Is the Pope a racist?

1. I in no way favor the mullahs or radical leaders who advocate violence, even if they don't physically commit the acts.

2. The violent ones are criminals, murderers, and should be punished.

3. The third group are racists, and but that isn't a crime, and they aren't necessarily connected to the criminals.

However you added something in about the Muslim protestors. There march didn't threaten others. Maybe people who get scared by angry protesters waving fists feel threatened, but that is a result of their own paranoia, and not an actual threat.

I have been to and seen enough protests to know that angry fist waving at a protest is rarely a real threat.

Use your analogy or mine. It doesn't matter. The connection is tenuous at best.

 

Waving fists based on something harmless that was said, and burning effigies is an expression of intolerance, and an expression of a threat as well.

If these people are not meaning to threaten, intimidate, and express hate, then what?



And you say "we need more of that". That is just stupid.

 

seriously.. you act like you haven't seen protesters wave their fists, burn effigies, and express intolerance to the issue they are protesting against..



and where's the expression of threat?
be honest, whats bothering you so much with these protesters? their religion or race?

here's some pictures of protesters around the world of different races and religion waving their fists and burning effigies..

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=protesters&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-500&x=wrt&fr2=tab-web

 

We do need more of that. We just need it about sensible issues, not something misunderstood.

There is nothing threatening in what they are doing.

 

That is stupid.

So if Neonazis were to burn a doll of a black person at a Nazi rallye, you would say "we need more of that" (just about something else). "There is nothing threatening in what they are doing".

Dumb.

 

deleted

 

It's the only thing he has. It's either that or he would have to answer to his blatant display of bigotry and/or ignorance in almost every single thread. It's merely a distraction technique. Plus, he probably gets off on it, so you feed the troll when you take him seriously, which is what FB and others are yet to realize.

 

Ah right, so this (calling someone an ignorant bigot and a troll) is better than calling someone else stupid.

Troll.

 

I guess you read my rant before I had a chance to delete it The consistent belittling of people is counterproductive and it adds no value to any discussion. I don't know what calling people stupid and dumb in every other post really accomplishes, except for showing one's true colors.

 

Right, but calling someone an ignorant bigot is fine in your book?

The truth is that FranchiseBlade's posts revealed an obvious lack of intellectual ability to understand the issue at hand. I was just calling a spade a spade.

 

It's the difference between a substantiated vs. an unsubstantiated claim...

 

Exactly. And you are on the unsubstantiated side of things.

Don't try to make yourself look better than you are.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

 

part of me thinks that the world is in chaos til the NBA season starts again.

 

The thing you guys fail to realize is that SJC has been in a culture where a lot of things that can look innocent turn into a massive tragedy...ala the rise of the Nazi party......

He sees so many similarities between that and what is going on in the Middle East today with the Mullah's and intolerance, and he also sees that lack of someone standing up to them saying.... "Come on, this is adhorent, and not representative of us as a people" which led to a small minority taking power and leading the country to do unspeakable things.

And other peoples perspective is based upon the US demonstrations where rarely do they escalate beyond simple protests - that is because in the USA, everyone may disagree but we all value our way of life, and as such the protests are part of the political process.

Whereas a lot of the protest in the middle east and in particular the intolerant Muslim countries are led by a vocal minority that is incredibly intolerant just like the Nazis where in the 20s and 30s......and SJC is incredulous that people can not see the parallels.

We see em SJC, we see em....it is just going to take some time for some of us to figure out what to do about it.......

DD

 

Of course, it is stupid. Like you have already said, I am so idiotic, that I can't help it. But in your intellectual world you may have failed to observe that I wasn't talking about The SUBJECT OF THE PROTEST. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE PASSION TO PROTEST AND GET ACTIVE]

So yes if Neo Nazis were burning minority dolls over some issue that recently sparked their interest in politics I would say we need more of that.

The difference is that most people would know that the word 'that' was referring to protests in general and not the subject of the protest that I already stated half a dozen times that I thought was silly.

But I guess when you are as smart as you are, you just overlook simple things like that the first 10 times they are written in a thread.

Keep spreading your vast knowledge and understanding, SJC. You are doing a great job.

 

Yes, my posts are all about revealing a lack of intellectual ability. When you are as dumb as I am, what more can you do?

Where as your stereotypes, admission to possible prejudice, inability to see a difference between criminals and non-criminals, degrading of another's culture based on your own stereotyping, lack of understanding when your flawed logic is pointed out, and complete lack of understanding of what protests are like all over the world despite seeing pages of images provided for you, shows you to be a mental giant.

Man you are amazing. I could only hope to have the same intellectual ability as you one day. I know what I want to be when I grow up.

 

SJC is raising the alarm bells, his country has gone through this before, he sees parallels.......

I think he is right, but I am not sure that the conclusion of those parallels is the same.

DD

 

The thing is that none of us are supporting the Mullahs and are against them as we can be.

Nobody is denying that the Mullahs are intolerant. I argued with Creepy Floyd about that plenty. So SJC doesn't have anything to feel incredulous about.

But if you want to talk about Parallels let's talk about the widespread use of cultural stereotypes and broad generalizations which enabled the NAzis to do everything they did.

I've mentioned before about the time I was fortunate enough to speak at length with a holocaust survivor. And he said that Hitler and the Nazis weren't responsible alone, that all of Europe and the U.S. for that matter was too. It was because people started stereotyping the Jews, and that nobody stood up and said it was wrong. That started prior to the Nazis rise to power.

In the U.S. Henry Ford was giving out his book of Anti-Semitism with every car Americans bought.

The use of stereotypes was widespread. Anyone who complained was told that it was harmless and wasn't serious. Then slowly the stereotypes turned to more negative things, and warnings against the jews, but people had been predispositioned to believing the stereotypes and accepted the propoganda as fact. They allowed the Nazis to do what they did, and even joined in.

So I see parallels too. It is ashamed that the mental wizard that is SJC doesn't see it.

 

I think he is right regarding the Mullahs. He is wrong about stereotyping, and his own ignorance.

 

No comment required.

You cannot completely separate the motivation behind the protest from the act of protesting. You say that we need more protests "per se", but that logic is flawed. Protesting is not a value in itself. The freedom to protest is. I have been seeing where you are coming from (and DaDakota rightly pointed it out, I just chose to ignore it), but I think you are making a mistake by treating protest as something valuable, instead of the freedom to protest and voice one's opinion.

You cannot separate protest and its cause.

And furthermore, just as people should have the freedom to protest, I and everyone else should have the freedom to criticize the agenda of the protest.

And that is, in fact, exactly one of the things that worries me about these people:

There is, overall, freedom of speech and the freedom to protest in the Western world. Sure, mistakes might have been made in restricting said freedom in individual cases, and I recognize that you, Franchise Blade, as well as geeiamsobored are out there to protect that freedom. But overall, it is there. In contrast to this, in most Islamic, non-secular countries, this freedom is much more restricted. In the Western world, nothing will happen if you say "Jesus was an *******" or "The pope looks gay and is a senile moron", however tasteless and wrong one might consider these statement. Now, imagine someone saying in Saudi-Arabia or in Iran or under the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan, "Mohammad was an *******" or "[insert religious Muslim leader] looks gay and has a small penis". I bet the punishments would be severe. In these countries, there is no freedom of speech. Tolerance levels are low. The very civil rights you are arguing for here are kicked with feet in these countries.

So I think you are making a big mistake by being tolerant toward those who want to spread intolerance. One will have to stand up to these people.

I have to thank DaDakota for pointing out where I might be coming from. It is true, I believe that the danger is there that history will repeat itself. Appeasement politics and giving in to those who are intolerant has not worked historically - they will see it as weakness and will expand their power, until it will no longer be your choice to be tolerant or not - they will force their beliefs down your throat. Sure, there is no need to purposely provoke people, but I also think there is no need to let them intimidate those who they view as "infidels" in their twisted view of the world.

Franchise Blade, if you want civil rights and liberties, you are making a mistake by defending these people. They are not marching to defend civil rights. They are marching to force their beliefs upon others and to silence everyone who disagrees with them, and yes, when you look at these pictures, there is an implicit threat of violence, which is then carried out by those who share the same agenda (which is also why it should be clear that there is a connection between those who march to spread intolerance and those who use violence to spread intolerance, even though there is, of course, the important gradual difference that some have immediate criminal liability while the others do not.

All that being said, I want to apologize for the personal insults to Franchise Blade and geeiamsobored. They were, of course, idiotic exaggerations and wrong. I was grumpy and it makes me angry when I get the feeling that people do not see the danger entailed by - and be it out of the best motives such as wanting to defend civil liberties - being too tolerant toward intolerance, and even defending those who want to spread intolerance.