<strong>yep, i'd sat fcib isn't all that moderate in his thinking, though his political stomach is probably weaker than it might appear on these pages.
depends on the depth of one's psychological investment in their beliefs. fellowship, quite obviously, isn't comfortable enough that he can avoid stripping down other beliefs in an effort to secure his own. (i'm not thinking about this particular case though)
you cannot depend on him or people like him, everything is a self affirming strategy.
I wouldn't say he's as dangerous as an islamic extremist, but he belongs to a large population of people who can be pursuaded to follow a more extreme path if the right circumstance and figure-heads leads them in that direction.
But this isn't a religious problem, religions, as others have mentioned, just sorta end up hosting this dance of insecurities because of the nature of what they do.
Secular regimes, communism, fascism, have inflicted as much pain as religion. In those cases, religion even acted as a touchstone for people. one thing of the underground christian churches throughout communist eastern Eurpoe and naturally of the Jews between the world wars.
Today's religious, we must wonder about them, what condition of our very comfortable lives requires this version of "faith"? But we must also wonder about the passionately anti-religious and their need to erase religion, or pretend that it can be erased and that such a manouver constitues a cure of our ills. I don't see it. Rather, I see this as very similar to the paranoia of those types of devout that must disparage other beliefs in order to build up their own 'faith.'</strong><hr></blockquote>
Have you paid any attention to my threads? or what I say?
I view things in terms of right and wrong. If I think something is either right or wrong I will make it clear why I believe as such if it is already not obvious to all or most.
I think what gets under your skin is that I am very aggressive as to not let anything slip through the crack. I do not wink at injustice. This must get the attention of some luke warm lazy fence sitters.
I bring things up sometimes here so I can try to get the angle others have on the same data I see and I try to understand why it is that some believe what they believe.
Quite frankly I view some here to have very weak arguments and some do not even know why they believe what they believe. Others do not believe what they say they just stay in joke mode as to get a rise out of some.
You are free to say anything you wish but I would suggest that you should have a real purpose behind what you say. Cheap shots are just that. Cheap.
The condemnation and subsequent incarceration of Abdullah el-Faisal is in my opinion, a very good thing, since I strongly support the curbing of incitment to murder and mass-murder.
<strong>The condemnation and subsequent incarceration of Abdullah el-Faisal is in my opinion, a very good thing, since I strongly support the curbing of incitment to murder and mass-murder.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree, this new turn in the politic of UK about these people was necessary. I don't remember precisely, but did they change their law in order to do this ?
<strong>It's Sunday . . . and you've just come back obssessed with "deception"
was that the topic of the sermon today?
how we (Liberals of course) are being Deceived by the Great Deceiver?!?!?
Perhaps the Great Deceiver speaks out of the pulpit at Fellowship Church in Texas. . . . you never know for sure do you?!?
don't be throwing around that empty castigation, silly boy</strong><hr></blockquote>
Pfflam grow up. I did not even go to Church today as if it is your business.
I want an answer from bunge if he has room for people that say it is ok to use WOMD or ok to Kill so-called non-believers. It was implied that I am not moderate because I said I did not have room for them (edit) the western world) did not have room for them.
I want bunge to make it clear what it is he is saying. I do not appriciate his bending of who I am.
<strong>The condemnation and subsequent incarceration of Abdullah el-Faisal is in my opinion, a very good thing, since I strongly support the curbing of incitment to murder and mass-murder.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am glad to see others who share my view.
One has to sometimes wonder if not everyone in AI is stuck in joke mode or insult mode rather than frank and honest assessment. Thanks Immanuel Goldstein for making a statement in support of justice.
I agree, this new turn in the politic of UK about these people was necessary. I don't remember precisely, but did they change their law in order to do this ?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Powerdoc would you or other Europeans and liberals in the US say as such if this happened in the US? Or would we hear how Ashcroft is Hitler?
I am curious how much integrity some europeans would have if this happened in the US. I also wonder how much integrity the liberals in this country would have if this happened in the US.
Is it just me or have we been conditioned that we should HATE AMERICA FIRST.
Ashcroft is Hitler and the rhetoric is endless.
Is it just me that I suspect such a rift depending on what country this happens in or has the world of Some Europeans and some American Liberals given me good reason to suspect their integrity?
It is fashionable to mock Ashcroft, Bush etc. So would those in Europe and the Liberals in America react with equal reaction no matter the country this happens in?
Nothing personal powerdoc as you know I respect you greatly. This is an open ended question that begs to be asked.
<strong>I agree, this new turn in the politic of UK about these people was necessary. I don't remember precisely, but did they change their law in order to do this ?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, there is already some legislation on that matter (much older than the loi Gayssot) of which I don't recall the name right now, but the Brits were more on the lax side these last years.
Sorry but i am not big on Ashcroft (understand i don't know him very well).
Because i read a lot of threads here, i know that Ashcroft is in charge of the justice of the US, and that he hide a statue of a woman with a naked breast. Apart this i have very little to say about him.
Now more seriously, the debate is the limit of liberty of free-speech, a discussion that happened here many times. As a french-men i am for a limitation of these liberty, in case of incitment to murder and mass-murder. If you don't know this already, this is the case in France. I should add that racial-hatred and anti-semit comments are prohibed also. Many people from US (or more precisely US AI posters) said with reasons, that it was a limitation of free-speech. In a perfect world , i will be for a total liberty of free-speech, but as the world is not perfect full of dangers, and people trying to manipulate the others in order to assume their own goals, i think that some limitations are necessary. In case of incitment of murder and mass murder, my answer is YES.
Actually, there is already some legislation on that matter (much older than the loi Gayssot) of which I don't recall the name right now, but the Brits were more on the lax side these last years.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This just seems crazy to me. Just because this guy spouts idiotic bullshit doesn't mean he should go to jail for it. It doesn't surprise me coming from the English though.
<strong>This just seems crazy to me. Just because this guy spouts idiotic bullshit doesn't mean he should go to jail for it. It doesn't surprise me coming from the English though.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And the idiotics bs he said help to promote terrorism. If you don't know, many muslims fanatic leaders ,take advantage of a respectable law in the past, to foster terrorims in UK. Even if the brit are respecteful of the liberty of free-speech they are not stupid, and thus are doing the good thing to struggle against terrorism.
[quote] And the idiotics bs he said help to promote terrorism. If you don't know, many muslims fanatic leaders ,take advantage of a respectable law in the past, to foster terrorims in UK. Even if the brit are respecteful of the liberty of free-speech they are not stupid, and thus are doing the good thing to struggle against terrorism. <hr></blockquote>
Yeah, but who gets to decide what speach is dangerous? Personally I think people like, GW Bush, Jerry Fallwell and the Pope spout some dangerous ideas, but I still think they have a right to express those opinions. There have been many groups in America over the years who've expressed similarly disgusting sentiments as this guy and yet we've survived and survived well without prosecuting them.
The Brittish happen to be expert at making martyrs and that's all they're doing here. They've also never shown much regard for free speech in my opinion.
<strong>Sorry but i am not big on Ashcroft (understand i don't know him very well).
Because i read a lot of threads here, i know that Ashcroft is in charge of the justice of the US, and that he hide a statue of a woman with a naked breast. Apart this i have very little to say about him. </strong><hr></blockquote>For some more insight into Ashcroft, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2002/02/25/ashcroft.sings.wbtv.med.html"; target="_blank">here's him singing his heart out.</a>
<strong>Now more seriously, the debate is the limit of liberty of free-speech, a discussion that happened here many times. As a french-men i am for a limitation of these liberty, in case of incitment to murder and mass-murder. If you don't know this already, this is the case in France. I should add that racial-hatred and anti-semit comments are prohibed also. Many people from US (or more precisely US AI posters) said with reasons, that it was a limitation of free-speech. In a perfect world , i will be for a total liberty of free-speech, but as the world is not perfect full of dangers, and people trying to manipulate the others in order to assume their own goals, i think that some limitations are necessary. In case of incitment of murder and mass murder, my answer is YES.</strong><hr></blockquote>I seem to remember very well a thread in AI started by mr "I view things in terms of right and wrong" himself
And it was about how in France there was a law that limited cults and it did so in very much the same way that the law on hate speech works
I wouldsay one thing, well... two:
I am not entirely against the incarceration. I just want people to stop fooling themselves and see that their 'ideals' of free-speech have just given way to pragmatics . . . and not "ethics" . . .(you're fooling yourself if you think that this is all about ethics)
and
If the US started to make this kind of legislation we would have a whole lot of people going behind bars: from militia, to Nazis, to 'Christian Identity', to Islamists etc . . . but the first people to speak up about it would be both, those reviled Liberals and the Conservatives . . . both sides that are committed to Rights
except that now the Liberals feel that they see the beginnings of this kind of rights errosion in such things as the wire-tapping of the "Patriot" act and the potential of that aptly, and dystopianly named, Total Information Awareness Office headed by that Felon Pointdexster
Fellowship, to wound up to realize an argument in your defence, eh? Of course, I wasn't speaking about the politics of this thread, just the psychology at work in what you do, and what most of your critics do, things I see as equally unfair.
Do I have a point? Mebbe, but why make it here?
For now, in this case, the court decided well, it should be a crime to counsel violence against another group in a society, but there is a lot to be very careful about. Instead of celebrating too much at the fall of a competitor, you might think about praying for wisdom to continue (where it is in evidence) or to grow (where it proves insufficient already). These are not easy cases for courts and everyone involved will need wisdom if standards of freedom and liberty are to be simultaneously protected.
You want a certain guarantee from Matsu? OK, Apple prices are too high.
[quote]Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook:
<strong>
I ask you why do you do that?
Or was this an honest mistake? </strong><hr></blockquote>
In all honestly I take issue with your segregation of the 'western world', not with the term 'these people'. I think we all agree that terrorists could vanish and we'd all be better off. What bothered me was the fact that you imply that the rest of the world could/should have the terrorists to deal with.
No civilized person should have to deal with the terrorists. There is no place in the world for them. I did NOT mean to imply that you were stating that the western world shouldn't have to deal with Muslims.
I hope that's a little clearer. Sorry for the confusion.
[quote]Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook:
<strong>
I want bunge to make it clear what it is he is saying. I do not appriciate his bending of who I am. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I hope I've done that because I was not intending to bend who you are. I was out all day enjoying the cold winter weather so I couldn't respond sooner.
<strong>The condemnation and subsequent incarceration of Abdullah el-Faisal is in my opinion, a very good thing, since I strongly support the curbing of incitment to murder and mass-murder.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree. I don't know about this specific case, but speech that is an assault should be prosecuted as such.
Of course, I think some of Bush's aggression is borderline myself, but that's for a different thread.
<strong> Instead of celebrating too much at the fall of a competitor<hr></blockquote></strong>
Not the case at all Matsu. Not at all.
[quote]<strong>
you might think about praying for wisdom to continue (where it is in evidence) or to grow (where it proves insufficient already). These are not easy cases for courts and everyone involved will need wisdom if standards of freedom and liberty are to be simultaneously protected.
Comments
<strong>yep, i'd sat fcib isn't all that moderate in his thinking, though his political stomach is probably weaker than it might appear on these pages.
depends on the depth of one's psychological investment in their beliefs. fellowship, quite obviously, isn't comfortable enough that he can avoid stripping down other beliefs in an effort to secure his own. (i'm not thinking about this particular case though)
you cannot depend on him or people like him, everything is a self affirming strategy.
I wouldn't say he's as dangerous as an islamic extremist, but he belongs to a large population of people who can be pursuaded to follow a more extreme path if the right circumstance and figure-heads leads them in that direction.
But this isn't a religious problem, religions, as others have mentioned, just sorta end up hosting this dance of insecurities because of the nature of what they do.
Secular regimes, communism, fascism, have inflicted as much pain as religion. In those cases, religion even acted as a touchstone for people. one thing of the underground christian churches throughout communist eastern Eurpoe and naturally of the Jews between the world wars.
Today's religious, we must wonder about them, what condition of our very comfortable lives requires this version of "faith"? But we must also wonder about the passionately anti-religious and their need to erase religion, or pretend that it can be erased and that such a manouver constitues a cure of our ills. I don't see it. Rather, I see this as very similar to the paranoia of those types of devout that must disparage other beliefs in order to build up their own 'faith.'</strong><hr></blockquote>
Have you paid any attention to my threads? or what I say?
I view things in terms of right and wrong. If I think something is either right or wrong I will make it clear why I believe as such if it is already not obvious to all or most.
I think what gets under your skin is that I am very aggressive as to not let anything slip through the crack. I do not wink at injustice. This must get the attention of some luke warm lazy fence sitters.
I bring things up sometimes here so I can try to get the angle others have on the same data I see and I try to understand why it is that some believe what they believe.
Quite frankly I view some here to have very weak arguments and some do not even know why they believe what they believe. Others do not believe what they say they just stay in joke mode as to get a rise out of some.
You are free to say anything you wish but I would suggest that you should have a real purpose behind what you say. Cheap shots are just that. Cheap.
Have a little purpose
Fellowship
[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</p>
<strong>The condemnation and subsequent incarceration of Abdullah el-Faisal is in my opinion, a very good thing, since I strongly support the curbing of incitment to murder and mass-murder.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree, this new turn in the politic of UK about these people was necessary. I don't remember precisely, but did they change their law in order to do this ?
<strong>It's Sunday . . . and you've just come back obssessed with "deception"
was that the topic of the sermon today?
how we (Liberals of course) are being Deceived by the Great Deceiver?!?!?
Perhaps the Great Deceiver speaks out of the pulpit at Fellowship Church in Texas. . . . you never know for sure do you?!?
don't be throwing around that empty castigation, silly boy</strong><hr></blockquote>
Pfflam grow up. I did not even go to Church today as if it is your business.
I want an answer from bunge if he has room for people that say it is ok to use WOMD or ok to Kill so-called non-believers. It was implied that I am not moderate because I said I did not have room for them (edit) the western world) did not have room for them.
I want bunge to make it clear what it is he is saying. I do not appriciate his bending of who I am.
Fellowship
<strong>The condemnation and subsequent incarceration of Abdullah el-Faisal is in my opinion, a very good thing, since I strongly support the curbing of incitment to murder and mass-murder.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am glad to see others who share my view.
One has to sometimes wonder if not everyone in AI is stuck in joke mode or insult mode rather than frank and honest assessment. Thanks Immanuel Goldstein for making a statement in support of justice.
Fellowship
<strong>
I agree, this new turn in the politic of UK about these people was necessary. I don't remember precisely, but did they change their law in order to do this ?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Powerdoc would you or other Europeans and liberals in the US say as such if this happened in the US? Or would we hear how Ashcroft is Hitler?
I am curious how much integrity some europeans would have if this happened in the US. I also wonder how much integrity the liberals in this country would have if this happened in the US.
Is it just me or have we been conditioned that we should HATE AMERICA FIRST.
Ashcroft is Hitler and the rhetoric is endless.
Is it just me that I suspect such a rift depending on what country this happens in or has the world of Some Europeans and some American Liberals given me good reason to suspect their integrity?
It is fashionable to mock Ashcroft, Bush etc. So would those in Europe and the Liberals in America react with equal reaction no matter the country this happens in?
Nothing personal powerdoc as you know I respect you greatly. This is an open ended question that begs to be asked.
Fellowship
[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</p>
<strong>I agree, this new turn in the politic of UK about these people was necessary. I don't remember precisely, but did they change their law in order to do this ?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, there is already some legislation on that matter (much older than the loi Gayssot) of which I don't recall the name right now, but the Brits were more on the lax side these last years.
Because i read a lot of threads here, i know that Ashcroft is in charge of the justice of the US, and that he hide a statue of a woman with a naked breast. Apart this i have very little to say about him.
Now more seriously, the debate is the limit of liberty of free-speech, a discussion that happened here many times. As a french-men i am for a limitation of these liberty, in case of incitment to murder and mass-murder. If you don't know this already, this is the case in France. I should add that racial-hatred and anti-semit comments are prohibed also. Many people from US (or more precisely US AI posters) said with reasons, that it was a limitation of free-speech. In a perfect world , i will be for a total liberty of free-speech, but as the world is not perfect full of dangers, and people trying to manipulate the others in order to assume their own goals, i think that some limitations are necessary. In case of incitment of murder and mass murder, my answer is YES.
<strong>
Actually, there is already some legislation on that matter (much older than the loi Gayssot) of which I don't recall the name right now, but the Brits were more on the lax side these last years.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks for the answer
<strong>This just seems crazy to me. Just because this guy spouts idiotic bullshit doesn't mean he should go to jail for it. It doesn't surprise me coming from the English though.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And the idiotics bs he said help to promote terrorism. If you don't know, many muslims fanatic leaders ,take advantage of a respectable law in the past, to foster terrorims in UK. Even if the brit are respecteful of the liberty of free-speech they are not stupid, and thus are doing the good thing to struggle against terrorism.
Yeah, but who gets to decide what speach is dangerous? Personally I think people like, GW Bush, Jerry Fallwell and the Pope spout some dangerous ideas, but I still think they have a right to express those opinions. There have been many groups in America over the years who've expressed similarly disgusting sentiments as this guy and yet we've survived and survived well without prosecuting them.
The Brittish happen to be expert at making martyrs and that's all they're doing here. They've also never shown much regard for free speech in my opinion.
<strong>Sorry but i am not big on Ashcroft (understand i don't know him very well).
Because i read a lot of threads here, i know that Ashcroft is in charge of the justice of the US, and that he hide a statue of a woman with a naked breast. Apart this i have very little to say about him.
<strong>Now more seriously, the debate is the limit of liberty of free-speech, a discussion that happened here many times. As a french-men i am for a limitation of these liberty, in case of incitment to murder and mass-murder. If you don't know this already, this is the case in France. I should add that racial-hatred and anti-semit comments are prohibed also. Many people from US (or more precisely US AI posters) said with reasons, that it was a limitation of free-speech. In a perfect world , i will be for a total liberty of free-speech, but as the world is not perfect full of dangers, and people trying to manipulate the others in order to assume their own goals, i think that some limitations are necessary. In case of incitment of murder and mass murder, my answer is YES.</strong><hr></blockquote>I seem to remember very well a thread in AI started by mr "I view things in terms of right and wrong" himself
And it was about how in France there was a law that limited cults and it did so in very much the same way that the law on hate speech works
I wouldsay one thing, well... two:
I am not entirely against the incarceration. I just want people to stop fooling themselves and see that their 'ideals' of free-speech have just given way to pragmatics . . . and not "ethics" . . .(you're fooling yourself if you think that this is all about ethics)
and
If the US started to make this kind of legislation we would have a whole lot of people going behind bars: from militia, to Nazis, to 'Christian Identity', to Islamists etc . . . but the first people to speak up about it would be both, those reviled Liberals and the Conservatives . . . both sides that are committed to Rights
except that now the Liberals feel that they see the beginnings of this kind of rights errosion in such things as the wire-tapping of the "Patriot" act and the potential of that aptly, and dystopianly named, Total Information Awareness Office headed by that Felon Pointdexster
[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
Fellowship, to wound up to realize an argument in your defence, eh? Of course, I wasn't speaking about the politics of this thread, just the psychology at work in what you do, and what most of your critics do, things I see as equally unfair.
Do I have a point? Mebbe, but why make it here?
For now, in this case, the court decided well, it should be a crime to counsel violence against another group in a society, but there is a lot to be very careful about. Instead of celebrating too much at the fall of a competitor, you might think about praying for wisdom to continue (where it is in evidence) or to grow (where it proves insufficient already). These are not easy cases for courts and everyone involved will need wisdom if standards of freedom and liberty are to be simultaneously protected.
You want a certain guarantee from Matsu? OK, Apple prices are too high.
<strong>
I ask you why do you do that?
Or was this an honest mistake? </strong><hr></blockquote>
In all honestly I take issue with your segregation of the 'western world', not with the term 'these people'. I think we all agree that terrorists could vanish and we'd all be better off. What bothered me was the fact that you imply that the rest of the world could/should have the terrorists to deal with.
No civilized person should have to deal with the terrorists. There is no place in the world for them. I did NOT mean to imply that you were stating that the western world shouldn't have to deal with Muslims.
I hope that's a little clearer. Sorry for the confusion.
<strong>
I want bunge to make it clear what it is he is saying. I do not appriciate his bending of who I am. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I hope I've done that because I was not intending to bend who you are. I was out all day enjoying the cold winter weather so I couldn't respond sooner.
<strong>The condemnation and subsequent incarceration of Abdullah el-Faisal is in my opinion, a very good thing, since I strongly support the curbing of incitment to murder and mass-murder.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree. I don't know about this specific case, but speech that is an assault should be prosecuted as such.
Of course, I think some of Bush's aggression is borderline myself, but that's for a different thread.
<strong> Instead of celebrating too much at the fall of a competitor<hr></blockquote></strong>
Not the case at all Matsu. Not at all.
[quote]<strong>
you might think about praying for wisdom to continue (where it is in evidence) or to grow (where it proves insufficient already). These are not easy cases for courts and everyone involved will need wisdom if standards of freedom and liberty are to be simultaneously protected.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This I agree with completely. Well said.
Fellowship