Nazis or Islamists

[mutantmagnet]

Came across this interesting thread at another forum and thought why not have the topic go through the rigors of forumfall.

One day while you are eating cheetoes and watching TV, Q picks you up, puts you into a nice room and shows you the events of what is going on.

It started with a long extinct technologically advanced species and some relics their of which had recently been activated. In praticular, robotic spacecraft designed to collect specimins for a planet basically designed as a Zoological Garden on an earthlike planet about 150 LY from Sol. These collecter ships collected two populations of humans.

The First that they collected were Nazis, coverly gathering 15,000 Men and women from germany, including over 4,000 die hard SS Fanatics in 1943 and recreated a German City for them to live in, in which Hitlerite Ideology was alloud to survive.

The second being muslim, as they drones quietly collected over twenty five thousand people from the middle east/north Africa gathered between 1945 and 1960 and putting them in a recreation of a middle eastern city. Among them by sheer co-incidence, a good deal of which were hardcore islamists who said that this was Allah saving the worthy for a fresh start, resulting into an eventual evolution into a Taliban/Caliphate style Islamist nation with Sharia law and all it's nastiness, woman converted into baby factories and so on and so forth. After which, the drone ships that harvested them basically died.

The Zoo's internal Security systems had stopped fuctioning long ago and the humans were free to go about the world. The Two nations were located on an island chain about a thousand kilometers apart, but never the less, eventally managed to find each other and in the late ninteen eighties and the Nazis began to go on their crusade to conquer the Mongrel Islamists for the Glory of the Ayran Volksgemeinschaft and the Islamists declared Jihad and set about to conquer the Infidels for the Glory of Allah. Both sides had equipment and machinery to produce boats, rifles and Mortars whent the war started, and their industrial copacities have recently been inlarged to add cannons, rocket artillery, Chlorine Gas, armored cars and basic prop driven aircraft to their list of equipment and the war has been a bloody stalemate, certain peices of land have gone back and foth and both sides have conquered and lost peices of each others territory, but neither side has ever been able to break through to the core the other's territory with anything save the ocasional air raid.

Now what Q offers you is a choice in giving either the Islamists or the National Socialists a set of Advantages, making an Average General into a superior one, having that faction develop more advanced weaponry such as a superior rifle or something and have dreadful weather befall the other faction so that over a period about about two years, the stalemate will be broken and that side in question will be able to win the war. Each side will only accept total victory over the other.

Should you actually refuse to choose which side wins this, Q will not blow up a 100 meter comet that as it stands, will crash into the Atlantic Ocean about 1,500 KM south of Iceland in about thirty seven months.

Zor

Sidenote: The Islamists are of the Sunni sect.

[Xzi]

I voted FISH!

[Fro]

I want an option to drop a bunch of fanatic christians into the fray and see what happens.

[Barbarossa]

As soon as I saw "Q", I stopped reading.

Fail.

[mutantmagnet]

As soon as I saw "Q", I stopped reading.

Fail.


Bleh, don't get to bent out of shape over the idiosicrancies of the original author. You don't have to read it all. The poll question should give you the basic gist of the topic.

[Lotharr]

Tl;dr.

Fish.

[Zokten]

Nazis easily.

[Spart]

I chose Nazi's. Honestly, I know nothing about their beliefs and such other than the fact that they hated jews and believed in the superiority of the Aryan race. So I voted for them.

[palo god]

I chose fish because they both suck.

[Largion]

I chose fish because they both suck.

This is a fact.
And voting Nazis and talking about aryan race is just stupid.

[BlackVolgan]

i think i hear lockapell coming

[Spart]

This is a fact.
And voting Nazis and talking about aryan race is just stupid.

Do explain.

[palo god]

Do explain.

Do you honestly have to ask that?

[Fro]

i think i hear lockapell coming

Lockapell, thats a new one. I just call him dickhead.

[Spart]

Do you honestly have to ask that?

Obviously.

[Aragoni]

Voted Nazis. Islamists hate me for not being a muslim, Nazis doesnt really care.

[Largion]

I chose Nazi's. Honestly, I know nothing about their beliefs and such other than the fact that they hated jews and believed in the superiority of the Aryan race. So I voted for them.

Start whit looking up the word aryan race and see how superior they are to you. ;)

[Spart]

Start whit looking up the word aryan race and see how superior they are to you. ;)

Would me saying the nazi's interpretation of the Aryan race appease you? Or is it something else?

[Weeking]

No way they could have kept their ideology intact and not have anyone splitting off to form their own one for two thousand years.

[Rhasta]

Nazis are much more organized than muslims so i think they would win such war

[The Cougar]

Nazis. And even though I'd do it to save the Earth, it would give me a strange sense of satisfaction to know that thousands of Islamic fanatics were being slaughtered to save my own ass.

[BladeSLicer]

Well, I have blonde hair and blue eyes and do like seeing more than just the eyes of passing-by-girls, so... nazi!

[Suitepee]

I vote for 'this thread will be locked soon' option.

[Villa]

I want an an option for GRAMMAR NAZIs.

[Razli]

Nazi's ftw

[Spinewire]

I'm not going to vote on this bs however if they squared of i reckon the nazis would rape some face.

[pookums]

I voted neither. The planet earth is fucked anyway so no point trying to save it, and I say let the ding-dong continue and they all blow each other up.

Then the universe is saved!

[Damwa]

I would think that given the circumstances, both parties would come to some degree of sense, and the conflict would end with the establishment of some (semi-)stable status quo.
The notion that either party is comprised of die-hard maniacs with no other purpose in life, but to kill "infidels" is naive and silly. IMHO.

[Kebek]

I hope everyone who voted for the nazis realises that they were eventually going to exterminate all but the aryan race, the jews were just the start.

[Damwa]

tl:dr :p

I think that that the Islamists would be the more rational choice: anyone can save their own ass by converting, and over time they are bound to become as decadent and secular as the rest of us.

[HorrorHotel]

I hope everyone who voted for the nazis realises that they were eventually going to exterminate all but the aryan race, the jews were just the start.

I hope everyone who voted FISH realizes that the world would soon be ruled by high school freshmen.

[Blixa]

I voted neither. The planet earth is fucked anyway so no point trying to save it, and I say let the ding-dong continue and they all blow each other up.

Then the universe is saved!

Agreed. And I hope all these "Nazis ftw"s get banned.

[Sayton]

I say fuck that homeworld. Exterminatus is the only solution.

[Gunther TheBlack]

That scenario isn't logic tbh.

Germany blitzkriegs the crap out of any nation if it's 1vs1.

[Kebek]

Germany blitzkriegs the crap out of any nation if it's 1vs1.


Well the entire point of blitzkrieg is to avoid a fullscale bifrontal war.

[Simmy]

Fish, because I didn't bother to read it.

[Gunther TheBlack]

Well the entire point of blitzkrieg is to avoid a fullscale bifrontal war.

That's why i said the scenario isn't logical :p

[Nafelos]

Nazis are the obvious answer... they have cooler uniforms.

[Villa]

Nazis are the obvious answer... they have cooler uniforms.
Goose stepping in black with silver lining is ftw?

[Lethn]

stfu! Communists ftw! I love red ;) plus russian blonde women are kinky *coughs* Which regime has that now tell me? :D

[Rageon]

Why does no one look to the other side of the world. Actually the biggest country, Russia, has a good millitary too! They could win easily with their Z3RGZ0R tactics too! So hey, look to Lieutenant-Colonel Pjotr "Orion" Solomins side too!

[Lethn]

All they'd need is scantily clad blonde women and the enemy would be too busy staring at them to notice that the soldiers were sneaking up on them :p

[Nafelos]

Goose stepping in black with silver lining is ftw?

Are you serious? Because I'm not.

[Dredgon]

Why does no one look to the other side of the world. Actually the biggest country, Russia, has a good millitary too! They could win easily with their Z3RGZ0R tactics too! So hey, look to Lieutenant-Colonel Pjotr "Orion" Solomins side too!

Russia hasn't used Zerg as a main tactic since WW2.

[Villa]

Russia hasn't used Zerg as a main tactic since WW2.
Except in Afghanistan, Chechnya and basically every campaign since WW2.... so err...

[Dredgon]

Except in Afghanistan, Chechnya and basically every campaign since WW2.... so err...

Nope they haven't used zerg since WW2.

[Villa]

Nope they haven't used zerg since WW2.
So Rambo only killed maybe 2 Russians when he was assisting the Taliban?

[Dredgon]

So Rambo only killed maybe 2 Russians when he was assisting the Taliban?

He didn't get a single kill since we sent our secret Russian Rambo after him.

[pookums]

The Russian zerg was killed as much by their own leadership as by their enemies.

[Villa]

He didn't get a single kill since we sent our secret Russian Rambo after him.

Damn, I'm guessing this must have been the director's cut, 2 disc special DVD edition?

[Spart]

I hope everyone who voted for the nazis realises that they were eventually going to exterminate all but the aryan race, the jews were just the start.

I'm pretty sure everyone knows that. It's not exactly a hard notion to understand.

[Revric]

This isnt a question to propose to Americans - no offence but your general ignorance of Europe and its history wont do you much good...

EDIT : And before you go off on one - if this was more American based im sure it'd be the other way around however it isnt..

[Desperado[1G]]

This isnt a question to propose to Americans - no offence but your general ignorance of Europe and its history wont do you much good...

EDIT : And before you go off on one - if this was more American based im sure it'd be the other way around however it isnt..

...what the fuck are you talking about?

[Kebek]

I'm pretty sure everyone knows that. It's not exactly a hard notion to understand.


I doubt everyone knows. Look at the poll results.

[Zuku]

;1523997']...what the fuck are you talking about?

...which is why Revric is right.

[Zuku]

BTW, any poll/discussion of this sort which doesn't include ninja pirates is doomed to degrade into religious bullshit.

[Desperado[1G]]

...which is why Revric is right.

I'm from America so I can't comment on who I would want to win an imaginary war, in an imaginary world, between muslims and nazis?

Seriously?

[Zuku]

;1524465']I'm from America so I can't comment on who I would want to win an imaginary war, in an imaginary world, between muslims and nazis?

Seriously?

Here's a clue:idea:: I don't use emotes to telegraph sarcasm:ninja::ohno::bang::confused::eek ::sly::rolleyes::lmao:. Seriously. And, no, I don't expect you to understand I'm being sarcastic b/c you don't know me.:p:D

Welcome to Forumfall where you can post just about anything you want. Seriously.

[Uzik]

The Islamists would have significantly outbred the Nazis in that time period, so they would have a numerical advantage.

The Germans are much better scientists though, and would probably have better weapons.

Ultimately, I say the Nazis. They would use gas, missiles etc. to wtfpwn the Islamists. Also, they probably could've made a nuke in that timespan. And I doubt Nazi's would hesitate to use it.

[Spart]

The Islamists would have significantly outbred the Nazis in that time period, so they would have a numerical advantage.

The Germans are much better scientists though, and would probably have better weapons.

Ultimately, I say the Nazis. They would use gas, missiles etc. to wtfpwn the Islamists. Also, they probably could've made a nuke in that timespan. And I doubt Nazi's would hesitate to use it.

Ok, see this is something I don't understand about you people. Did you read what he posted? He's not asking you to say which one you think would win. He's saying that they are in a stalemate, and you get to choose. Don't place bets (unless you have a really retarded bookie) just fucking choose!

[adailychristian]

Historically, Hitler was just plain dumb at the end of the war! First of all, he shouldn't have created a two-front war and divided his military strength. Secondly, near the end of WWII, he could at least be compatible (not landslide losing) against the Allies power, only if, he would pull off a certain portion of soldiers guarding the concentration camp to the war fronts.

[Khumash-Gor]

nazis.

i would also kidnap Q

[Titus Ultor]

Obviously Nazis. For all their failings, at least their society produced cultural value. Wtf has Sharia law produced?

[Villa]

Obviously Nazis. For all their failings, at least their society produced cultural value. Wtf has Sharia law produced?
Less rapes, murders, paedophiles, child molesters, drunken hooligans and no aids - just to name the first few things to come to mind in about 1.5 seconds.

[palo god]

Less rapes, murders, paedophiles, child molesters, drunken hooligans and no aids - just to name the first few things to come to mind in about 1.5 seconds.

At the price of freedom and justice.

[Villa]

At the price of freedom and justice.
hang on there a second.... you think justice is lost when the above mentioned crimes are dealt with swiftly (or prevented)?
I'd rather say justice is served when a paedophile is beheaded. Maybe I'm in the minority and everyone else would like to see those kind of people dealt with leniently?

[Titus Ultor]

Less rapes, murders, paedophiles, child molesters, drunken hooligans and no aids - just to name the first few things to come to mind in about 1.5 seconds.

I said produced, dumb ass.

Clearly Sharia law is failing in all sorts of production.

[richtomania]

Well,it didn't prevent muslims from being more advanced (tech and culturewise) from europeans during 9-12th centuries

[mutantmagnet]

BTW, any poll/discussion of this sort which doesn't include ninja pirates is doomed to degrade into religious bullshit.

5 pages and hasn't yet. *shrugs*

[Spart]

5 pages and hasn't yet. *shrugs*

Someone isn't reading page 5.

[mutantmagnet]

The Islamists would have significantly outbred the Nazis in that time period, so they would have a numerical advantage.

The Germans are much better scientists though, and would probably have better weapons.

Ultimately, I say the Nazis. They would use gas, missiles etc. to wtfpwn the Islamists. Also, they probably could've made a nuke in that timespan. And I doubt Nazi's would hesitate to use it.


The Nazis only had better science from their existing population prior to gaining power. Their educational system was completely garbage during the war. They would've bred incompetent scientists loyal to the state as opposed to the decent guys they already had who were completely bogged down in politics from doing anything productive until the party realized they needed wonder weapons.

[BladeSLicer]

hang on there a second.... you think justice is lost when the above mentioned crimes are dealt with swiftly (or prevented)?
I'd rather say justice is served when a paedophile is beheaded. Maybe I'm in the minority and everyone else would like to see those kind of people dealt with leniently?

I still have trouble with a set of laws that tell people what to wear, that puppies are evil, and that should a woman be raped, she must be stoned.

[SkuzzyG]

Political ideologies tend to have much less longevity than religious ones. If the Muslims win, the people of our fictitious world will be doomed to live under an oppressive regime for much longer. If the Nazis win though, with no one to be 'superior' too what need would people have for an ideology of the 'master race'? So I considered voting Nazis.

...but a 100m asteriod has a very good chance of not even hitting the earth. Most will explode in the atmosphere, creating devastation if it happens over land but not so much if it happens over the sea. Iceland is remote and has a low population of 300,000 so evacuation of the immediate are would be possible.

In the event the asteroid survives its trip through the atmosphere it might pose some significant risk because it could cause a Tsunami and is striking directly on the join of the European and North American continental plates. Iceland itself is a volcanic landscape formed on top of a lava plume.

However, due to the remote nature of the impact and the asteroid being small (less than 1km) it will not create a wave large enough and with sufficient energy to propagate to the outer edges of the ocean. Iceland again would suffer but the risk to outlying countries with large populations is minimal/non existent.

So... do we choose to leave the status quo?

I think that to do nothing will cause more suffering in the long term so despite the asteroid being of little consequence in terms of human suffering I go with the Nazis as there way of life will not survive long without conflict, their world will evolve and develop in its own way with the peace and we could do without relocating 300,000 icelandic people.

Oh crap... I forgot about FISH! ignore everything I said.

[BladeSLicer]

The Nazis would most likely annihilate the Muslims as they have already demonstrated that they have no qualms about killing en masse should the population be troublesome.

[Rycon]

Fish cos then people will start eating more fish and the beef will be all mine!!!!!!!!

[Kebek]

First of all, he shouldn't have created a two-front war and divided his military strength.

Don't call Hitler dumb when you don't even know why he used the blitzkrieg tactic.

At the price of freedom and justice.

Security always comes at the price of freedom.

I still have trouble with a set of laws that tell people what to wear, that puppies are evil, and that should a woman be raped, she must be stoned.

Keep confusing regional middle eastern laws with muslims laws.:rolleyes:
Only shows your ignorance.

Didn't you ever wonder why this isn't happening in the biggest muslim countries like Indonesia and Malaysia?

The Nazis would most likely annihilate the Muslims as they have already demonstrated that they have no qualms about killing en masse should the population be troublesome.

Nobody beats the mujahedin in the desert.

[Paralda]

You just HAD to put the Fish option, didn't you?

[Thoric]

Go, fish, go!

[Kusghuul]

Nobody beats the mujahedin in the desert.

The Desert Fox ftw;p

[Tharkon Fargor]

Nazi's VS Muslims?

Who would I like won?
What do I care?
I'd like them for the sake of humanity to unite and fight Q?

I mean your thread is a mess honestly, learn to formate it correctly.
Like are the rest of humanity alive (they probably are eh since I'm picking)?
And if they are, and if Q is asking me to help one side get weapons to kill the other one (first of all why would muslims and Nazi's clash?) then I would say fuck you to Q and try to stab the guy.

I'm not helping someone kill thousands of other humans, thank you very much.

[Kebek]

first of all why would muslims and Nazi's clash?)

Cause far from all muslims are aryan and nazis are infidels.

[Gunther TheBlack]

Less rapes, murders, paedophiles, child molesters, drunken hooligans and no aids - just to name the first few things to come to mind in about 1.5 seconds.

That's because you're allowed to marry kids, DUH! That cancels the first 3.

Aids is pretty rampant in the islamic black countries, so that's a false argument.

Drunken hooligans get countered by arabs hanging out of a car sliding over the road with goddamn SANDALS!!!

[Tharkon Fargor]

That definetly doesn't mean they would kill each other.
Just a stupid and quite hatefull thread that was very badly written.

Don't know why I even posted.

[Tiberias]

Would never happen since they are on the same side: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1676132/posts

[Gunther TheBlack]

Keep confusing regional middle eastern laws with muslims laws.:rolleyes:
Only shows your ignorance.

Didn't you ever wonder why this isn't happening in the biggest muslim countries like Indonesia and Malaysia?


I agree on that, but why the hell do those arab hinterland muslims pretend to be such good muslims then? They even tolerate multiple women, blood honor and shit like that.

Oh yeh i forgot, it's allowed in islam to have multiple wives and stoning a bitch to dead is an actually punishment in sharia.

[Tharkon Fargor]

Yeah lol this thread fails in oh so many ways xD
Ya'll haven't been taking care of the forum while I've been on my payed Vacation from brannoc. :(

[Forgin]

Your poll fails, I HATE polls with a "funny" option because there are always people who think it's funny to select FISH and they fuck up the poll.

[Surly]

I'd vote for Nazis any day of the week, they're so misunderstood!

[Kebek]

I agree on that, but why the hell do those arab hinterland muslims pretend to be such good muslims then? They even tolerate multiple women, blood honor and shit like that.

Oh yeh i forgot, it's allowed in islam to have multiple wives and stoning a bitch to dead is an actually punishment in sharia.

Shari'a are mainly arab laws. Only a minority of muslims is arabic.

[zakariaz]

I cant believe people would prefer nazis. Just wow. Talk about scary tactics working. But okay I voted fish:D

[zakariaz]

Oh yeh i forgot, it's allowed in islam to have multiple wives.

Whats wrong with multiple wives or husbands for that matter. People should have the right to live like they choose aslong as it is not forced upon them

[Villa]

I still have trouble with a set of laws that tell people what to wear, that puppies are evil, and that should a woman be raped, she must be stoned.
Please provide links that all of these things are legal requirements and mandatory in law - especially the bullshit about rape victims have to be stoned.
Either that or admit you are weak willed and easily swayed by propoganda on the interwebz.

[heroshade]

Nazis by FAR. Islamists never systematicly murdered 12 million people and bitchslapped most of Europe.

EDIT: I knew Villa was going to be the poster right above me lol.

[zakariaz]

Nazis by FAR. Islamists never systematicly murdered 12 million people and bitchslapped most of Europe.

Didnt they bitchslap Europe quite a number of times during the crusades?
Or am I totally wrong here

[Kebek]

OK, for all you ignorant pigs who think every muslim is an arab shia muslim.

Country//Muslim population
Indonesia//195,272,000
Pakistan//160,829,450
India//154,500,000
Bangladesh//129,681,509
Turkey//72,750,000

Let's compare this top5 to some of the countries people seem to be getting their stereotypes from.

Afghanistan//29,601,000
Iraq//27,936,000
Saudi Arabia//24,600,000


If you call all muslims arab terrorists then with the same logic you could be calling all Americans black and all Africans white.

[heroshade]

Didnt they bitchslap Europe quite a number of times during the crusades?
Or am I totally wrong here

I think that was Christians in general, but I could be wrong here. I don't know alot of medieval history.

[Villa]

That's because you're allowed to marry kids, DUH! That cancels the first 3.
Gunther - or shall I now refer to you as Mr Islamaphobia? please prove that I, as a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, would be allowed to marry a child.
I would like a detailed explanation about how this could happen over here. I mean, you wouldn't have OMG made up MORE anti Islamic bullshit yet again would you?

Aids is pretty rampant in the islamic black countries, so that's a false argument.
Wow you really do pull your facts out of thin air don't you?
Unlike you, I did my research and my findings suggest that Islam isn't even the majority religion in any of the main AIDs affected countries in Africa, such as South Africa, Kenya, Ivory Coast, Tanzania, Congo etc etc
Please, do feel free to prove me wrong, because you won't be able to. May I suggest you quietly disappear from this thread and find something else to get all anti Islamic about?


Drunken hooligans get countered by arabs hanging out of a car sliding over the road with goddamn SANDALS!!!
What the hell are you babbling about now Mr Islamphobia ?

Basically Gunther, it's time for you to quit and find some other pet hate subject.
You get your so called 'facts' wrong at every turn - maybe it's because you are so busy being angry at Muslims, that you forget to check out the actual details.
I have refuted and discredited your anti Islamic rants for months, and yet you don't get the hint. Any other sensible person would be too embarrased to carry on, but not you.
Oh no, you just carry on making a bigger fool of yourself with every fresh allegation and misinformation.

You sir and your crusade against Islam are one huge epic fucking fail.
FAIL I tell you.

[Villa]

If you call all muslims arab terrorists then with the same logic you could be calling all Americans black and all Africans white.
I hear they might vote a Black Muslim as their leader.

[Gaal]

They're one and the same.

[Kebek]

I hear they might vote a Black Muslim as their leader.

Well, I guess we should consider all Americans to be black muslims then according to this nice anti-islamic logic.

[heroshade]

I hear they might vote a Black Muslim as their leader.

Are you fucking stupid!? He isn't a Muslim, he was just wearing Kenyan garb to be polite, no one is calling him a secret jew (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1826734,00.html).

[Villa]

Are you fucking stupid!? He isn't a Muslim, he was just wearing Kenyan garb to be polite, no one is calling him a secret jew (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1826734,00.html).
Nice find.
I know Israel airlifted a whole bunch of African Jews from Ethiopia and resettled them.
Hey, maybe Obama is a Mossad agent?

[Tiberias]

OK, for all you ignorant pigs who think every muslim is an arab shia muslim.


You are talking about Shia Islam or Shari'a Law? You were talking Shari'a earlier, now Shia Islam.

You don't need to be Arab to have Shari'a Law. It's enforced in some Nigerian states, for example.

[Kebek]

You are talking about Shia Islam or Shari'a Law? You were talking Shari'a earlier, now Shia Islam.

You don't need to be Arab to have Shari'a Law. It's enforced in some Nigerian states, for example.

I was talking about muslim stereotypes and I'm very aware that you don't need to be arab to have shari'a law. That's not what I was posting about.

[Tiberias]

I was talking about muslim stereotypes and I'm very aware that you don't need to be arab to have shari'a law. That's not what I was posting about.

Oh...

Shari'a are mainly arab laws.

[Kebek]

Shari'a are mainly arab laws.

Yes and the mp5 is a German gun. Doesn't mean you have to be German to use it.

[Villa]

Oh...
A cow has four legs.
Not everything with four legs is a cow.

[Brannoc]

Reminder: hate speech here will get you an automatic month long ban.

[Tiberias]

Yes and the mp5 is a German gun. Doesn't mean you have to be German to use it.

Not saying otherwise. Just trying to figure out why you are putting up posts about non-Arab muslim countries and what that has to do with Shari'a law applications.

[Villa]

Oh...

Not saying otherwise. Just trying to figure out why you are putting up posts about non-Arab muslim countries and what that has to do with Shari'a law applications.

Bah, I thought my example was wittier :(
Quote me! Quote me!

[Tiberias]

Bah, I thought my example was wittier :(
Quote me! Quote me!

Why don't you go and reply to my 72 Virgins/White Grapes post in the other thread.

[Suitepee]

Wow it looks like Forumfall kept its common sense on this thread; I was expecting it to derail massively into 'ToS asshole land' and be locked.

Impressive. :D

[Kebek]

Not saying otherwise. Just trying to figure out why you are putting up posts about non-Arab muslim countries and what that has to do with Shari'a law applications.


I was stating that only a minority of muslims are arabs. Why should it have anything to do with shari'a law?

[Villa]

Why don't you go and reply to my 72 Virgins/White Grapes post in the other thread.
I did.
I said I want a Pina Colada or a Margerita.

[Tiberias]

I did.
I said I want a Pina Colada or a Margerita.

Your RP-Islam is going to wear off stating things like that.

[Tiberias]

I was stating that only a minority of muslims are arabs. Why should it have anything to do with shari'a law?

I was trying to follow the train of thought you are trying to create here. It's very hard, I liken it to possibly climbing K2.

Why did you say:


Keep confusing regional middle eastern laws with muslims laws.:rolleyes:
Only shows your ignorance.

Didn't you ever wonder why this isn't happening in the biggest muslim countries like Indonesia and Malaysia?

[Jezrith]

Security always comes at the price of freedom.


Only for cowards.

[Kebek]

Keep confusing regional middle eastern laws with muslims laws.
Only shows your ignorance.

Didn't you ever wonder why this isn't happening in the biggest muslim countries like Indonesia and Malaysia?

The shari'a counts in most of the middle east. I then stated that most muslims don't live in the middle east.

Only for cowards.

That makes no sense.
Security requires rules and laws. Rules and laws limit freedom.

[Jezrith]

That makes no sense.


It makes perfect sense if you understand what freedom actually is.


Security requires rules and laws. Rules and laws limit freedom.

And from this statement it is apparent that you don't.

[Kebek]

Jezrith, you have yet to offer your incredible wisdom to forumfall.
Please, all-knowing one, epxlain to our simple minds what freedom really is.

I used to think that a law that forbids me to pee against a tree limits my freedom seeing how I am no longer free to pee against trees. Enlighten me.

[Villa]

Your RP-Islam is going to wear off stating things like that.
I thought those were virgins too :(

[Jezrith]

Jezrith, you have yet to offer your incredible wisdom to forumfall.


Actually I have many, many times. Your just a noob here that hasn't had the privilege of reading it yet. ;)


Please, all-knowing one, epxlain to our simple minds what freedom really is.


Freedom is the ability to do as you will, without trampling on another persons right to do the same. Once you do trample on another's rights, it is no longer freedom but tyranny. Laws against rape, theft, and murder do not limit freedom because rape, theft and murder are not freedom, they are tyranny. The rule of law is not meant to limit freedom but to protect it by providing punishment for acts of tyranny.

[Kebek]

Lol, say what you wish. Dr. Dictionary still disagrees.

The rule of law is not meant to limit freedom but to protect it by providing punishment for acts of tyranny.

Just because it wasn't intended to limit freedom doesn't mean it doesn't. Kitchen knives are intended to be used to stab your wife but it still happens.
Grow up ffs.

[Kebek]

Double post=>ignore.

[Jezrith]

Lol, say what you wish. Dr. Dictionary still disagrees.


No, not really. Not that Dr. Dictionary is very good at defining higher level philosophical concepts in the first place.


Just because it wasn't intended to limit freedom doesn't mean it doesn't. Kitchen knives are intended to be used to stab your wife but it still happens.


How the law is manipulated and abused has nothing to do with the fact only cowards feel they need to limit freedom to gain security. Matter of fact, the cowards who feel that security is somehow diametrically opposed to freedom are generally the ones who manipulate and abuse the intent of law.


Grow up ffs.


Oh the irony, its so rich! When you have an understanding of the subject beyond your 8th grade civics class you can tell people to grow up, ok bub?

[Ocoma]

I want an option to drop a bunch of fanatic christians into the fray and see what happens.

Aye this would make for a great 3 way. :sly:

[Kebek]

No, not really. Not that Dr. Dictionary is very good at defining higher level philosophical concepts in the first place.

Freedom in all its forms is defined in dicitonaries. Look it up before you spread your hippie propaganda here.

What part of "don't kill others" limiting your freedom to end human lives doesn't this retard understand? Even the most basic laws limit your freedom.

Freedom is the ability to do as you will, without trampling on another persons right to do the same.

Hey, if I cut some guy's leg off that doesn't mean I stop him from cutting other people's legs off. Flawed, childish and simple minded theory.

[Damwa]

Freedom is the ability to do as you will, without trampling on another persons right to do the same. Once you do trample on another's rights, it is no longer freedom but tyranny. Laws against rape, theft, and murder do not limit freedom because rape, theft and murder are not freedom, they are tyranny. The rule of law is not meant to limit freedom but to protect it by providing punishment for acts of tyranny.

I am not going to get into this (again), but I cannot restrain myself from noting that the argument here employed, consists in (more or less) subtly altering the meaning of terms. This, however, doesn't in any analytical sense solve the fundamental problem; it merely changes the language used/necessary to describe it.
Also, I have a suspicion that this is one of those (Kantesian) maneuvers, which is supposed to resolve an issue, but in fact it only conceals the issue with semantics and (massive) conflation (distinctions between normative and descriptive terms, implications and connotations are casually erased/ignored and the whole things is sliced, diced and mixed together in one big stew).

Some people swear by it, but to me it seems (quite frankly) to be utter and complete nonsense, even if it is more clever nonsense than most.

Consider: If freedom is defined as: "the ability to do as you will, without trampling on another persons right to do the same."
Then we might pose two pertinent questions:
1) What is the nature and origin of this "right"? How can we be certain of the reality of such a "right", and if we cannot; how would that then affect our definition of freedom?
2) If the freedom of any one individual is *inherently* restricted by the "rights" of another; which term would you propose we employ to denote "the ability to do as you will", without any reservations? Obviously, such a thing exists, and hence we may denote it with some term or other.

[Jezrith]

Freedom in all its forms is defined in dicitonaries. Look it up before you spread your hippie propaganda here.


Which is why I said that it doesn't really say I'm wrong. L2R, short-bus.


What part of "don't kill others" limiting your freedom to end human lives doesn't this retard understand? Even the most basic laws limit your freedom.


HA! More irony. The only retard in this conversation is the guy who can't tell the difference between tyranny and freedom.



Hey, if I cut some guy's leg off that doesn't mean I stop him from cutting other people's legs off.


At the very least you have stolen his ability to walk, thereby trampling his rights to do what he wills. Wow! Are you really this slow? Do you honestly think the statement means only the ability to perform the exact same action as another person? Man, and I thought we had some dim light bulbs around here before.


Flawed, childish and simple minded theory.


It sure is flawed, childish and simple logic. Only a simpleton with flawed and childish logic would think your convoluted mess of analogies has any resemblances to a well constructed analytical thought process.

[Kebek]

At the very least you have stolen his ability to walk, thereby trampling his rights to do what he wills. Wow! Are you really this slow? Do you honestly think the statement means only the ability to perform the exact same action as another person? Man, and I thought we had some dim light bulbs around here before.


A wooden leg fixes that.
By your theory we aren't even free to breath as I want to breath in a certain volume of oxygen which another person also wishes to breath in. So breathing would limit another man's freedom of breathing in the very same volume of oxygen. => Breathing = Tyranny.

Nice theory, seriously :rolleyes:

[Villa]

Back to the topic at hand; I think they should release some Feminazis on the island at some point.

[Shads]

Why choose the lesser of two evils? Come forth Cthulhu! Ya Ya!

[Spineless_DoO]

Whats wrong with multiple wives or husbands for that matter. People should have the right to live like they choose aslong as it is not forced upon them

Nothing. You are absolutly right. Untill something you do hurts those around you then you should be free to do it. In the USA that is the law but you know how that cookie crumbles:)

You have to look at the examples in history all be it very cherry picked here in the US. For example the Mormons. The countless records of child rape and religious bonding as early as 6-8 years old. The countless tales of a bunker mentality resulting in the death of non believers. All of it happened so long ago its super hard to put it into a factual, informative manner but people still read the tales and buy into it.

Now read the islamic bible. Then read the islamic documents written by the man himself. He is by his own admission a child abusing pedifile, a drug abuser, and a murderer. Its no wonder in todays world that especialy Americans tend to stereotype Islamic followers in a very bad way. Trueth be told the only information they have is from Islam. That information does not paint a pretty picutre. None of it does. Alot like myself believe that ridding the world of all Islamic followers would in fact free millions from slavory. For example a black man can not be islamic. He can only be a second class slave to the "true" islam. Yet today we have tons of blacks and other backrounds following islam despite the fact that the very book they follow belittles them as property. Nobody pays any mind to the reformist movement in Islam. Actualy its the elites here in the US and around the world maybee even more so Britian that are doing the best job at making sure it never happens.

While I understand the need for most to put Islam and Mormons in a stereotype of there own I try to be as open to each person as I can so not to throw any people with a simularity in one basket. Its VERY hard to convince a population of people to do the same. Collective minds often fall into what is layed out before them on the front line. Its human nature to look for the easy answer to big problems that face us all. The needed legwork is seldom done anymore.

[Gunther TheBlack]

Whats wrong with multiple wives or husbands for that matter. People should have the right to live like they choose aslong as it is not forced upon them

Funny, most wives are forced into such marriages. Fail more please!

[Kebek]

Nothing. You are absolutly right. Untill something you do hurts those around you then you should be free to do it. In the USA that is the law but you know how that cookie crumbles:)

You have to look at the examples in history all be it very cherry picked here in the US. For example the Mormons. The countless records of child rape and religious bonding as early as 6-8 years old. The countless tales of a bunker mentality resulting in the death of non believers. All of it happened so long ago its super hard to put it into a factual, informative manner but people still read the tales and buy into it.

Now read the islamic bible. Then read the islamic documents written by the man himself. He is by his own admission a child abusing pedifile, a drug abuser, and a murderer. Its no wonder in todays world that especialy Americans tend to stereotype Islamic followers in a very bad way. Trueth be told the only information they have is from Islam. That information does not paint a pretty picutre. None of it does. Alot like myself believe that ridding the world of all Islamic followers would in fact free millions from slavory. For example a black man can not be islamic. He can only be a second class slave to the "true" islam. Yet today we have tons of blacks and other backrounds following islam despite the fact that the very book they follow belittles them as property. Nobody pays any mind to the reformist movement in Islam. Actualy its the elites here in the US and around the world maybee even more so Britian that are doing the best job at making sure it never happens.

While I understand the need for most to put Islam and Mormons in a stereotype of there own I try to be as open to each person as I can so not to throw any people with a simularity in one basket. Its VERY hard to convince a population of people to do the same. Collective minds often fall into what is layed out before them on the front line. Its human nature to look for the easy answer to big problems that face us all. The needed legwork is seldom done anymore.

Sir, I salute you.

[Gunther TheBlack]

Wow you really do pull your facts out of thin air don't you?
Unlike you, I did my research and my findings suggest that Islam isn't even the majority religion in any of the main AIDs affected countries in Africa, such as South Africa, Kenya, Ivory Coast, Tanzania, Congo etc etc
Please, do feel free to prove me wrong, because you won't be able to. May I suggest you quietly disappear from this thread and find something else to get all anti Islamic about?


You sir and your crusade against Islam are one huge epic fucking fail.
FAIL I tell you.

We were talking about sharia law, not the law of the western country you live in.

Nigeria, Somalia and Eritrea pop into my mind.

Fail more ignorant loony!

You're so backward it stopped being funny.

[Jezrith]

I am not going to get into this (again),


Oh by all means please do, I was beginning to feel a little like the Yankees playing a 4th grade little league team.


but I cannot restrain myself from noting that the argument here employed, consists in (more or less) subtly altering the meaning of terms.


I'm not altering the meaning of any of the terms. The idea that freedom does not include being able to trample on the rights of others is centuries old. I didn't formulate this opinion all on my own here over night.


This, however, doesn't in any analytical sense solve the fundamental problem; it merely changes the language used/necessary to describe it.

Also, I have a suspicion that this is one of those (Kantesian) maneuvers, which is supposed to resolve an issue, but in fact it only conceals the issue with semantics and (massive) conflation (distinctions between normative and descriptive terms, implications and connotations are casually erased/ignored and the whole things is sliced, diced and mixed together in one big stew).


What is the fundamental problem as you see it? I have a sneaking suspicion that it may lay outside the scope of what is being discussed.


1) What is the nature and origin of this "right"? How can we be certain of the reality of such a "right", and if we cannot; how would that then affect our definition of freedom?


This is why I had that sneaking suspicion. The origin of these "rights" is really beyond the scope of the current debate. Regardless of origin, I think you would be hard pressed to say it does not exist. We have an entire system of government based upon its existence, without the former the latter would not exist. If we were to debate the origin, which we have at great length, then it might be surmised that the latter would not exist without the former at the same time, but again that is not the scope of this debate.


2) If the freedom of any one individual is *inherently* restricted by the "rights" of another; which term would you propose we employ to denote "the ability to do as you will", without any reservations? Obviously, such a thing exists, and hence we may denote it with some term or other.


Now I would say this is definitely within scope. We generally call this sociopathic, but I'm not sure if that is what you are looking for.

[Villa]

We were talking about sharia law, not the law of the western country you live in.

Nigeria, Somalia and Eritrea pop into my mind.

Fail more ignorant loony!

You're so backward it stopped being funny.
How did I fail?
Are you so drunk right now that you can't understand how I completely and utterly destroyed you beyond any hope of resurrection?
Unlike you I posted stuff to backup my observations. You on the other hand seem to bend over and produce shit, without any proof.

I can only assume you have the ability to write, but not to read.
Any sensible person would now be considering euthanasia; you however are probably about to produce more unsubstantiated crap.
How the hell can you not feel ashamed at being proven over and over to be nothing more than a hateful little racist who is full of crap?

[Aragoni]

racist

Not to protect Gunther or anything but can't you make up your mind? First he was an Islamophobe (spelling?) and now he's a racist. :rolleyes:

[Jezrith]

A wooden leg fixes that.
By your theory we aren't even free to breath as I want to breath in a certain volume of oxygen which another person also wishes to breath in. So breathing would limit another man's freedom of breathing in the very same volume of oxygen. => Breathing = Tyranny.


Holy sophistry, bat man! You suck terribly at analogies, please stop making them. You have to be seriously dense to think for even a second a prosthetic leg is even remotely analogous to a real leg. Not to mention the shear stupidity in thinking one man can deplete the oxygen supply enough to reduce the amount of oxygen you can breath.


Nice theory, seriously :rolleyes:

It is quite nice actually, thank you. You can thank Friedrich Hayek, Lysander Spooner, Alexis de Tocqueville, and a whole slew of other philosophers who are infinitely smarter than you or I (well, mainly you.)

[Gunther TheBlack]

How did I fail?
Are you so drunk right now that you can't understand how I completely and utterly destroyed you beyond any hope of resurrection?
Unlike you I posted stuff to backup my observations. You on the other hand seem to bend over and produce shit, without any proof.

I can only assume you have the ability to write, but not to read.
Any sensible person would now be considering euthanasia; you however are probably about to produce more unsubstantiated crap.
How the hell can you not feel ashamed at being proven over and over to be nothing more than a hateful little racist who is full of crap?


I don't know. I always counter your petty insults with examples and all you do is insult more.

You're just running from me.

Run, Villa, RUUUN!!!

[Villa]

Not to protect Gunther or anything but can't you make up your mind? First he was an Islamophobe (spelling?) and now he's a racist. :rolleyes:
I'm sure it is entirely possible to be both.

[Villa]

I don't know. I always counter your petty insults with examples and all you do is insult more.

You're just running from me.

Run, Villa, RUUUN!!!

LOL, that actually made me laugh IRL.

[Tiberias]

Islam is a religion, so if you theoretically hate Islam how does that make you a racist?

[Aragoni]

I'm sure it is entirely possible to be both.

And how did you come to the Racist conclusion? If you hate Muslims you're not a racist. Racism is if you think one race is superior to another. For example if I think the Caucasian (I'm Caucasian so..) race is superior to the Mongoloid or something like that then I'd be a racist. Not if I hate Muslims.

[Tiberias]

And how did you come to the Racist conclusion? If you hate Muslims you're not a racist. Racism is if you think one race is superior to another. For example if I think the Caucasian (I'm Caucasian so..) race is superior to the Mongoloid or something like that then I'd be a racist. Not if I hate Muslims.

You Religionist bastard!

[Villa]

Islam is a religion, so if you theoretically hate Islam how does that make you a racist?
Not this old chestnut again.
Some people will deny every and any definition of racism, by coming out with excuses such as "oh black people aren't a race" or "people from this continent aren't a race" or "people of that religion aren't a race" and so on until you end up with a conclusion that there is apparently no such thing as race or racism.

People can be truly pedantic.

[Tiberias]

Not this old chestnut again.
Some people will deny every and any definition of racism, by coming out with excuses such as "oh black people aren't a race" or "people from this continent aren't a race" or "people of that religion aren't a race" and so on until you end up with a conclusion that there is apparently no such thing as race or racism.

People can be truly pedantic.

So, you're saying Islam is a race? Or all people practicing Islam are of one race?

[BladeSLicer]

People can be truly pedantic.

..Shallow and pedantic?

[Aragoni]

Not this old chestnut again.
Some people will deny every and any definition of racism, by coming out with excuses such as "oh black people aren't a race" or "people from this continent aren't a race" or "people of that religion aren't a race" and so on until you end up with a conclusion that there is apparently no such thing as race or racism.

People can be truly pedantic.

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

And there we got the definitions of 'racism'. Hating Muslims or Pagans doesn't make you a racist.

[Villa]

And there we got the definitions of 'racism'. Hating Muslims or Pagans doesn't make you a racist.
Sure, quote the internet to a judge.
I'm sure in any civilised country where you carry out hate crimes based on someone's religion will get you charged with some form of racism or racism-based crime.

[Aragoni]

Sure, quote the internet to a judge.
I'm sure in any civilised country where you carry out hate crimes based on someone's religion will get you charged with some form of racism or racism-based crime.

Well if you find another source which has another definition of the word "Racism" then please post it.

No. If you kill, rape or kick another person because of his/her religion, sexual preference or something like that then you will be charged for "Hate crime", not "Racism". :)
At least in Sweden.
'Muslim' isn't a race and neither is 'Christian', 'Devil Worshiper', 'Satanist', 'Hindu' or any other.

[Tiberias]

Sure, quote the internet to a judge.
I'm sure in any civilised country where you carry out hate crimes based on someone's religion will get you charged with some form of racism or racism-based crime.

Not in America. You'd get charged with a Hate Crime which covers religion as well as race.

[Kebek]

'Muslim' isn't a race and neither is 'Christian', 'Devil Worshiper', 'Satanist', 'Hindu' or any other.

Neither is black man, white man or Asian.

If you base a race off of skin colour you might just as well base a race off of religion. Seeing how there's a bigger difference between a white christian and a white hindu than there is between a black man and a white man of the same religion.

[Aragoni]

Neither is black man, white man or Asian.

If you base a race off of skin colour you might just as well base a race off of religion. Seeing how there's a bigger difference between a white christian and a white hindu than there is between a black man and a white man of the same religion.

Care to elaborate? While there are genetical differences (Nothing big though) between blacks, whites, reds & yellows there are no differences between a white christian and a white muslim.

[Tiberias]

Neither is black man, white man or Asian.

If you base a race off of skin colour you might just as well base a race off of religion. Seeing how there's a bigger difference between a white christian and a white hindu than there is between a black man and a white man of the same religion.

Making up your own definitions now? Please find me a definition of racism that would make a white muslim a different race than a white christian.

[Kebek]

Care to elaborate? While there are genetical differences (Nothing big though) between blacks, whites, reds & yellows there are no differences between a white christian and a white muslim.

Who people are is defined by their genes and their actions. Although there's a small genetical difference between a black man and a white man the overall difference would be smaller(if they were of the same religion, lived in roughly the same area) than the difference between a white christian and a white hindu who differ greatly from eachother by the way they live their lives.

If you prefer to stick to the gene level then why don't we call all blue eyed people a race, all brown eyed people a race and all green eyed people a race?

[Tharkon Fargor]

This thread failed in the way a mentally and physicaly retarded baby fails when being born.

Must you continue to grace it with your presence?
Now yes... even the most failed cases can make it through hard work and a commited following...but this one was so deep in shit from the start that it's doubtfull it will ever emerge from it.

[Kebek]

This thread failed in the way a mentally and physicly retarded baby fails when being born.

Now must you continue to grace it with your presence?
Now yes... even the most failed cases can make it through hard work and a commited following...but this one was so deep in shit from the start that it's doubtfull it will ever emerge from it.

WUT?

[Tiberias]

Link to definition plz Kebek or STFU.

[Aragoni]

Who people are is defined by their genes and their actions. Although there's a small genetical difference between a black man and a white man the overall difference would be smaller(if they were of the same religion, lived in roughly the same area) than the difference between a white christian and a white hindu who differ greatly from eachother by the way they live their lives.

A race is not determined by their way of life, it's determined by genetical facts.

If you prefer to stick to the gene level then why don't we call all blue eyed people a race, all brown eyed people a race and all green eyed people a race?

Great question but IMO that would just be pushing it.

Making up your own definitions now? Please find me a definition of racism that would make a white muslim a different race than a white christian.

Yupp.. I'd like to know this as well.

[Damwa]

Oh by all means please do, I was beginning to feel a little like the Yankees playing a 4th grade little league team.


Well, I don't think that we need to go over all aspects of the subject, and obviously that *would* grow beyond the scope of the present debate.


I'm not altering the meaning of any of the terms. The idea that freedom does not include being able to trample on the rights of others is centuries old. I didn't formulate this opinion all on my own here over night.


You are altering the meaning of the terms, to the extent that you are proposing a meaning that not everyone who has a well-founded command of the English language can agree upon. I grant that you were not the one who introduced the distortion, but this (in my opinion) doesn't make it any less of a distortion. The distortion (to my mind) represents a philosophical cop-out. In the same sense that Kantesian ethics are a cop-out and Anselm's ontological proof for the existence of God, is a cop-out. Whatever anyone wants to prove in regard to (some perceived) reality, it cannot be proven by merely making clever definitions of words.
Now, I don't think that this (seeming) alteration is necessarily an obstacle for further discourse (though it is a unnecessary source of confusion and equivocation), and this is why I asked my question #2. (Yes, I wrote number 2!!)


What is the fundamental problem as you see it? I have a sneaking suspicion that it may lay outside the scope of what is being discussed.


The fundamental problem is as follows: the altered definition of "freedom" seeks to avoid the burden of proving why (in vulgar terms) anyone should give a fuck about the rights of others, by changing the use of language to *automatically* predicate those who assume authority over others as being "tyrants" or "sociopaths". Whilst the use of these predicates may have some psychological impact, they do not actually answer the question: Why should anyone voluntarily abstain from doing something, merely because it in some way or other harms another person? Why should anyone who as a matter of fact, has the power/authority to realize his will (as in: make into reality) abstain from doing so?
We might choose to say: "Such a person would be a tyrant", to which he might respond: "But why is that necessarily bad or immoral?" - A simple (too simple in a sense) objection would be: "if someone is about to destroy his own life on the basis of a bad decision, would I not be more "righteous" in stopping him (even against his will) than in doing nothing? And does this not apply to nations and peoples as much as it does to individuals?"
My point isn't that there is no case against tyranny, but that the case isn't made by simply defining tyranny as a violation of freedom, or as being contrary to or outside of freedom.


This is why I had that sneaking suspicion. The origin of these "rights" is really beyond the scope of the current debate. Regardless of origin, I think you would be hard pressed to say it does not exist. We have an entire system of government based upon its existence, without the former the latter would not exist. If we were to debate the origin, which we have at great length, then it might be surmised that the latter would not exist without the former at the same time, but again that is not the scope of this debate.


And if Sharia is not the truth, there can be no government on the basis of Sharia? "I am proven right by having the power to act upon what I believe; *as if* it were true." ?


Now I would say this is definitely within scope. We generally call this sociopathic, but I'm not sure if that is what you are looking for.

You didn't answer my question, now.
I didn't ask: "what would you call a person who did whatever he was able to do, regardless of the rights of others?" - I asked: "by which term would you denote the ability to do as you will?" - Point being: if freedom defines the possibility of performing that subset of actions, to which those actions which infringe upon the right of others *do not* belong; then which term would you employ to denote the possibility of performing *any* action without any distinction.

That being said, my point was merely this: it is only possible to say that law and order does not entail an infringement on individual freedom, by redefining the term "freedom" to denote merely some of the actions that a person might undertake, whilst predicating others with some pejorative term. So the question remains: whether we choose to call it freedom (or something else and exotic), there is definitely *something* that is reduced, restricted and/or infringed upon by the establishment of law and order, and whatever you choose to call it, this still begs the question: why should anyone accept this loss or willingly comply in surrendering this "something", except on the grounds of hoping to receive something else ( maybe perceived as more valuable) in return, e.g. safety?

[Kebek]

A race is not determined by their way of life, it's determined by genetical facts.


I never said races are determined by their way of life. I questioned why we should divide people in to races in the first place. There's a bigger inherit difference between people living different lifestyles than between people with different skin colours.

This might sound crazy but it might just help you understand my point better:

Ducks living in a city and ducks living on the countryside make different sounds and act different. There's no difference between a dark feathered city duck and a light feathered city duck except for their colour while there's a big difference between a light feathered city duck and a light feathered countryside duck. Scientists differentiate between these two types based on their 'lifestyle'. Why would we do it differently with humans? Differentiating between lifestyles makes more sense than differentiating between colour.

[heroshade]

This thread failed in the way a mentally and physicaly retarded baby fails when being born.

Must you continue to grace it with your presence?
Now yes... even the most failed cases can make it through hard work and a commited following...but this one was so deep in shit from the start that it's doubtfull it will ever emerge from it.

This.

[Damwa]

A race is not determined by their way of life, it's determined by genetical facts.



Great question but IMO that would just be pushing it.



Yupp.. I'd like to know this as well.

Ehmm... maybe we should just agree that the common use of the term "race" is far removed from any substantial genetic facts, and that the "court of the public" has approved of the term "racist" being used of *anyone* who dislikes or disdains anyone else, who belongs to any conceivable group? I would compare it to the way in which the terms "fascist", "socialist", "communist", "redneck", etc. are used *very* loosely in regards to anyone who by any stretch of imagination could be supposed to have some degree of association with the traits or beliefs signified by the predicate. ehm.... I really should be gaming now.... :(

[losinglife]

what kinda fish are we talking here?