Opinion on racism.

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Do you think it's racist to suggest Muslims are violently opposed to homosexuality?

 
Total votes: 0

User avatar
Lootifer
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing

Re: Opinion on racism.

Post by Lootifer »

Depends on the context.

Also depends on your interpretation of the word racist.

I generally think that any incorrect generalisation falls under the "implicitly racist" (compared to explicit "I hate x" racism) category. So saying all muslims are violently opposed to homosexuality is implicitly racist (i.e. it implies you are likely racist as you are making sweeping generalisations about populations based on their race - you may, however, just be making a simple mistake and are not actually racist).

The comment "Some muslims are violently opposed to homosexuality" is nothing but a factual statement.

TL;DR a simple "all" or "some" placed in the sentance settles the issue.
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
GeneralRisk
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 3:58 pm
Location: Neu-Schwabenland

Re: Opinion on racism.

Post by GeneralRisk »

CreepersWiener wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:I think everyone knew what you meant with the title.
So the question is whether or not its stereotyping to suggest that Muslims are violently opposed to homosexuality then. I'd say it's a generalization at the very least since it can't possibly apply to all Muslims. I suppose it would depend on the Muslim and whether or not if he/she were put in a position to decide whether or not violence should be used against a homosexual/homosexual acts. Tbh I'm not even knowledgeable enough about the religion to know if it's belief system dictates one way or another.
I certainly agree with your post here. To say that all Muslims are violently opposed to homosexuals is ludicrous. To make any statement that would suggest an entire group of people would want to oppose homosexuals with violence is not being fair. Certainly individuals would not all agree with the question being asked; however, I can say that Islam is not the only religion that professes the "evils" of homosexuality. The Old Testament gave the commandment:
Leviticus 20:13 wrote:If a man lie with a man, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Putting homosexuals to death was apparently commanded by God, and not only Muslims practiced executing homosexuals. My question would be: "Does GOD violently oppose homosexuals?" Because the obvious answer is: "Yes!"
Do you think God is wrong? To say all Muslims are violently opposed to homosexuality is denying the fact that the USA currently has in office a Muslim, bisexual President. It is not hard to envision what the liberal's next sexual agenda will most likely be.
Pederasty, Pedophilia
Frightening Gay Statistics


Although most homosexual activists publicly deny that they want access to boys, many homosexual groups around the world are working aggressively to lower the age of sexual consent. Their cause is being aided by the professional psychiatric and psychological associations, which have moved n recent years toward normalizing pedophilia, much as they did with homosexuality in the early 1970s.

Kevin Bishop, an admitted pederast (pedophile), is promoting the work of the North American /Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) in South Africa. Bishop, who was molested at the age of six, is also an admitted homosexual who is blunt about the relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia. "Scratch the average homosexual and you will find a pedophile," said Bishop in an interview with the Electronic Mail & Guardian (June 30, 1997). (Angella Johnson, “The man who loves to love boys,” Electronic Mail & Guardian, June 30, 1997, http://www.mg.co.za/mg.)

This pedophile/homosexual activist began studying pedophilia while a student at Rhodes University. He also discovered Karl Marx there, as well as other literature that helped form his worldview. His views are being echoed around the world by homosexual activists who are seeking what they call "sexual freedom" for children.

Bishop is on a crusade in South Africa to have "age of sexual consent laws" abolished, and he is looking for help from NAMBLA to accomplish his goal. He says children must be empowered "by teaching them about loving relationships at an early age, and giving them the opportunity to make an informed decision about having [sex]." He also approves of incest, noting, "Two women psychologists in America say the healthiest introduction to sex for a child should be with their [sic] parents, because it is less threatening and the emotional intimacy more comfortable." (Angella Johnson, “The man who loves to love boys,” Electronic Mail & Guardian, June 30, 1997, http://www.mg.co.za/mg.)

Bishop agrees with NAMBLA that the next social movement in Western politics will be an attack m "sexual ageism," which prohibits sexual contact based on age differences. The movement already is well under way in Europe and Canada.

Homosexuals did not need scientific evidence, neither do pedophiles.

The public approval of homosexuality and the idea of homosexuals "marrying" would have been unheard of thirty years ago. But the homosexual campaign's success did not depend on rightness or on scientific evidence - but in its image, and on the increasing permissiveness of society. Dr John Money of John HopKins University has urged pedophiles not to be discouraged by the lack of evidence backing up their cause. He says:

"When the gay rights activists became politically active, there wasn't a sufficient body of scientific information for them to base their gay activism on. So, you don't have to have a basic body of scientific information in order to decide to work actively for a particular ideology. As long as you're prepared to be put in Jail. Isn't that how social change has always taken place?"

This quote comes from the "scholarly" Dutch journal, Paidika — A Journal of pedophilia. ( ) If homosexuality has been posed as healthy, good and normal, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, so can pedophilia. Pro-pedophilic articles are making their way into academia.

SOURCE: Africa Christian Action
Book: The PinkAgenda: Sexual Revolution in South Africa and the Ruin of the Family
By Christine MC Cafferty with Peter Hammond

PEDOPHILIA IN THE UNITED STATES

In the United States, homosexual activists are more circumspect about their efforts to gain access to children than they are in Canada or Europe. While NAMBLA has regularly marched in homosexual pride parades in New York, San Francisco and other major cities, homosexual activists publicly disassociate themselves from pedophiles as part of a public relations strategy.

Yet homosexual groups are actively recruiting gay youth" through such groups as The Sexual Minority Youth Assistance League, the HettrickMartin Institute, AIDS service providers and various agencies that assist runaways. A concerted effort to change age-of-consent laws has not yet emerged, but some ominous signs portend an eventual effort. When Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an attorney for the ACLU, she co-authored a report recommending that the age of consent for sexual acts be lowered to 12 years of age." ).3 (3 "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code," Report for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, April 1977, p. 102, quoted in "Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Feminist World View," The Phyllis Schlafly Report, Vol. 26, No. 12, Section 1, p.3. The paragraph reads as follows: '"Eliminate the phrase "carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of 16 years" and substitute a federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense.... A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person.... [and] the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old..)

The public still has a revulsion against child sexual abuse. In fact, whenever there is an attempt to show a connection between pedophiles and homosexuality, the standard response from the activists is that as many as 97 percent of all pedophiles are heterosexuals and/or married men. Thus, they deflect attention away from their own proclivities to have sex with children.

There is some truth to the claim that many pedophiles are heterosexually oriented men. To be accurate, pedophilia is the crime of sexually molesting a child of the opposite sex. Pederasty, on the other hand, is the crime of molesting a child of the same sex. The term pedophile is used as a general term to describe a person who molests any child, and the term pedophilia, however, is commonly used to refer to child sexual abuse in general. The homosexual who molests a child of the same sex, therefore, technically is guilty of pederasty, rather than pedophilia - yet both are child sexual abuse.

Homosexuals deny that there is a high incidence of child molestation among them, but the statistics tell another story.

First, we need to look at the statistics on child sexual abuse in general. The National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse (NCPCA) has published the following information:

1. Reports of sexual abuse are on the increase in our nation.

2. Between 80 and 95 percent of all child molestation’s are committed by men. The NCPCA notes, however, that there is a "dramatic increase in the number of adolescent offenders who have committed sexually aggressive acts against other children."

3. Girls are more likely to be the victims of molestation than boys. Males account for 25 to 35 percent of child sexual abuse victims.4 (4. "Child Sexual Abuse, "National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse, December 1996, http://www.childabuse.org)


How prevalent is child molestation among homosexuals?

The Gay Report, published by homosexual researchers Jay and Young in 1979, revealed that 73 percent of homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys 16 to 19 years of age or younger.5 (5. K. Jay and A. Young, The Gay Report (New York: Summit Books, 1979), p. 275. )

Although homosexuals account for less than two percent of the population. they constitute about a third of child molesters.6 (6. K. Freund and R.I. Watson, "The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study," Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 18 (Spring 1992): 3443, cited in "The Problem of Pedophilia," op. cit. Also, K. Freund and R.I. Watson, "Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality," Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 10 (Fall 1984): 197, cited in NARTH Fact Sheet. ) Further, as noted by the Encino, Calif.-based National Association for research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), "since homosexual pedophiles victimize far more children than do heterosexual pedophiles, it is estimated that approximately 80 percent or pedophile victims are boys who have been molested by adultmales.7 (7. Thomas Schmidt, Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate (Downers Grove, IU.: Intervarsity Press), p. 114, cited in "The Problem of Pedophilia, op. cit., p. 2. )

A nationwide investigation of child molestation in the Boy Scouts from 1971 to 1991 revealed that more than 2,000 boys reported molestations by adult Scout leaders. (Note: The Scouts, who have 150,000 Scoutmasters and assistant Scoutmasters, ban hundreds of men each year from scouting out of concern that they might abuse boys.)8 (8. Patrick Boyle, Scout's Honor (Rocklin, Calif.: Prima Publishing, 1994), p. 3l6. )

A study of Canadian pedophiles has shown that 30 percent of those studied admitted to having engaged In homosexual acts as adults, and 91 percent of the molesters of non-familial boys admitted to no lifetime sexual contact other than homosexual.9 (9. W. L. Marshall, et al., "Early onset and deviant sexuality in child molesters," Journal of interpersonal Violence 6 (1991): 323-336, cited in "Pedophilia: The Part of Homosexuality They Don't Want You to see," Colorado for Family Values Report, Vol. 14, March 1994. )

Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D., and Charles B. Johnson, Ph.D., conducted a content study of the personal ads in the Advocate, the national gay and lesbian newsmagazine and discovered that "chickens," a common term for underage boys sought for sex, were widely solicited. Many of the advertisements in the magazine solicited boys and teens from within a larger pool of prostitution ads.10 (10. Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D., "A Content Analysis of 'The Advocate,"' unpublished manuscript p. 18, quoted in "Pedophilia: The Part of Homosexuality They Don't WantYou to See," ibid. ) The authors also note a statement from a book review by homosexual activist Larry Kramer that the work, "like much canonized male homosexual literature, involves sexually predatory white men on the prowl for dark-skinned boys to gratify them.11 (11. From "Lany Kramer's Reading List," The Advocate, January 24, 1995, p. 99, cited in "Status Report," The Reisman & Johnson Report of Partner Solicitation Characteristics as a Reflection of More Sexual Orientation and the Threat to Children, First Principles Press, January l995.)

In a 1985 study of the rates of molestation among homosexual pederasts compared to heterosexu1 pedophiles, Dr. Paul Cameron found the following:

153 pederasts had sexually molested 22,981 boys over an average period of 22 years.

224 pedophiles had molested 4,435 girls over an average period of 18 years.

The average pederast molested an average of 150 boys, and each heterosexual pedophile molested an average of 20 girls, a ratio of 7.5 to one. 12 (12. Dr. Paul Cameron, “Homosexual Molestation of Children/Sexual Interaction of Teacher and Pupil,” Psychological Reports 57 (1985): 1227-1236.)

GOING AFTER CHILDREN

Gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement. In 1972, the National Coalition of Gay Organizations adopted a 'Gay Rights Platform" that included the following demand: "Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent." David Thorstad, a spokesman for the homosexual rights movement and NAMBLA, clearly states the objectives: 'The ultimate goal of the gay liberation movement is the achievement of sexual freedom for all - not just equal rights for 'lesbians and gay men, but also freedom of sexual expression for young people and children." This goal has not changed since it was articulated in 1972.

Enrique T. Rueda, The Homosexual Network (Old Greenwhich, Connecticut: The Devin Adair Company, 1982), p. 201

AGE OF CONSENT

Homosexual organizations around the world have embarked upon a vigorous campaign to lower actual age of consent laws by claiming that current laws are discriminatory against homosexuals. In England, for example, a major push is underway to lower the age of sexual consent for homosexuals to 14. OutRage!, a homosexual organization that operates much like ACT UP in the United States, has been leading the crusade. In a statement published on the Queer Intelligence Service website, OutRage! claims that "under-age queers have rights too. They are some of the most vulnerable members of our community. We have a special responsibility to protect their interests and welfare.

Peter Tatchell, "Why We Want an Age of Consent of 14," Queer Intelligence Service, Agenda for Gay Law Reform, OutRage.!, London, Sept. 10, 1998, http://www.OutRage.cygnet.co.uk.

SOURCE: Frank V. York and Robert H. Knight, "Homosexual Activists Work To Normalize Sex With Boys"

ENTER NAMBLA (NORTH AMERICAN MAN BOY LOVE ASSOCIATION)

"NAMBLA is nothing more or less than an egregious organization of pedophiles."- Mike Echols in the L.A. Times 3/11/92

According to their website, NAMBLA's goal is to end the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships by:
building understanding and support for such relationships; educating the general public on the benevolent nature of man/boy love; cooperating with lesbian, gay, feminist, and other liberation movements; supporting the liberation of persons of all ages from sexual prejudice and oppression. Their membership is open to everyone sympathetic to man/boy love and personal freedom.


NAMBLA EXPOSED

In 1991 NAMBLA had over 3,000 members. However, that was prior to January 1992 when Mike Echols went to San Francisco’s KRON-TV (NBC) and worked with Jon Dann, Greg Lyon, and Craig Franklin of Target 4 News to take a hidden camera and audio wire into NAMBLA’s January 4th public meeting in San Francisco’s Potrero Hill Public Library. The resulting video and news of this meeting led to the organization’s exposure on KRON-TV News… a story which ran for 18 days straight. And this video along with interviews of Echols were featured on CNN and Geraldo Rivera’s syndicated tabloid TV show “NOW It Can Be Told.” (Read More)

See NAMBLA'S Website
NAMBLA for Women Article
NAMBLA and Pedophilia
ARTICLES ABOUT NAMBLA MEMBERS
AMAZON.COM AND NAMBLA
The Beauty of Adolescent Boys by Astrid Jackson (For strong stomachs only! (More articles from NAMBLA sickos)
Pederasty and Homosexuality by David Thorstad for NAMBLA


NAMBLA is the Sickest Group on Planet Earth!

PEDERAST GAYS IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

Homosexual Activists Want It Both Ways on Boy Scouts, Catholic Priests

http://www.reclaimamerica.org

For the past few months, the Catholic Church has been hit with charges of scandal. Hundreds of priests have been accused of having sexual relations with under-aged boys. Even worse, when some bishops were notified by concerned parents, they merely transferred the offending priest to another parish, where the cycle of abuse was allowed to continue. So what has caused the sexual abuse within the Roman Catholic Church? "The overwhelming majority [of these cases involve] homosexuals, but the media steers away," the Reverend Richard John Neuhaus, a Catholic scholar, told the Washington Times. "It is no secret that there has been a certain moral laxity and that a significant number of active homosexuals entered the priesthood in the last 20 or 30 years" said Janet Folger, national director of the CENTER FOR RECLAIMING AMERICA. Pro-homosexual critics denounced these claims. Mary Louise Cervone, president of Dignity/USA, a group that claims to represent homosexual Catholics, declared, "It has nothing to do with sexual orientation." She accused conservative Catholics of "trying to make gay priests the scapegoats for decades of sexual abuse." "It's ridiculous to blame the molestation problem on celibacy, because the vast majority of priests remain true to their vows," said Folger. "If what those attacking the Catholic Church as a whole are saying is true, then over 98% of priests are doing their jobs by faithfully following Catholic teachings and not abusing these boys." Folger added, "In other words, the evidence is clear that this is a homosexual problem, not a celibacy problem." "I find it ironic that those who attack the Catholic church for not doing enough to protect these vulnerable boys are the same people who attack the Boy Scouts of America for taking steps to prevent this abuse."
“And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”
Jesus own words from Mat. 18:5-6
User avatar
notyou2
Posts: 6447
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:09 am
Gender: Male
Location: In the here and now

Re: Opinion on racism.

Post by notyou2 »

The people that are making decrees and laws in the countries that are executing homosexuals are doing it for the power and the control. Next it will be the christians and jews, if there are any living there, then the intelligentsia, then any muslim sect that differs from the rulers sect, and so on. This is no different than what hitler did to the jews, the gypsies, the homosexuals and anyone that was different or spoke out. It's all about CONTROL. These guys are just using religion as an excuse, like so many others be they christian, jewish or muslim, or any other religious group or order. It won't stop until we all see it for what it really is....HATE.
Image
GeneralRisk
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 3:58 pm
Location: Neu-Schwabenland

Re: Opinion on racism.

Post by GeneralRisk »

notyou2 wrote:The people that are making decrees and laws in the countries that are executing homosexuals are doing it for the power and the control. Next it will be the christians and jews, if there are any living there, then the intelligentsia, then any muslim sect that differs from the rulers sect, and so on. This is no different than what hitler did to the jews, the gypsies, the homosexuals and anyone that was different or spoke out. It's all about CONTROL. These guys are just using religion as an excuse, like so many others be they christian, jewish or muslim, or any other religious group or order. It won't stop until we all see it for what it really is....HATE.
Sounds like a misinformed conspiracy theory and/or you have developed preconceived notions about what different groups will impose on others. There are 72 nations that homosexuality is illegal. 7 countries have the death sentence as a possible penalty, although usually not on the first offense. Do you suggest that we militarily overthrow these nations and install a homosexual puppet President [dictator, in more ways than 1] to enforce your liberal ideals?
User avatar
Lootifer
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing

Re: Opinion on racism.

Post by Lootifer »

GeneralRisk wrote:
notyou2 wrote:The people that are making decrees and laws in the countries that are executing homosexuals are doing it for the power and the control. Next it will be the christians and jews, if there are any living there, then the intelligentsia, then any muslim sect that differs from the rulers sect, and so on. This is no different than what hitler did to the jews, the gypsies, the homosexuals and anyone that was different or spoke out. It's all about CONTROL. These guys are just using religion as an excuse, like so many others be they christian, jewish or muslim, or any other religious group or order. It won't stop until we all see it for what it really is....HATE.
Sounds like a misinformed conspiracy theory and/or you have developed preconceived notions about what different groups will impose on others. There are 72 nations that homosexuality is illegal. 7 countries have the death sentence as a possible penalty, although usually not on the first offense. Do you suggest that we militarily overthrow these nations and install a homosexual puppet President [dictator, in more ways than 1] to enforce your liberal ideals?
No but we can scorn them for their lawmakers/whoever* being a bunch of homophobic fuckwads.

* To be labeled as a homophobic fuckwad, you must of course be homophobic, i award the fuckwad status as a bonus prize :D I do not however think for a minute that all the people living in a country with homophobic fuckwad laws are actually homophobic fuckwads.
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
User avatar
2dimes
Posts: 13175
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:08 pm
Location: Pepperoni Hug Spot.

Post by 2dimes »

My opinion on use of the term "all" when you're generalizing. It might be racist. For sure it's dumb and it's highly unlikely to be accurate.
User avatar
oVo
Posts: 3864
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Antarctica

Re: Opinion on racism.

Post by oVo »

CreepersWiener wrote:Putting homosexuals to death was apparently commanded by God, and not only Muslims practiced executing homosexuals. My question would be: "Does GOD violently oppose homosexuals?" Because the obvious answer is: "Yes!"
The obvious answer is not yes. God gives you free will, love and forgiveness. Unless you prefer the vengeful version of the almighty who is your judge, jury and executioner. Either way it's not man's job to carry dish out punishments justified by holy books, let God sort it out. Select "translations" of the Bible & Koran that suit particular agendas are applied to homosexuality, while translations that might have an effect on other aspects of how you live your life are ignored.

Religious texts are a convenience to claim a higher moral ground that doesn't universally exist, while aggressively acting on fears with deadly violence and no regrets.
User avatar
2dimes
Posts: 13175
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:08 pm
Location: Pepperoni Hug Spot.

Post by 2dimes »

I like the direction of your post there oVo and it reminds me I wanted to respond to TeeGee but forgot.
TeeGee wrote:I am no expert on any religion, I prefer the Big Bang theory. I have never read the christian bible, but doesn't that say all things about homosexuality are bad and should be punished? Why single out Muslims?
Some of the concept of "We need to stop the bad people." Stems from when God gave a a select chosen people laws. Those laws were specific and tough to follow. But at the time they were there to keep those specifically chosen people pure in order to enter temples that no longer exist.

If you separate the Old Testament or Torah portion of the bible from the New Testament portion that was written after Christ was a human. Then no because there is no specific mention of homosexuality in the New Testament.

Further and this is important. Christ taught. Stop throwing rocks. You're doing it wrong!

There is mention that effeminate will not inherit heaven or similar depending on translation and some go there for justification.

The thing is if a person is consumed with hate and needs to act like the Westburo Baptists they can probably rail against their target using a sales flier for Walmart.

I think that the larger problem is interpretation of books rather than translation. I used to quite enjoy comparing translations and even the watch tower society who specifically altered certain parts of the bible for their agenda never added anything in the New Testament to harm people for being gay.

Part of the problem is fear that if we don't obey God he will smack us. That tends to be when people decide punishing others will gain them favour. That is directly opposed to what Christ taught. He said, "Love your enemy."
User avatar
BigBallinStalin
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Contact:

Re: Opinion on racism.

Post by BigBallinStalin »

What's wrong with throwing rocks?

Some places don't have much wood, so throwing rocks serves as a cheaper substitute to hangings or crucifixions--which believe me take awhile to do. Very labor-intensive in terms of security and construction. Beheading seems to make the most sense though, but throwing rocks is a communal activity. The people join in the justice, so what could be greater than that?
User avatar
thegreekdog
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Gender: Male
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Opinion on racism.

Post by thegreekdog »

I answered no... does that make me a racist? I think we need another poll.
Image
User avatar
2dimes
Posts: 13175
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:08 pm
Location: Pepperoni Hug Spot.

Post by 2dimes »

I love polls, let's make the another one.

You should be deported to Canada BBS.
User avatar
BigBallinStalin
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Contact:

Re: Opinion on racism.

Post by BigBallinStalin »

Canada? Excuse me, sir, but these colors don't run.
User avatar
2dimes
Posts: 13175
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:08 pm
Location: Pepperoni Hug Spot.

Post by 2dimes »

Yet you fail to explain how "the second amendment" makes sticks and rocks obsolete? For shame.
User avatar
Lil_SlimShady
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 6:08 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Re: Opinion on racism.

Post by Lil_SlimShady »

BigBallinStalin wrote:Canada? Excuse me, sir, but these colors don't run.
It wouldn't be much running or color changing. We share the white and the red...its only the blue that you have to give up. And if you are a Republican then you have already done that
User avatar
BigBallinStalin
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Contact:

Re: Opinion on racism.

Post by BigBallinStalin »

Lil_SlimShady wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Canada? Excuse me, sir, but these colors don't run.
It wouldn't be much running or color changing. We share the white and the red...its only the blue that you have to give up. And if you are a Republican then you have already done that
You're part of the TPDS, aren't you?

2dimes wrote:Yet you fail to explain how "the second amendment" makes sticks and rocks obsolete? For shame.
Ah-ha! SHAME ON YOU, THRICE, SIR!!
User avatar
Lil_SlimShady
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 6:08 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Re: Opinion on racism.

Post by Lil_SlimShady »

What's TPDS? I googled it but i dont think you mean "Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems"
User avatar
thegreekdog
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Gender: Male
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Opinion on racism.

Post by thegreekdog »

Lil_SlimShady wrote:What's TPDS? I googled it but i dont think you mean "Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems"
Tea Party Death Squad. Do a search for that term on this site.
Image
PLAYER57832
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Gender: Female
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Opinion on racism.

Post by PLAYER57832 »

2dimes wrote:I'm curious about this.

Sorry there's no spectator options. Even though that pains me, you must chose of you want to vote.

I have left it so you can change your opinion later if you wish.
I skimmed through the past pages, so might have missed this point, but it seems that you are really asking 2-3 different questions in one.

First, are Muslims "a race". Biologically, even if you accept the notion that race is real, no. There are white Muslims, black Muslims, Asian Muslims.

Second, are all Muslims actually against homosexuality? That's debateable. Many are, but Christians have historically been considered "against homosexuality" .. up until pretty recently. What we see on the news as Islam is really several different very radical branches of Islam, not "Islam", any more than, say Southern Baptists or the Missionary Alliance Church represent "all of Christianity".

The third question is whether opposing homosexuality at all represents racism. Again, prejudiced, perhaps, but not racist.

Is it prejudice? Well, that really depends. Do or do not people have the right to think that things other people do are wrong? If you say they do then merely thinking that homosexuality is wrong is not itself wrong, anymore than any other idea. HOWEVER, the problem comes in how far you think you have the right to take that belief or idea. If you believe that your thinking homosexuality is wrong gives you the right to, say, not work with homosexuals, not live next to homosexuals, or if you think they should be put into jail for acting up homosexualtiy, then most would say you are acting with prejudice. Many would argue that evidence supports that position, but I certainly would not.
User avatar
2dimes
Posts: 13175
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:08 pm
Location: Pepperoni Hug Spot.

Post by 2dimes »

In case anyone comes in here and then starts wondering.

Not only was I not asking any of those three questions. I fail to see any connection between them and what I was asking.

I guess it is up to angry mobs or religious zealots (yes possibly "Christians") to decide wether it is right to, beat, kill or merely threaten people to insure they don't walk in an area where they have lived nearly all their life.
PLAYER57832
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Gender: Female
Location: Pennsylvania

Re:

Post by PLAYER57832 »

2dimes wrote:In case anyone comes in here and then starts wondering.

Not only was I not asking any of those three questions. I fail to see any connection between them and what I was asking.

I guess it is up to angry mobs or religious zealots (yes possibly "Christians") to decide wether it is right to, beat, kill or merely threaten people to insure they don't walk in an area where they have lived nearly all their life.
Perhaps you meant to ask if Muslims are prejudice or if people, in general using religion to harm homosexuals is justified.. but that was not your question.

Your question was whether Muslims are racist... and to answer that, means identifying racism versus just any kind of prejudice.
User avatar
2dimes
Posts: 13175
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:08 pm
Location: Pepperoni Hug Spot.

Post by 2dimes »

Or perhaps I meant to ask the exact question I asked.

"Do you think it's racist to suggest Muslims are violently opposed to homosexuality?"

I don't really care about why or if there is a possibility that opinion is flawed by semantics.

How in the bloody blue puddle of beer flakes did you make the jump to the Muslims being racist?
User avatar
thegreekdog
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Gender: Male
Location: Philadelphia

Re:

Post by thegreekdog »

2dimes wrote:Or perhaps I meant to ask the exact question I asked.

"Do you think it's racist to suggest Muslims are violently opposed to homosexuality?"

I don't really care about why or if there is a possibility that opinion is flawed by semantics.

How in the bloody blue puddle of beer flakes did you make the jump to the Muslims being racist?
2dimes, meet Player. Player, 2dimes.

Now that you've indicated you don't care about semantics, I will answer a different question.

"Is it offensive to suggest Muslims are violently opposed to homosexuality?"

Yes. It is offensive and possibly bigoted.
Image
User avatar
2dimes
Posts: 13175
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:08 pm
Location: Pepperoni Hug Spot.

Post by 2dimes »

Why, just because there are some who are not?

Can you not discern the difference between terms?

Prejudice? Yes. Offensive? To a few people? Yes.

Arguably you might suggest being prejudice is what makes someone a bigot but if that's true everyone is a bigot because you can't avoid being prejudice sometimes. There is a difference in my opinion between people with the ability to overlook a prejudice and those that cannot. That can be a problem even if it's a positive prejudice.

Example, "XXXX is a religion of peace and can't lead to violence." I just as wrong as saying, All of a group of people are or will do the exact same thing. Basically you did say, "All of them will be peaceful." Positive but you still just prejudged them.

Even though saying. Islam is typically a religion of peace, many Muslims are gentle people who would not commit acts of violence without just provocation like most normal people. Is correct.

Is there a difference?
User avatar
thegreekdog
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Gender: Male
Location: Philadelphia

Re:

Post by thegreekdog »

2dimes wrote:Why, just because there are some who are not?

Can you not discern the difference between terms?

Prejudice? Yes. Offensive? To a few people? Yes.

Arguably you might suggest being prejudice is what makes someone a bigot but if that's true everyone is a bigot because you can't avoid being prejudice sometimes. There is a difference in my opinion between people with the ability to overlook a prejudice and those that cannot. That can be a problem even if it's a positive prejudice.

Example, "XXXX is a religion of peace and can't lead to violence." I just as wrong as saying, All of a group of people are or will do the exact same thing.

Even though saying. Islam is typically a religion of peace, many Muslims are gentle people who would not commit acts of violence without just provocation like most normal people. Is correct.

Is there a difference?
Which two terms am I supposed to tell the difference between? thegreekdog's high school English teacher turns over in her grave.

It is a broad generalization based upon a religion. That tends to make it offensive (depending on how it is used - and how it was used by what's-his-face is offensive).

"XXXX is a religion of peace" is not a generalization about a group of people; it is a statement about a religion. If you were to say "Muslims are peaceful," I think that is a generalization. It may not be offensive because it doesn't have a negative tone.

Being bigoted means one who regards or treats the members of a group with intolerance of hatred (according to Merriam-Webster). The way in which what's-his-face posted, he is being bigoted. He is regarding members of the same group with intolerance and hatred.
Image
User avatar
2dimes
Posts: 13175
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:08 pm
Location: Pepperoni Hug Spot.

Post by 2dimes »

thegreekdog wrote:Which two terms am I supposed to tell the difference between? thegreekdog's high school English teacher turns over in her grave.
Seriously?
thegreekdog wrote:Now that you've indicated you don't care about semantics, I will answer a different question.

"Is it offensive to suggest Muslims are violently opposed to homosexuality?"

Yes. It is offensive and possibly bigoted.
I will openly admit having not completed High School my english skills might not be up to your standards but...
To me you are missing parts in that question. Does it remain a mere offensive suggestion if you add "many" to it. Because then it would be fact. Feel free to disagree but, many Muslims are violently opposed to homosexuality.

As notyou2 has pointed out they might not even believe in potentially important things that would actually be required for them to be a "true" Muslim. That unfortunately still drives many prejudices good and bad.
thegreekdog wrote:It is a broad generalization based upon a religion. That tends to make it offensive (depending on how it is used - and how it was used by what's-his-face is offensive).

"XXXX is a religion of peace" is not a generalization about a group of people; it is a statement about a religion. If you were to say "Muslims are peaceful," I think that is a generalization. It may not be offensive because it doesn't have a negative tone.

Being bigoted means one who regards or treats the members of a group with intolerance of hatred (according to Merriam-Webster).
Well yeah, that's kind of in the direction that I'm going here.

If every time you had sex with Muslims you got pubic lice. You will think all Muslims have pubic lice.
(I wanted to use a different example but if we can't start a new thread for it Muslims it is.)
Wrong? yes. Sensible? possibly in that context. In fact it could be true that every Muslim you met including the ones you had sex with had or have pubic lice. I feel how you go forward will make a pretty huge difference.

If you decide. I'm going to be more cautious having sex with Muslims to try and see if I can find one without pubic lice. That's prejudice but it's good. If you start throwing special shampoo at random Muslims. That there is bad.
The way in which what's-his-face posted, he is being bigoted. He is regarding members of the same group with intolerance and hatred.
Yeah and if other guy knew that it was indeed what's-his-face even though it's prejudice it might be correct to label what's-his-face as racist. Completely seperate conversation really.
Post Reply

Return to “Acceptable Content”