Standing up against bigotry.

Quote :

It was a brutal and backwards feudal society that was going nowhere in a big hurry.

Congratulations, you've just described Medevil Europe!

That was, until trade with the Middle and Far East helped educate those dirty barbarians.

Not to mention rediscovering the legacy of ancient Rome and Greece in the Renaissance

EricD wrote:

Not to mention rediscovering the legacy of ancient Rome and Greece in the Renaissance

The Greeks were sexist pedophiles and the Romans had an empire built on slavery.

WHERE IS YOUR GOD PANTHEON NOW?

And between the two of them (though more the Romans than the argumentative and bickering Greeks), they gave Europe a golden era. Before our own modern age, Pax Romana was the most prosperous and peaceful time for humans in all of European history. We couldn't match Roman engineering until the 19th century. We couldn't match Roman medicine until the early 20th century. The two centuries of Pax Romana was a golden era which was not matched again until La Belle Epoque between the fall of Napoleon and the start of the First World War.

The Romans and Greeks would be, by modern standards, brutal and violent people. However, given the fact that they lived thousands of years before our modern understanding of morality came about, I think it is an exercise in futility to attempt to judge them by modern moral standards.

EricD wrote:

Lexin, if you were to move to another country, would you not have to adapt to their ways? The language, the culture, the society. Is it not fair, then, that someone moving to your country should adapt to your ways?

Only up to a point. If I moved to Germany, or Canada, I'd still be English - with an English outlook on life. And I'd expect to be allowed to carry on being English in my home. Equally, someone who moves to England isn't expected to take up yobbery and binge drinking if that's not part of their culture.

EricD wrote:

And between the two of them (though more the Romans than the argumentative and bickering Greeks), they gave Europe a golden era. Before our own modern age, Pax Romana was the most prosperous and peaceful time for humans in all of European history. We couldn't match Roman engineering until the 19th century. We couldn't match Roman medicine until the early 20th century. The two centuries of Pax Romana was a golden era which was not matched again until La Belle Epoque between the fall of Napoleon and the start of the First World War.

The Romans and Greeks would be, by modern standards, brutal and violent people. However, given the fact that they lived thousands of years before our modern understanding of morality came about, I think it is an exercise in futility to attempt to judge them by modern moral standards.

Maybe the white European world couldn't, but other peoples all over the globe were able to match the Romans. The cities of the Mayans and the Aztecs were engineering marvels matching that of Rome. The Egyptians also were a pretty good match for the Romans, as far as Engineering went. China! Japan! The Middle East!

These are all places that matched Rome's engineering capabilities, as well as their medicinal capabilities, artistic abilities, etc. Hell, you want a place that had Rome level quality of medical care while the rest of Europe was still crawling through the Dark Ages? Look at the Middle East.

I'm sort of amused that "standing up against bigotry" turned into "standing up against EricD" and it's still the same fucking thing.

Snake Bandage wrote:

I'm sort of amused that "standing up against bigotry" turned into "standing up against EricD" and it's still the same fucking thing.

This. So much.

I still can't tell if he's a troll doing a good impression of one of those bigots who thinks their bigotry is perfectly reasonable, or just one of those bigots who thinks their bigotry is perfectly reasonable.

There is no bigotry in acknowledging that our civilization is the greatest when the alternatives are civilizations that still routinely sentence people to beheading for witchcraft.

There is nothing racial or religious in my belief in Western civilization. The West is great because of people of many religions and many races, and yes, many cultures as well.

And yes, Mr. Doobie, those are all great civilizations. I was just pointing out that Greece and Rome, which form the basis of our civilization, gave our little part of the planet its first golden age, even though by our modern moral standards they were very, very wicked people.

Of course, all civilizations are dickish in their own ways (Aztec human sacrifice, the casual violence of the feudal Japanese, the slavery of Egypt, Greece and Rome, et cetera ad infinitum), and every great empire is won by fire and sword. Those people in the dark places of the world, like the Middle East and Africa, they're screwed because we screwed them over. It would behoove us to fix what we broke, however how to fix it? I can't say. However, I am certain of the fact that the people of the Middle East and other places would prefer societies as free and equal as ours. Why else would they migrate to our countries in such vast numbers?

However, that does not invalidate Western civilization. The values born in ancient Athens, elaborated upon by mighty Rome, and built upon by our modern countries are still just and moral values to found a country upon: Freedom of speech and religion, democracy, equal rights regardless of race, sex, class or creed, the rule of law rather than of men. These are all good things, regardless of our dickishness.

Rape, robbery and other acts of savagery are not the fault of the Romans, but part of the human condition in general. They go on today, as they went on thousands of years ago, all the way back to the dawn of recorded history and before. I fail to see how one can criticize the Romans for things that we still do.

If you want to judge the Romans on modern morality, which I think is a bit of an exercise in futility given how ancient the Romans are, then at least judge them for things where we modern people hold a definite moral highground. The treatment of the Christians, the slavery, the violence and brutality to conquered peoples, the utter destruction of Carthage, the genocide of the Gauls, et cetera.

WD40 wrote:

The article gets a little bogged down in the middle, so to spice it up, it throws in a little fear that they’re taking over:

Quote :

There are around 2.9million Muslims in Britain today, up from 1.6million in 2001.

The country has seen ten years of rapid growth in its Muslim population.

This took a little going into. The 1.6 Million figure does represent the number of Muslims living in Britain as per the 2001 Census. The 2.9 Million Figure is an estimate of the number of Muslims living in the United Kingdom. Done by these guys as far as I can tell.


On their own, those figures are scary, not so much when listed alongside the actual population of the UK, which is 58.8 million, as of 2001. This is why this figure is never mentioned.

Those figures are scary on their own? To whom? To you personally? I hope you meant "scary to racists" rather than in general.

Because if they are scary on their own, before it's revealed that it's still just a small percentage of the whole, then that's a racist viewpoint.

Having a group of people approximately double in ten years through a combination of immigration, reproduction and conversion is a very common thing, and if it was scary when applied to any group, apart from race or religion, then we'd have to get plenty alarmed about the rapid growth of Naruto fans.

WD40 wrote:

I know a guy who wears those orange Buddhist robes... It’s odd to me, but it signifies that he’s a Buddhist. Why, then is the burka such a problem...

Hell, I went to a speech by the Archbishop of Canterbury once, and you should have seen some of the daft things folks there were wearing...

Quote :

Is ultra-religious the same as fundamentalist? Does the woman want to be covering her face? What is her husband like? Does it make us racists that we don't know the answers to these questions?

No. Presumably. Ask her. No, it just makes you ignorant. You can fix this yourself.

Are you really advocating this approach? Asking Muslim women you see in public with their faces covered whether they were forced to cover their faces or not, and to quiz them about what their husbands are like?

Really?

*sacrasm mode*

Oh yeah, I'm sure these women will love being asked these questions by strangers all the time when they're just trying to go about their own activities.

WD40 wrote:

Does this woman really get paid for being this daft? Is being stupid a skill?

Quote :

The main threat to Western, democratic society at the moment is from fundamentalist Muslims.

Citation needed.

*sarcasm mode still on*

Well, since the threat of global nuclear war between the Soviets and America has abated, it's obvious that Western civilization needs an enemy. If people who occasionally blow things up are the worst threat that the media can come up with, they'll have to do.

As long as they aren't Christian. That would be daft, to focus on Christians blowing up abortion clinics.

And as long as they aren't rich. Focusing on corporate greed would be politically inconvenient just plain wrong, since they are too powerful create jobs.

You know what would make Western civilization really great? Equality for women. Also power for the citizens instead of the fucking corporations.

My writing style can be difficult to interpret sometimes. I'll admit that... I tent to write in the same way I talk, hence the rather unnecessary commas and ellipses you'll see in my posts. Not a good habit for a writer, I'll admit.

Some of your points fall into the "Not quite getting what WD40 is gibbering on about" category. This is mostly my fault, so allow me to clarify a few points.

Notanoni wrote:

WD40 wrote:

The article gets a little bogged down in the middle, so to spice it up, it throws in a little fear that they’re taking over:

Quote :

There are around 2.9million Muslims in Britain today, up from 1.6million in 2001.

The country has seen ten years of rapid growth in its Muslim population.

This took a little going into. The 1.6 Million figure does represent the number of Muslims living in Britain as per the 2001 Census. The 2.9 Million Figure is an estimate of the number of Muslims living in the United Kingdom. Done by these guys as far as I can tell.


On their own, those figures are scary, not so much when listed alongside the actual population of the UK, which is 58.8 million, as of 2001. This is why this figure is never mentioned.

Those figures are scary on their own? To whom? To you personally? I hope you meant "scary to racists" rather than in general.

Because if they are scary on their own, before it's revealed that it's still just a small percentage of the whole, then that's a racist viewpoint.

What I was pointing out is that big numbers in general are scary. Simple as that.

This is why a lot of newspapers when talking about immigration figures and whatnot use big numbers, but fail to contextualise them. 1.6 million is a big scary number. 1.6 million out of 58.8 million is less scary, because it has context. You will never find context in a Daily Mail article.

Quote :

Having a group of people approximately double in ten years through a combination of immigration, reproduction and conversion is a very common thing, and if it was scary when applied to any group, apart from race or religion, then we'd have to get plenty alarmed about the rapid growth of Naruto fans.

I'd advise you to read my post again. I doubt, very much, if the number has done anything over the last 10 years other than increase in proportion to the rest of the population. The Mail pulls this 'doubled' figure by comparing results from two different organisations: One being the UK government, who conducted a massive, compulsory census, therefore dealing with primary sources. The other: an American-based side project 'fact tank', utilising figures from all over to form an estimate of population growth. So an estimate, based upon secondary sources.

So in addition to that: The original 1.6 million came from the 2001 British census. The other figure came from a survey of the United Kingdom. Quite simply, you cannot draw any conclusion on anything by comparing these two sets of information, nor would either organisation advise you to.

Quote :

WD40 wrote:

I know a guy who wears those orange Buddhist robes... It’s odd to me, but it signifies that he’s a Buddhist. Why, then is the burka such a problem...

Hell, I went to a speech by the Archbishop of Canterbury once, and you should have seen some of the daft things folks there were wearing...

Quote :

Is ultra-religious the same as fundamentalist? Does the woman want to be covering her face? What is her husband like? Does it make us racists that we don't know the answers to these questions?

No. Presumably. Ask her. No, it just makes you ignorant. You can fix this yourself.

Are you really advocating this approach? Asking Muslim women you see in public with their faces covered whether they were forced to cover their faces or not, and to quiz them about what their husbands are like?

Really?

I mentioned my Buddhist friend, and our conversation literally started off like that. In fact, I asked him if he was going to a fancy-dress do.

Quote :

*sacrasm mode*

Oh yeah, I'm sure these women will love being asked these questions by strangers all the time when they're just trying to go about their own activities.

I know you are making a joke, but to clarify my point, I'm going to take your jocular wilful ignorance seriously, if I may, to present what I failed to do in my original post.

No, I do not think that walking up to some woman in the street and askign her what her husband is like or why she wearing a hijab. What I was insinuating was that you attempt to talk to Muslims, period. To educate yourself, rather than make half-informed assumptions, which is what the writer in the article is a/ making and b/ is content to make.

What I was advising was to take action against your own ignorance yourself, attend a Muslim outreach event, visit a mosque and chat to an imam, or someone else there. Again, this was something I did as a schoolchild. In a Religious Education program no doubt reported in the Mail under one of their "NOW SCHOOLCHILDREN FORCED TO ATTEND MOSQUES FOR PRAYER" stories.

EricD wrote:

The values born in ancient Athens, elaborated upon by mighty Rome, and built upon by our modern countries are still just and moral values to found a country upon: Freedom of speech and religion, democracy, equal rights regardless of race, sex

Quite apart from anything else, you do realise that the Virgin/Whore dichotomy which is still used to bludgeon women when their behaviour deviates from what a patriarchal society deems "acceptable" owes as much to Ancient Greece as to the early Christian Church, right?

You missed the "built upon" part. In ancient Athens, it was "equal rights, so long as you are male, Greek and not a slave". Rome elaborated upon this under the Republic and later the Empire, making it into "equal rights, so long as you are a Roman citizen and not a slave" (though obviously patricians had more privileges due to their wealth and influence, but that's any society really). The egalitarianism that we know and enjoy was created by modern countries in the mid and late 20th century, after centuries of development through the Renaissance and Age of Enlightenment (with milestones such as the outlawing of slavery in the British Empire, and women's suffrage).

I hope that explains my statement a bit more fully.