Poll: 46% of high-schoolers don't want equality for Arabs

Kelzie said:

I hold a possibly unpopular opinion.

I don't want equality for Muslims either. Just last week a 13 year-old girl died from vaginal bleeding shortly after her forced marriage. When Muslims take to the street to protest such things in the same force as they do when someone draws a cartoon depicting their Prophet, then they can join the rest of the global society in deserving equal treatment. Until then, they can cry me a river. They've earned every ounce of intolerance that comes there way.

Click to expand...

but here's the rub - if you don't want equality for people because they are Muslim, then you don't want equality for that girl who died, because she was a Muslim.

I want equality for everyone. But I do not want to tolerate or defer to those who would deny equality to others.

I think that's a pretty substantive point of difference.

But I do take your point on the degree of public protest about conduct directed towards the group rather than directed towards affecting change within that group. I would not want people doing those sorts of things in my name, and the silence around these events (particularly the cartoons) is a problem. To be fair, the issue with the 13 year old was in Yemen and directly tied to the tribuanl culture that dominates there, but the carttoon issue was a squarely western issue, and to see no real visibility in countering the "infidels must die" type of "protests" was very discouraging.

alexa said:

The article you quoted was from the mail even if it was in the Telegraph. As I said, due to being on a forum last year with a lot of BNP supporters I got very used to the daily round of articles from the Mail many of which were then printed in the Telegraph and the Express.

If you quote a Telegraph article it may very easily be really a Mail one as was the last one you printed so yes you did read the Mail.

Click to expand...

So the telegraph is more or less equivalent to stormfront?

Can you give me a bit more deatil? I think that I have seen that the Mail is an out and out populist rag, but alsways saw the telegraph as just a right wing paper, equivalent to the national post in Canada.

You're saying that's not rigyht, and it, along with the Mail, are really supremacist papers?

Tashah said:

Indeed.

At one time I was one of the Admins at the largest private chat room on MSN. About 10,000 member and guest visits per day. Then one day MSN decided to shut down all of its chat servers, ostensibly because of problems with pedophiles.

I looked for something else to do and decided to join an online message board. At that time, The Guardian had a political forum and so I joined up. Don't know if they still have this feature.

What a miserable experience lol. The place was packed with Euro-Leftists who took an immediate dislike to this Jewish American/Israeli girl. They gleefully pounded on me every day and in every way. I stayed for about a year. A thoroughly crappy experience, but it toughened me up considerably.

I went looking for a better venue and discovered Debate Politics. I lurked for about a month and then joined up. Barely five months after joining, I was asked to be a Moderator here. I eventually became an Administrator here at DP.

I've never forgotten how terrible things were at the Guardian forum. One of my major goals here at DP was to ensure that this forum would never devolve into another leftist (or rightest) cesspool ala the Guardian.

Click to expand...

Obviously that was a forum. If you believe that readers of the Guardian Newspaper are cesspool then I know your opinion of me.

I certainly would not waste my time with Mail readers or indeed Telegraph, Sun, Express, News of the World, The People readers, no brains, no ability to think for themselves and just suckers for brainwash.

donsutherland1 said:

Thanks to Tashah, I checked out and joined DP.

Click to expand...

You were then - and remain - the best poster I have ever encountered on a message board. I merely said "Come with me." You did. Thank you Don

alexa said:

I certainly would not waste my time with Mail readers or indeed Telegraph, Sun, Express, News of the World, The People readers, no brains, no ability to think for themselves and just suckers for brainwash.

Click to expand...

Sorry, having difficulty reconciling with:

alexa said:

I just go by what is generally accepted to be more reliable ...

Click to expand...

You of course add the and, but this the preliminary filter allows for the avoidance of thinking in applying the preliminary screen of acceptability of ideas, which is hardly the position of "an ability to think for themselves".

I started out leaning left. But as I learned more, and, critically, learned to assess rather than accept and digest, led me to lean right. Particularly on economic issues, but on a whole host of policy issues as well. Not only that, but the abandonment by the left of real core liberal principles in their coddling of the Arab world and their venom towards Israel made quite clear that the left is not really "progressive" at all, but contrarian.

This ties into the almost complete absence of economic sophistication among the radical left wing, and the fact that policies generally are settled on more or less to oppose the "man", who is scheming to keep them down and keep the rich powerful and posion their water and eat their babies.

Protest against monsanto and intensive farming all you like. But don't forget why the world has enough food. Protest against exploitative Big Pharma. But don't forget who developed the medicine that keeps you healthy. Protest against the "military-industrial complex". But don't forget that there IS competition for resources, and that since the beginning of time those who have been unable to defend resources have them forcibly removed. Protest against "capitalism" all you like. But don't forget that the wealth generated by the system is what allows a whole swath of parasites to live lives of indulgence in the self-absorption of utopian (and nonsense) ideals rather than forcing them to generate sufficient rosources to survive.

In my opinion, it is the left that refuses to think, and refuses to acquire the tools (e.g., economic sophistication) to allow them to think. The more radical, the less thinking, is my general observation. And those populist and elitist rags that sell advertising by appealing to the need for self-gratification among leftists churn out materials similarly devoid of any thought. Other than thinking about the need to reinforce the views of their readership, in order to keep them buying and keep those eyeballs packaged for advertisers.

Leftist rags (populist and elistist) don't make any money by challenging their readers. they make money by convincing their readers of their superiority because they read the publication and share its superior worldview.

Surely you must know that's true, and that's what motivates the capitalists who run these things?

CJ 2.0 said:

but here's the rub - if you don't want equality for people because they are Muslim, then you don't want equality for that girl who died, because she was a Muslim.

I want equality for everyone. But I do not want to tolerate or defer to those who would deny equality to others.

I think that's a pretty substantive point of difference.

But I do take your point on the degree of public protest about conduct directed towards the group rather than directed towards affecting change within that group. I would not want people doing those sorts of things in my name, and the silence around these events (particularly the cartoons) is a problem. To be fair, the issue with the 13 year old was in Yemen and directly tied to the tribuanl culture that dominates there, but the carttoon issue was a squarely western issue, and to see no real visibility in countering the "infidels must die" type of "protests" was very discouraging.

Click to expand...

Define equality. Just because I think the Muslim society in general is inferior doesn't mean I think any of them is deserving of death. Just like this girl. If she had grown to an age to have children, I have no doubt she would have passed the same message to them. So while I have sympathy for her, I still don't tolerate her beliefs or her culture.

alexa said:

Obviously that was a forum. If you believe that readers of the Guardian Newspaper are cesspool then I know your opinion of me.

Click to expand...

I never said nor implied that readers of the Guardian newspaper are cretins. I posted of my personal experience on the Guardian *message board*. Ergo, I found it to be extremely leftist. Hope they cleaned that cesspool up or better yet... ****-canned it entirely.

Kelzie said:

Define equality. Just because I think the Muslim society in general is inferior doesn't mean I think any of them is deserving of death. Just like this girl. If she had grown to an age to have children, I have no doubt she would have passed the same message to them. So while I have sympathy for her, I still don't tolerate her beliefs or her culture.

Click to expand...

I understand. I just think there is a difference between tolerance of unacceptable conduct and equality. All people should be treated equal, but only with regards to similar conduct. Swinging your arm around by yourself is fine. Swinging it around where it makes contact with another person is not. And that rule applies to everybody, even thouse who may be "culturally pre-disposed" to swing where contact is more likely.

To directly answer your question, I would define equality based on equality under the law and equality before the law, and I guess extend that to non-leagl non-governmetn realtions perspectives to cover relations between individuals and groups within society.

But again, it does not mean you can sing kumbaya as part of your religious beliefs while someone else can equally throw tires off highway overpasses as part of theirs, it means that either both of you can do something or neither of you can do something.

If that girl was part of our society, she would be and ought to be entitled to the same protections under the law (so that, for example, anyone who "honour killed" her would be treated as an unabashed aggravated murderer rather than getting a lighter sentence because of sensitivity to the cutlure, and she should have been protected from being raped and forcibly married as a child), and she should be entitled to grow up in an environment where she wasn't indoctrinated into the view that she ought to wear a bag and be denied any identity in opublic and that she should be proud of being property.

just like the rest of us.

CJ 2.0 said:

I understand. I just think there is a difference between tolerance of unacceptable conduct and equality. All people should be treated equal, but only with regards to similar conduct. Swinging your arm around by yourself is fine. Swinging it around where it makes contact with another person is not. And that rule applies to everybody, even thouse who may be "culturally pre-disposed" to swing where contact is more likely.

To directly answer your question, I would define equality based on equality under the law and equality before the law, and I guess extend that to non-leagl non-governmetn realtions perspectives to cover relations between individuals and groups within society.

But again, it does not mean you can sing kumbaya as part of your religious beliefs while someone else can equally throw tires off highway overpasses as part of theirs, it means that either both of you can do something or neither of you can do something.

If that girl was part of our society, she would be and ought to be entitled to the same protections under the law (so that, for example, anyone who "honour killed" her would be treated as an unabashed aggravated murderer rather than getting a lighter sentence because of sensitivity to the cutlure, and she should have been protected from being raped and forcibly married as a child), and she should be entitled to grow up in an environment where she wasn't indoctrinated into the view that she ought to wear a bag and be denied any identity in opublic and that she should be proud of being property.

just like the rest of us.

Click to expand...

Yeah alright I guess. I just tire of the "moderate" Muslims who complain that their whole religion is being tarred and feathered based off of the actions of a few. If the moderates weren't so accepting, I don't doubt that the world would have a better opinion of Muslims.

alexa said:

Well you would certainly need to prove they were relaxing hygiene rules. They are considered pretty important here. Like I said this was not carried in most papers just the Mail, taken up by the Telegraph and the BNP.

As for the Mail and it's credibility concerning Muslims, we in the UK know it's position but coming from Canada you may not. It is correctly described here

Pickled Politics Daily Mail echoes BNP propaganda

Click to expand...

OK, so I just spent a bit of time kicking around the telegraph website. As I suspected, it appears like a perfectly normal moderately right of centre mass newspaper. Solid business section, commentary section looks fine, robust production values indicating sizeable reputation and resources.

I understand that some may not like what it has to say and which stories it reports on, but I see nothing in there that would lead me to believe it is a pseudo news organization that fails to verify stories or check sources more than any other newspaper publisher.

I also saw nothing to indicate it was a right wing equivalent of the Guardian (i.e., a partisan hack outfit rather than a genuine news organization).

That they are prepared to report on sensitive subjects other newspapers bury or ignore, much like the national post in Canada, does not, even in the slightest, impugn it in my eyes.

In fact, it makes it more relevant and more reputable.

As for the Daily Mail, it just looks like a junk mass tabloid, with entertainment and royal crap (you brits are obsessed with your royals beyond all reason) to satiate the masses and keep them coming back for gossip and designer tips.

Tashah said:

You were then - and remain - the best poster I have ever encountered on a message board. I merely said "Come with me." You did. Thank you Don

Click to expand...

Thank you for the very generous compliment, Tashah. The sentiments are mutual.