| Author | Message | ||
     3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 152 Registered: 1-2006 |
Tom Reingold, According to this, Moslem and Muslim are both OK, but Muslim is more common: http://www.allwords.com/query.php?SearchType=3&Keyword=Moslem&goquery=Find+it!&Language=ENG At least I don't use Musselman, which has a quaint 19th century ring to it. It is also used in variant forms in several European languages according to Wikipedia. How very unprogressive of them. I don't think there a standard system of transliteration for any Semitic language. I have seen the same Hebrew words spelled in different ways, depending on the system being used. I actually haven't known many Moslems, although I have known a few members of the Nation of Islam, if that counts. According to them, I am a white devil and my ancestors were created by a mad scientist in a laboratory. Celebrate diversity! If I had to make of list of American problems, a dearth of Moslem immigrants would not be in my top 10. I'm sorry to boggle your mind, but I don't think 21st century America is no different from the South in the 1950s. I haven't seen Bull Connors hosing anyone down or George Wallace blocking any schoolhouse doors lately. I guess if you have a chip on your shoulder, you can always find discrimination if you want to go looking for it, and no matter what, some people will always be looking for it. Cheers | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13481 Registered: 1-2003  |
Are you accusing me of looking for your bigotry? When something waps me in the face and I identify it, I don't think it's fair to say I was looking for it. I attended a talk by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf who has a vision of peace between Muslims (the word Muslims prefer) and others. I suggest you check him out. I studied under Bawa Muhaiyaddeen who professed peace among all people and wrote many heartwarming books such as one called Islam and World Peace. I have known many Muslims who live as compassionately as others. I wouldn't take anyone seriously who consider you a devil. To believe that that viewpoint represents a billion people's views is to demonize them as those Nation of Islam folks did to you. | ||
| Madden 11 Citizen Username: Madden_11 Post Number: 889 Registered: 12-2003 |
I haven't seen Bull Connors hosing anyone down or George Wallace blocking any schoolhouse doors lately. No more firehoses = no more racism? I'm sure blacks everywhere are breathing a sigh of relief. | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 153 Registered: 1-2006 |
Madden 11, Because there is a difference between being Muslim and being in the NRA...do you not understand that? One is something you are, the other is something you do. The Group A in your example is "terrorists," not the roughly 1 billion Muslims that live in this world. What I am saying is that what you do is influenced by what you are. I am not saying that all Moslems are terrorists. But, if 5% of Moslems wish to take the Koran at face value and wage war against the infidels, that means that for every 1 million Moslem immigrants, we would be admitting 50,000 "terrorists". My position is: let's not do that. Christians have killed more abortion doctors and burned down more women's health clinics than any other group, way out of proportion...would it be a useful tactic to profile all Christians to prevent this from happening? I don't think so, because there is nothing in the New Testament that advocates killing abortionists, leaders of most (I would say all, but I am not sure) Christan denominations have condemned these actions, and Christians around the world do not dance in the streets whenever this happens. Contrast this with verses in the Koran which sanction the killing of infidels, the paucity of Moslem leaders and teachers who speak out against jihad and terrorism, and the television footage of Moslems celebrating on Sept. 11, 2001. It just doesn't seem like a valid comparison to me, but who knows, maybe it will come to pass. I agree with you that law enforcement should not be based on the prejudice of individuals, but I do think law enforcement should consider all relevant factors when framing a policy. I think our disagreement is over what we would consider to be "relevant". Cheers | ||
| Madden 11 Citizen Username: Madden_11 Post Number: 890 Registered: 12-2003 |
3ring-- I don't know how you arrived at your 5% figure, but it seems crazy out of proportion to me. What could you possibly be basing that on? And what would you think of someone who said "5% of Christians are probably crazy enough to kill an abortion doctor, or a homosexual...we better keep them all out of the country just to be safe." This "position" you've arrived at seems to me born of the dangerous mix of fear and jingoism that have driven this country since 9/11. Guess what? Nobody's arguing that we should let 50,000 terrorists into the country. People are just arguing that assuming someone is a terrorist based on their religion or skin color is neither fair, nor logical. Also, the fact that you think a face value interpretation of the Koran is somehow more dangerous than a face value interpretation of the Bible...I just don't get that. People who are unhinged enough to commit murder can find plenty of justification in either book...that doesn't mean that the books are to blame. If you think it's fair for others to judge American Christians by the words and deeds of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, then keep judging Muslims by the street dancers and the radical imams. I will concede that the New Testament does not mention abortion. | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 155 Registered: 1-2006 |
Tom Reingold, I make a suggestion to profile Moslems (OK, Muslims) and restrict Muslim immigrants and I am a bigot, prejudiced, etc. This strikes me more as a reflex action of well trained PC muscles than a reasoned response. Obviously, we're not working out at the same gym. There is actually zero chance of this ever happening because there are no elected officials from President Bush on down who would stand up in public and advocate profiling of any kind. I have no desire to harm Muslims, let alone invade any Muslim countries and impose democracy on them at gunpoint. In fact, the less we interfere in the internal affairs of Muslim countries, the safer we will be from attacks by Muslim terrorists. It's funny how "great" Presidents like like Lincoln and Roosevelt can suspend habeas corpus, shut down newspapers, jail political opponents and round up thousands of Japanese, yet somehow the republic survived. Then I come along and say we should take a second look at Muslims in places like airports, and its lights out in America. They get monuments in D.C., I get grief. Is the constitution really that delicate? I'm glad to see that the Muslims you mention would desire a peaceful co-existence with the rest of the world. I'm also glad that their organizations are not based in Muslim countries, where they might run into trouble, like the reform-minded Muhammad Taha did in Sudan a while back. I've lived in Maplewood for 46 years and I guess I can say I've seen a few changes, but I haven't run across any Muslims so far. The nature of my employment also makes it fairly unlikely that I will come in contact with Muslims, but I guess you never know. I also am aware that Middle Eastern Muslims do not hold to the racial theories of the NOI, I was just trying to give you an idea of the extent of my contacts with Muslims, if the NOI can really be considered Muslim. I'm certainly no authority on that. Cheers | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 156 Registered: 1-2006 |
Madden 11, No more firehoses = no more racism? My remark about Connors and Wallace was not to say that there is no racism, prejudice or discrimination in America anymore. In the immediately preceding sentence in that post, I meant to say that there had been positive change. The fire hose/school house thing was to illustrate the earlier sentence. Obviously, I didn't state it clearly. So how about this: I do think there is a significant difference between say, Maplewood, Missippi in 1956 and Maplewood, New Jersey in 2006. I much prefer the latter I suppose there will always be racism, prejudice etc. It may be reduced or ameliorated, but it will never go away. Likewise, President Bush's goal to abolish evil and tyranny is bound to come to grief. People are just too weak, greedy, selfish and stupid. (How's that for misanthropy?) The 5% number came from a poll I read about in the Arab world which found that 5-10% of those asked expressed support for Osama Bin Laden and his Jihad against the West. I used the lower number so as not to overstate the case. It doesn't sound implausible to me, but what do I know? If I can hunt it down, I'll post the link. I also was not clear about the New Testament not advocating killing abortionists. The New Testament does not advocate that Christians should kill anyone. With one exception. There is a fairly strong pacifist strain in the early church fathers, but Augustine's just war theory eventually won out. What that means for our discussion is that the only circumstances in which a Christian could kill someone was if he was serving as a soldier in a lawful and just war and killed a combatant on the other side. Of course, a pacifist would still have a problem with this. Cheers | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13493 Registered: 1-2003 |
Survival seems to me to be a poor criterion for whether something is right or wrong. For example, I'm against parents hitting kids; I think it's harmful. Yet I did it to my kids when they were young. I regret it; I think it was wrong; I will never do it again. They survived, and they will grow up to be good human beings, but does that justify doing it? Not in my book. You make generalizations at the same time as stating your ignorance of a religion that represents a sixth of the world's population and the largest religion on the planet. You also say you are not in a position to learn more, yet you are still confident in coming to these baseless conclusions. There are Muslims in every country who want unity more than strife. The press doesn't report about them. But whatever the truth about Muslims (or any other group) is, I think it is hurtful to you and others to fear and distrust others because you don't know about them. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13494 Registered: 1-2003 |
And I'd like to point out the logical error in racial bigotry. It's really very simple. Most prisoners in the US are black. But most blacks are not criminals. When you meet a random African American, you owe it to him/her to trust her as a compassionate human being, just as others owe you that trust. | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 157 Registered: 1-2006 |
Tom Reingold, If I had to be an expert on any given subject before I could state an opinion, I could never open my mouth. I'm sure there are at least a couple of other people who have posted opinions on MOL without possessing expert credentials. There are a billion + Muslims in the world. I have not known or befriended any, therefore my conclusions are "baseless". On the other hand: I have known many Muslims who live as compassionately as others. Other Muslims? Other people? Anyway, let me ask you this, how many is many? 10, 20, 50, 100, 1000? Do your interactions with Muslims lead to any statistically significant conclusions? Not being an expert, I can't say for sure, but I am inclined to doubt it. Especially if the Muslims you have known were here in the US. It wouldn't surprise me at all that a Muslim who took more accomodating views toward Western culture might want to put some distance between himself and his more inflexible co-religionists. But which viewpoint is typically Muslim? I don't know! Do you? How do you know? I'd rather err on the side of caution. There are Muslims in every country who want unity more than strife. The press doesn't report about them. For the sake of argument, I'll agree. But your remark about the press smacks of special pleading. It reminds me of the neo-con line about how the press doesn't tell us about all the good things happening in Iraq. You know, all the schools being painted and such. Why doesn't the press report on this stuff? Is the press anti-Muslim? I heard yesterday about NBC sending Muslims to NASCAR races in hopes of getting film of rednecks abusing Muslims. Anti-Muslim? No. Anti-redneck? Maybe. Asinine? Absolutely. I don't actually have a unified field theory of race to peddle. Based on events in the last few years, I suggest that profiling Muslims and restricting immigration from Muslim countries would be a useful (not the only) tool in combatting terrorism. You disagree. It's kind of academic anyway, because profiling is officially taboo. Maybe next time we'll agree about something. Cheers | ||
| ina Citizen Username: Ina Post Number: 336 Registered: 6-2001 |
April 10 National Day of Action for Immigrant Rights http://www.cirnow.org/content/en/april10_2006.htm | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5522 Registered: 8-2003 |
I hope they bring and display more US flags than those of Mexico and other countries. Makes for the impression that they want to be part of this country rather than just work here and not assimilate. Good PR goes a long way. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13515 Registered: 1-2003 |
No, you don't have to be an expert, but when you meet someone who has more experience and knowledge than you, and even when you don't, you might want to acknowledge that your views just might be misguided. My example of blacks and criminals and statistics ought to illustrate the folly of bigotry (which profiling is based on), and I wonder what you think of it. If you had occasion to travel to a place where you were in a distrusted minority, wouldn't you want the benefit of the doubt, too? I assume so. Is it because you're a human, or is it because you feel intrinsically better than others? Fear of terrorism should weigh into immigration policy, but in proportion to its danger. Odd as it may sound, the danger of terrorism is very low, relative to other dangers. I do think the press is anti-Muslim, though it is probably mostly unintended. The proof is not the lack of good news but the preponderance of bad news. I see the press trying to change that, and I'm glad about it. There are many books that explain how the calls to battle in the Qu'ran are intended as metaphors for the battles we must wage against the demons inside ourselves. Karen Armstrong, a writer about the history of religion, tells us that Muhammed's war was one of self-defense. Of course, religion is abused terribly throughout history. Lots of atrocities are committed in the name of God or religion. The nost notable such acts lately are committed by Muslims. That's a political struggle. Those in power manipulate, with the religion as the medium. To me, the thing I see in common in all these atrocities is that humans commit them. So shall we be wary of members of civilization? Or how about just of people who had two parents? | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 158 Registered: 1-2006 |
Tom Reingold, I neglected to say before that I appreciate your making the effort to respond to what I said without just resorting to labels and namecalling even if neither one of us budges. My example of blacks and criminals and statistics ought to illustrate the folly of bigotry (which profiling is based on), and I wonder what you think of it. What you say about incarcerated blacks and rates of criminality is true, but beside the point. This will probably sound like a cop-out, but my response to the random black, or Muslim, or Lithuanian would depend on the circumstances of the meeting, time, place, etc. I still don't see how profiling is a manifestation of bigotry. If that makes me a bigot by your lights, that is unfortunate, but I am not persuaded. Call me pig-headed or stubborn and you may be on to something. Odd as it may sound, the danger of terrorism is very low, relative to other dangers. I agree. I do think the press is anti-Muslim, though it is probably mostly unintended. I disagree. There are many books that explain how the calls to battle in the Qu'ran are intended as metaphors for the battles we must wage against the demons inside ourselves. True, but there are some that take a more negative view. Here is Bernard Lewis on jihad: For most of the fourteen centuries of recorded Muslim history, jihad was most commonly interpreted to mean armed struggle for the defense or advancement of Muslim power. The Crisis of Islam, paperback, p.33. Muhammad's war was in self-defense? I've been meaning to read Karen Armstrong, so maybe I should get started. Lots of atrocities are committed in the name of God or religion. The nost notable such acts lately are committed by Muslims. This is exactly right, and basically the main reason behind what I have been saying. Cheers | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13522 Registered: 1-2003 |
Yes, it's nice when people argue respectfully. I don't think it's hard, and I thank you, too. You say your judgement of someone depends on the situation. That makes sense, and it seems to contradict your call for profiling. In other words, respond to criminals as criminals, whatever their background, and respond to everyone else as law-abiding. I have no doubt that the Bernard Lewis viewpoint is true for many. There's no shortage of atrocities to notice. But again, to claim all Muslims should be categorically distrusted is unfair and illogical. Consider, as an analogy, the freedom to assemble and associate with whomever we choose. | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 159 Registered: 1-2006 |
Tom Reingold, You say your judgement of someone depends on the situation. That makes sense, and it seems to contradict your call for profiling. In other words, respond to criminals as criminals, whatever their background, and respond to everyone else as law-abiding. I don't think it does contradict my support for profiling. I can "profile" people in my own daily life in a very ad hoc manner depending on a number of factors. I think that most people do this as a matter of course, even if they are reluctant to admit it. I think profiling as a matter of public policy is a prudent and measured response to some recent unpleasant events involving Muslims from the Middle East. We can't just respond to criminals as criminals because they are not in the habit of announcing their intentions, plus I don't know what a "criminal" looks like. I have a pretty good idea what a Muslim Arab looks like. If Eskimos had flown airplanes into the WTC, I would not have a problem with scrutinizing Eskimos in airports. The only way profiling Muslims would be irrational would be if there had never been any attacks on Americans by Muslims. You did say earlier that many atrocities have been committed by religious groups, but the most notable ones of late have come from Muslims. If I could implement a policy of profiling Muslims, I would not do it gleefully or with a heavy heart. I would just see it as a matter-of-fact, common sense approach to a serious problem. And here we disagree. I think this gets us to the root of our disagreement. You seem to be a very trusting person with a sunny, optimistic view of human nature. I don't think words like liberal or conservative are very useful any more, so I can't put a tag on you. But I'll go ahead and say that you seem like someone who sees human nature as basically benevolent and good, and who sees society as holding back or impeding all of the goodness that is just waiting to bubble up if we just loosen things up a bit. Understand that I am not trying to "analyze" you. What I am getting at is that different views of human nature lead to different attitudes and approaches to policies, like profiling, for example. I would say that human nature is not really malleable and that society is a fairly fragile cover holding down some bad things. Not that everyone is rotten to the core, but there is a potential for a lot of badness. Obviously, I haven't got this all worked out, but I think we have a half empty/half full glass situation here. That is most likely the cause of our differences. Cheers | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13537 Registered: 1-2003 |
I do have a sunny view of a random person, until he proves himself distrustworthy. Your desire to distrust a huge number of people based on the actions of a few is not only mean-hearted, it's wildly inaccurate. And it's that prejudice that got us into this antagonism between cultures, and it is perpetuating our difficulties. There might be millions of Muslims and Arabs in our country now. To discriminate against them because one ten thousandth of them has criminal tendencies is illogical and even against our own interests, because the distrust is more costly than the crimes they would commit. The percentage of white criminals is higher than that of Arab criminals in the US, so true profiling won't really get you want. This is especially true when you consider white collar crime. | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 162 Registered: 1-2006 |
Tom Reingold, Not enough time to type at work today, but I did get to think about what you said. There might be millions of Muslims and Arabs in our country now. To discriminate against them because one ten thousandth of them has criminal tendencies is illogical and even against our own interests, because the distrust is more costly than the crimes they would commit. I think there are 2-3 million in the US at this time. If we take the lower number and say, for the sake of argument, that 1% might be sympathetic to Osama and willing to do something, that's 20,000. Enough to do quite a bit of mischief, even if they only offered logistical support and cover to sleeper cells or cross-border infiltrators. I still don't think I'm being illogical. Obviously, we don't hang out together, but if I am in a social setting and say something like, we should seal the borders and keep an eye on the Muslims, I'll get some nods of agreement, a couple of raised eyebrows and some noncommittal shrugs. I don't think I'd have to get out the smelling salts for anyone. And I don't think my friends are all knuckle-dragging troglodytes. I do think that there is a large disconnect between our ruling elite in the government, media, academia, big business and the American people. The elite sees a large segment of the populace as hopelessly retrograde, unprogressive dimwits who need to be tutored on the benefits of the globalized economy, mass immigration and multi-culturalism. I'm not accusing you of being an elitist, but it is possible that you have imbibed some of their views. The NY Times Op-Ed page, NPR and the New Yorker can function as an echo chamber that takes certain things for granted, and reinforces and amplifies them until it seems inconceivable that any right thinking person could possibly hold to another view. This is also true of the most dedicated dittohead who hangs on the words of Rush Limbaugh, continues on with Sean Hannity and finishes up with a healthy dollop of Fox Snooze. I think I know both types of people and some of them are my friends and relations. I guess we all have our own pet theories, prejudices and presuppositions and it is good to hold them up for examination from time to time. But most of us will never change. I don't say this with any sense of satisfaction or anticipation, but I believe that if there is another attack by Muslim terrorists on American soil killing thousands, being profiled will be the least worrisome thing for Muslims in America. The percentage of white criminals is higher than that of Arab criminals in the US, so true profiling won't really get you want. This is especially true when you consider white collar crime. Well, you got me fair and square on this one. I have no idea how profiling could be any help in fighting white collar crime. Cheers | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3394 Registered: 3-2004 |
Si, se puede!!! | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3395 Registered: 3-2004 |
 | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5321 Registered: 10-1999  |
Maybe they're being polite, and don't want to get involved in a contentious disagreement with you in a social setting. Just as the people you are having this conversation with, are also trying to be polite. If you wish, we could be more direct in telling you what we think about your proposals, and giving them their true label. But, then Dave would have to suspend us, and then we'd have to live without our MOL jones.  | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3156 Registered: 5-2001  |
I gotta say that this whole "Si, se puede!" thing is a really dumb move, as is the waving of Mexican or other international flags. The focus of the demonstration is to show the desire to become American, right? I hear that now the demonstrators have realized that the better move is to wave American flags, but they haven't realized that chanting in Spanish will only provoke feelings of xenophobia from people who only speak English. Also... just being a devil's advocate here... isn't it terribly ironic that people who have entered the country illegally want to become citizens of a country committed to the rule of law? | ||
| The Notorious S.L.K. Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1193 Registered: 10-2005 |
Wow, notey and I agree on something, there must be a god!  I mean this [somewhat] jokingly, but I find it absurd that you have thousands and thousands of illegals protesting right out in the open and in huddled masses. They are right there coppers, arrest them! How much easier can it get? -SLK | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 163 Registered: 1-2006 |
Nohero, You don't have to sugarcoat anything you say to me, but sticking a label on something, "true" or otherwise doesn't really settle anything, except in your own mind. I can live with honest disagreement, can't you? Cheers | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13567 Registered: 1-2003 |
3ringale, then do you reject the notion that one is innocent until proven guilty? Do you reject the right of freedom of assembly? And don't you see that freedom to be who you are is an even more deeply right held right than assembly, since we cannot choose our ethnic backgrounds? If we had internment camps for all white people, it would reduce white collar crime. (off topic: My friends and I liked Ballantine XXX Ale in college because it was about as cheap as other beer and it had flavor. Do they still make it?) | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3397 Registered: 3-2004  |
so Notey: You want to call them all felons and send them all back? And how in the world does chanting in Spanish evoke xenophobia, unless it's there already. What language did your ancestors speak? Oh, sorry, they were legal immigrants. They waited their turn and said "yes sir" and "no sir." They had no jobs to go to. They were noble, and all these people are just the dregs of humanity. It was NAFTA that offered them low-wage jobs, if any, in their home countries. Now they are literally at our doorstep, inside our house. Let's see what happens when they go on a massive strike on May 12, if they follow through. Just you watch. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3157 Registered: 5-2001 |
No, I don't consider them all felons. I think we have to make reasonable efforts to accommodate those that are already here, and additional efforts to facilitate bringing more people here legally. Also, we should try to do something about the conditions that are driving people to emigrate from their native countries in the first place. And yes, the xenophobia would be there already, if chanting in Spanish brings it out. The point is that the demonstrators should be trying to change the minds of those who resent their presence. Chanting in Spanish won't accomplish that. A massive strike by illegal residents might be just what is needed to put this issue into proper perspective. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3398 Registered: 3-2004 |
I think the strike, if it happens, will be effective in changing a few minds. The immigrant experience in America shows that it's almost impossible to "beg" your way, or "charm" your way or "earn" your way into someone's good graces if they don't like you, or they resent you, to begin with. Just an observation... You have heard of "no Irish need apply" and other rather anti-immigrant, xenophobic national moods. In any case, the reaction of the Republicans as characterized by the unbelievable, smooth racism and xenophobia of the "send-em back" Lou Dobbs, such as "Who knows what diseases they have!!" is absolutely disgusting. Incidentally, it's the Europeans who are the relative newcomers to the Americas. The people called "illegal aliens" by Dobbs and other latent racists are descendants of Native Americans of Central and South America. Technically, we are the immigrants, not they. | ||
| The Notorious S.L.K. Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1195 Registered: 10-2005 |
Spare me tulip... | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3399 Registered: 3-2004 |
Never, slik | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 165 Registered: 1-2006 |
Tom Reingold, I have always thought that "innocent until proven guilty" applied only to formal charges in a court of law. I have not thought of it as relevant in a situation where profiling might be used, such as in an airport, etc. Someone who fit the profile of a potential bad guy could be given a little extra scrutiny and if everything checked out, they would be on their way again in no time at all. I'm not a lawyer (thank goodness!), but I would think that "probable cause" would be more to the point in a situation where profiling was in order. Israel profiles all the time and no one seems to get in an uproar about it. I'm also not a world traveler, but I went to England a couple of years ago during the summer, so I had worked on my tan a bit. I also have a narrow face and a beard , so I might have looked vaguely Middle Eastern. I was the only person on that flight pulled out of the line. I was wanded, not once, but twice. I was asked to remove my shoes, which were carefully examined and run through some sort of scanning device. Was I being profiled? I'm not sure, maybe I was. Was I deeply offended and scarred for life? Not really, I just retied my shoelaces and soldiered on. Israel profiles all the time and no one seems to get all bent out of shape about it. I don't think internment camps for white people would necessarily reduce white collar crime because I don't think that all white collar criminals are white. But I suppose that most of them are. Cheers PS Ballantine was a good beer back in the day. The label was sold to Falstaff, and then to Pabst. I think it is being made in Texas now, but you can get it around here. If you liked it in college, don't spoil your memories and drink it now. It ain't what it used to be. I enjoy arguing and discussing politics. I also enjoy arguing and discussing beer, so don't get me started. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5325 Registered: 10-1999 |
Yes, that was the point. You were indicating that you did not experience disagreement, when you set forth these views. I was only suggesting alternative interpretations, which took account of the fact that there may be honest disagreement among your listeners. Or, to put it another way, their silence did not signify consent. In short, you seemed to assume that you were not in the midst of an honest disagreement. Your assumption may have been incorrect. Those people you were referring to, probably did disagree with you. They didn't want to spoil a perfectly good evening by pointing out what they really thought of your ideas. As for my post, I thought of it as a time saver. From now on, if nobody responds to you, assume that they do not agree with you. Ciao. | ||
| MichaelaM Citizen Username: Mayquene Post Number: 149 Registered: 1-2004  |
Regarding the display of flags other than the U.S. flag at immigration rallies in this country, I'd like to point out that here in DC I saw a lot of U.S. flags. I have to say my heart warmed to see a man with an American flag towel draped over his shoulders, to see people walking through the streets seeking to be recognized. That's what this country is about -- free expression and dialogue. It's a shame that other groups can't seem to mobilize so well. Perhaps most of us lead too comfortable lives to be part of a movement, nevermind to vote. Also, in 2006 when Irish Americans wave Irish flags on St. Patricks Day, it doesn't draw other Americans xenophobia. Fifty, 100 years ago it probably did. Perhaps it takes a while for a culture or cultures to become "white" (unthreating?) within this society, for lack of a better term. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13587 Registered: 1-2003 |
3ringale wrote: I don't think internment camps for white people would necessarily reduce white collar crime because I don't think that all white collar criminals are white. But I suppose that most of them are. Whether the white collar criminals are all white or not, interning some of the criminals will surely reduce the crime level. And to be safe, it would be best if we interned all whites. This would be the most effective way to reduce white collar crime. | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 166 Registered: 1-2006 |
Nohero, I plead guilty to having a contrarian disposition and holding to some politically incorrect points of view. I also admit to being a person of no great significance expressing views on a somewhat obscure, suburban computer bulletin board, that has little impact on shaping policy on the issues that I have raised. It is not a Soviet Party Congress, so I would not have thought that dissent and honest disagreement from the party line should be treated as thought crimes. I was under the impression that guidelines for posting on MOL were mainly limited to being civil and avoiding bad language, which I have tried to do. I was not aware that there were limits on what would constitute acceptable thought. Whatever happened to diversity? Cheers | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 167 Registered: 1-2006 |
Tom Reingold, Whether the white collar criminals are all white or not, interning some of the criminals will surely reduce the crime level. And to be safe, it would be best if we interned all whites. This would be the most effective way to reduce white collar crime. I think I see what you are trying to get at here, but it seems like there is a reductio in there somewhere that I can't quite put my finger on. I would definitely want to intern criminals, because they are, well, criminals. I don't know what the most effective way to reduce white collar crime would be. Increasing the penalties? More independent auditing? That would be a problem. Who would do it? And who would audit the auditors? I guess interning whites is one option and so would repealing all the laws on white collar crime. No broken law, no criminals. This approach would also work for immigration, but I don't want to give anyone ideas. For years, the Wall Street Journal editorial page advocated a 5 word amendment to the Constitution: There shall be open borders. A bad idea in my view, although it would solve the problem of illegal immigration in one fell swoop. Cheers | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13594 Registered: 1-2003 |
"Open borders" could mean "no borders" so forget that. If it isn't obvious, we can't put whites in internment camps because it would be wrong. Incidentally, we wouldn't get away with it, and it would be impracticable. It is practicable to discriminate against other groups, and we would sometimes get away with it, but that doesn't make it right. How would you feel about jailing all blacks, even if we could show that it would reduce street crime? | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5330 Registered: 10-1999 |
I'm a little confused. I thought you wanted honest disagreement, but when you get it, you claim that people are trying to limit your ability to state your views. I haven't seen anyone tell you that you could not post your thoughts here. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 899 Registered: 2-2004 |
3ring, You have to get some thicker skin if you are going to take part on this board. Please continue to post your opinion in any form you deem appropriate. Don't let any anonymous posters change you. I have to agree with Nohero on this one. It took me about 200 posts to realize this. Enjoy this board for what it is worth to you, but don't take it personal or even consider it relevant. In the end if you are happy with your posts that is all that matters. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3401 Registered: 3-2004 |
MichaelaM: Good examples. Thanks. |
