetics and
> symbology that minarets would introduce to their town, they have the
> right to decide on that. That's democracy.
Oh - sure. Just as if a nation's citizens decide that it's not OK to
publish news stories about the problems immigrants create in their
(usually European) country, then those who wish to talk about it should
heed.
--
If a word is misspelled in the dictionary, how would we ever know?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> OK. How about "no gay people allowed"? :-)
>
> Is it really the majority, or only a vocal minority who proclaim that there?
The mayor of San Francisco (notoriously gay-friendly) said he'd allow gay
marriages. It went to court, got argued a bunch, the mayor got in trouble,
and the higher courts finally decided it was OK.
Then we passed a law against it, and the legislature said "that law is
unconstitutional, because we give equal rights to everyone." (At which
point, a couple thousand gay people got married.)
So the next election they actually managed to force a popular vote that
amended the constitution. 70% of the people in the state voted to change the
fundamental constitution of the state to outlaw letting gay people get
married, when they already had that right. Now they're arguing that the
change should mean the gay people already married aren't allowed to stay
married.
So, yeah, it's a pretty much my textbook example of how even "normal"
reasonable moderate religious people are evil bigoted assholes.
Texas also changed their constitution to say "A marriage is defined as
between one man and one woman", and then added a clause that said "Nothing
is allowed to be like marriage" or some such to exclude "civil unions",
having mis-worded it (should have said "Nothing *else* is allowed to be like
marriage"), so now there's a big argument in Texas over whether anyone is
allowed to be married at all. *That* all started when a gay couple that
*was* married elsewhere and had moved to Texas tried to get divorced.
Altho, honestly, I suspect many or most Americans hate *someone*
passionately enough to kick them out of the country, whether it be blacks,
muslims, gays, jews, or whatever.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> That's considerably different wording, saying 'everyone is forbidden
> from constructing any building that doesn't follow X design' instead of
> 'you aren't allowed to build Y structure that happens to be important to
> you'.
You can say "Nobody, including Christians, is allowed to build a miniret."
We get that here too. "Neither straight men nor gay men are allowed to marry
other men."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
