In the UK, we already had this tit-for-tat exchange last year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4141765/Atheist-buses-denying-Gods-existence-take-to-streets.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xazsadB_TN8

Some comments:

1) "Idolators" really doesn't refer to followers of Judaism or Christians. Idolatry was outlawed in the Ten Commandments. That being said, there's a whole lotta bowin' and genuflectin' in the Roman Catholic Church. Still, that's NOT what was meant by 'idolators'. It referred to the pagan/animistic precursors of Islam, and it called for a zero tolerance policy toward those who were not 'people of the book'. So effective was this that there really are none around today.

2) If I read him right, he's calling for Crusade. I mean, all those guys were fighting defensive wars, and they managed to drive the Muslim invasion away from their doorsteps. However, the reason WHY they were fighting in Vienna and Constantinople and Lepanto was that Charles Martel stopped them at Tours, then let them walk away--keep all of Spain, in fact. Now all this seems to ignore that there was a whole lot of tit-for-tat fighting going on. They'd attack Christian Europe, and Christian Europe would attack them right back. In almost all cases, the conflict was couched in a religious context, but was really more of a geopolitical struggle. The only thing that could stop this struggle is the aforementioned Crusade, except this one would end with two significant cities in the Arabian Peninsula wiped off the map. The thing is--he tells us what might help, but he doesn't for a moment suggest what we could do in the modern context. This is the worst kind of 'expert'--someone who will freely share all the problems, and say that the solutions are quite apparent, and then fail to share what those solutions might be.

3) I've had several students over the years (I taught high school) actively try to convert me to Islam. I'd listen to them, because it was something about which they were passionate, and you never want to dampen their spirits. I would then pull out a map, and show them the growth of Islam. I'd ask them how it got from Mecca to Tours in 100 years. Inevitably they'd come up with some wonderful fairy tale about how people would hear the words of the Prophet, and convert on the spot. I then pointed out that they pretty much cut their way across North Africa, and swept into Spain, and if not for Charles Martel, Christianity might have been wiped off the earth. Did they think that Martel was the first person to say, "No, thanks?" This usually made them quite uncomfortable, because what followed that period was a time of (relative) peace in an area not known for its stability. "How many people honestly and openly chose Islam, do you think?" Again, they'd get uncomfortable. Is Islam all about peace? Sure it is--as long as Islam is on top. But that's pretty much the story with Christianity, right? That's the source of all this talk about America being a "Christian" nation. It seems to have little to do with actual tenets of faith, and everything to do with BRAND IDENTITY.

The real question, then, is this: How many modern Muslims are willing to go back to the old way of doing things? Damn few, it turns out. That's what this whole "perversion" thing is about. Those who would ignore EVERYTHING the modern world offers and KILL PEOPLE to get it are, in fact, very few in numbers, but the fruits of this modern world allow small groups of determined people to unleash mayhem. People like that can be found in every faith, political party, and ideology. The idea that their way might not be the right way scares the hell out of them, and they'd do anything to feel absolutely sure. How do we fight this? How have we ever fought ignorance? Knowledge and time. Crusade never works.

Ah, I see your argument, but I don't say that libertarians never do anything wrong. (There are different people in all camps) My point is that the idea of libertarianism is the focus of individual liberty, this curbstomper obviously does not agree with that philosophy, which is at the very core of libertarianism, which lead me to say that libertarians don't do that. They don't do that, because that goes against what libertarianism is.

It boils down to this, libertarians don't like curb stomping.. but love fluffy kittens... why, here's one now!



>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^gwiz665:
Libertarians don't curb stomp, that's infringing on the victims right to not have their face stomped on.
I admit, my description is just a tit-for-tat unfair generalization I'm trading with blankfist, but your comment is basically a textbook case of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
No true libertarian ever does anything wrong, because by definition libertarians don't do anything wrong.

>> ^gwiz665:

Libertarians don't curb stomp, that's infringing on the victims right to not have their face stomped on.

I admit, my description is just a tit-for-tat unfair generalization I'm trading with blankfist, but your comment is basically a textbook case of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

No true libertarian ever does anything wrong, because by definition libertarians don't do anything wrong.

Excellent. I am glad you are able to comprehend such scenario.

I find it intriguing how when someone on this site gets mad/pissy with another, they go and down vote their stuff, despite its content, as was shown by, myself, you, geo321, and a couple others. Down votes are supposed to be about the content, but all to many times people go click the down as if it hurts the other.

I don't take it seriously, I was playing with you, quiet right in fact, to blow your brain I was going to promote it as well later on today if it was not.

It would be petty of me to continue what you started.. well even more petty. But what fun that "experiment" was, within ten minutes a reaction. You may as well be talking into a mirror saying I take this seriously. you took the bait... dont seem so distant from it.

Hope your weather is nice. If you have an hour to kill I would suggest this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVGryuO7zC4

-end communication


In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
Yeah, I wasn't gonna bother playin' your games but..

one. you keep egging me on
two. you downvoted my neat video about graphene outta petty spite.

Yes, I know. Betwixt your hourly furry fap sessions, it gives your life meaning to pester me via passive aggressive mind games.

Tho please.. do attempt to grow up and mature.

I mean, we could downvote every one of each other's videos in some pointless endless spiral of stupid.

Ooor.. you could act like any normal, well adjusted member/human who disagrees with another ..and move the fuck on.

Otherwise, I'll just ask Dag to step in and settle this quickly.


p.s. - I've upvoted your videos before and even did so last week.
Some are good. Most are crap. So is life.

Despite what you may have heard, Brent. The interwebs ain't that serious. =/

Cheers

In reply to this comment by BoneRemake:
funny thing is, you did exactly as I thought you would, well, knew you would.. you are somewhat predicable after the last time you where annoyed, you are a tit for tat sort of person, who seems fairly low on the scale of live and let live.

merely because I know you wanted to upvote this

http://videosift.com/video/Hammerlock-MMA-Demo-by-Sexy-MMA-females

its crying and calling in your marrow for that aspirated upvote.


ahhh im bored tonight.
im goin to sleep.

funny thing is, you did exactly as I thought you would, well, knew you would.. you are somewhat predicable after the last time you where annoyed, you are a tit for tat sort of person, who seems fairly low on the scale of live and let live.

merely because I know you wanted to upvote this

http://videosift.com/video/Hammerlock-MMA-Demo-by-Sexy-MMA-females

its crying and calling in your marrow for that aspirated upvote.


ahhh im bored tonight.
im goin to sleep.

The NAACP did not call the entire tea party racist.

This is the same kind of thing where Obama says his health care plan will not have "death panels" and yet at then in a few weeks he recess appoints a guy to be in charge of rationing health care. I will dissassemble the weasel-speak of the NAACP, if I may...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/07/16/tea.party.resolution/

Instead of joining us to repudiate racism, Tea Party leaders have attempted a tit for tat and demanded that we condemn the New Black Panther Party for reported hate speech.

This statement implies that the Tea Party has not repudiated racism. This is a blatant falsehood. When racism shows up, the national movement has condemned it. They do so repeatedly.

http://thenationalteapartyfederation.com/press_room.html

"The Federation does not and will not tolerate any form of racism, violence or hate speech... We believe to our core that racism and hate speech have no place in civil political discourse and debate..."

So Jealous & the NAACP are full of crap. The Tea Party does condemn racism. That doesn't stop left wing astroturf from showing up to promulgate it, nor does it stop racist hanger-ons who just show up. But the accusation that the Tea Party does not reject racism is patently false.

"And the New Black Panther Party is not a member of the NAACP. What we are asking the Tea Party to eschew is not the racism of some outside organization, but the bigotry within."

So - because the NBP aren't members of the NAACP means that their racism is OK and not worth condeming? A lot of the people who are accused of being racists aren't members of the Tea party officially (show me the proof) - so by his logic that makes them OK, right? This is a hypocritical double-standard of the worst kind and for the NAACP to make this argument makes them the lowest form of race hucksters.

With increased influence comes increased responsibility

Physician - heal thyself.

In fact her response has been to claim there are no racist elements in the tea party.

in the first place, Palin isn't a representative of the Tea Party as far as I am aware. She agrees with their positions, but is not a spokesperson. Second, she's right. The OFFICIAL position of the Tea Party - their mission statements and their objectives - have absolutely no racist element to them whatsoever. Period. End of story. As shown above - their official position is to condemn racism and racists.

What is happening here is the NAACP & left wing kooks are using the actions of a small fraction of extremist hanger-ons to try and condemn a larger movement. It is disingenous, false, and slimy. To use such tactics makes THEM the racists - not the tea party - because they are deliberately (and falsely) using race to advance their cause. The tea party does not do this, which is why they make the charges of reverse racism at the NAACP. And the charge has merit because the NAACP is the one running around looking at the world through race colored lenses.

You show me a MMA fighter that can do this:


You show me a boxer that can do this:

i hate to break up the boy tit for tat fest, but this isnt about "its ok to make fun of christians and noone else" OR "haha look people who pray are stupid" at all

but whats news about this is
1. this prayer meeting will work fantastically with these particular senators BASE
so, theyre basically exploiting their faith and manipulating the faithful for political gain, but its also incredibly stupid because it will only rally support with their BASE, everyone else will be offended.
2. theyre not actually bringing up anything thats ACTUALLY in the bill, thats dishonest and more manipulation to rally support
3. the prayer leaders are morally embattled and morally ambiguous, these are not safe, mainstream religious leaders, these are a particularly racist, homophobic, lying, greedy lot... that makes it an interesting choice
4. their political strategy for stopping legislation to pass is a creepy, lying prayer circle broadcast over the internet. this is insulting to their base, insulting to their god, and insulting to the internet.
5. this plays to the basest of emotions and undermines .. well everything. when you gain political power by appealing to the most primal, base emotions and by lying and manipulating the ignorant, well you've gotten greedy and disconnected and its time your term ended.

theyre basically using the context of a faithful gathering, a prayer circle to spread lies and fear.
which, btw, is why religion is mocked on videosift. because this is by no stretch of the imagination, out of the ordinary.

>> ^qualm:
Chomsky has self-identified as a libertarian socialist. (Not "social libertarian") But he makes it very clear that he's using the word 'libertarian' in the proper European sense, and not in the distorted USian fashion.
"Rand in my view is one of the most evil figures of modern intellectual history." -- Noam Chomsky


I have to agree with him on the rand part.

But let's not mince words here. Social Libertarian is exactly that, Libertarian Socialist. In fact, if you Google Social Libertarian it redirects to the Chomsky link. But that's semantics in its truest form, and we could argue what each of us meant for some time. There is really no need for the Tit for Tat that follows semantics arguments.

I wonder if you would feel the same way about "tit-for-tat" if we were talking about historical North American indigenous resistance to occupation by genocidal European settlers.

Just read Fanon already. Or don't.

bcglorf, I want you to read the article on Benny Morris and think for a while about colonialism and the racism inherent in such a nation building exercise as Israel's. "A land without people for a people without land." Heard that one before? Does that concern you?


Seeing as that kind of racist attitude is exactly what is being promoted still today by groups like Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu party I think I've made my concern pretty clear. I even said I condemn them as racists and in as strong of terms as I condemn Hamas. I fail to see how any of that relates back to my condemnation of Hamas, what in here is supposed to vindicate them or somehow lessen the condemnation they deserve? All I can see is the implication that the Israeli's deserve it, or that Hamas is justified in it's evils because it is 'self defense'. If there is another angle I'm missing let me know, but I don't accept either of the rationalizations I can see.


One of the major objections I have with your 'tit-for-tat' theory is that it decontextualizes and silences the Palestinian narrative, which, I point out again, is actually being completely vindicated by Benny Morris - a meticulous and highly regarded historian, who also happens to be a major apologist for Israel.


What Palestinian narrative is it that you feeling is being silenced or decontextualized? I don't see how the back and forth of atrocities that occurred from even before '48 somehow marginalizes anybody or view. It certainly doesn't lessen the guilt of any parties involved, so is there something I'm altogether missing?

bcglorf, I want you to read the article on Benny Morris and think for a while about colonialism and the racism inherent in such a nation building exercise as Israel's. "A land without people for a people without land." Heard that one before? Does that concern you?

Perhaps read Frantz Fanon's "The Wretched of the Earth" as well.

One of the major objections I have with your 'tit-for-tat' theory is that it decontextualizes and silences the Palestinian narrative, which, I point out again, is actually being completely vindicated by Benny Morris - a meticulous and highly regarded historian, who also happens to be a major apologist for Israel.

bcglorf: "Let's not pretend that for all the atrocities committed by the Jews and Zionists in 1940's Palestine there weren't just as many atrocities perpetrated against them by Arab Palestinians. It was a mess both then and now."

Qualm:Even hard-core Israeli apologists like Benny Morris don't believe that. It is no mild understatement to say this is not historically accurate.
...
bcglorf: "Your insistence that it was just a series of murderous rampages initiated by Zionists against friendly Arab Palestinians is what's been exposed here."

Qualm:I never make that claim.


Okay, I don't see a whole lot of room in between the above statements for ambiguity. I've openly stated, more than once, that Zionists and Israelis have committed numerous atrocities, through the 1940's(and before and since for that matter). Yet when I point out that similarly atrocities where committed against them by Arab Palestinians, you suddenly balk at the notion. Do you or do you not recognize that the violence and atrocities committed in Palestine from 1900-1948(and again onwards for that matter), included a very large proportion of tit for tat and revenge/self defense motivations from BOTH sides.

That's my reading of history, and it seems pretty consistent(and unbiased) with all of human history. The Jews and Zionists were more aggressive/violent/defensive given their treatment in Europe and status as a minority in Palestine. Similarly the Arab Palestinians had been under the yoke of either the Ottomans or the British and were also more aggressive/violent/defensive as a result. Neither of those are any excuse for the atrocities committed, it's just a much stronger motivation for their societies than a simple Zionist campaign to expunge the Arabs and Arabs defending themselves. It's much simpler than the Zionist position of Arabs bent on annihilating all Jews. The truth is in the middle of those, do you reject the whole of this?


Rougy:Your obdurate unwillingness to admit that Israel is at fault for anything is what is really being exposed here.


Really? I repeatedly condemn the atrocities they've committed. Up thread I've repeatedly referenced atrocities committed by them from before 1948 through to the present day as a given. I referenced the most recent invasion up thread saying There's a lot of undeniable evidence the IDF need to be prosecuted for crimes committed in the recent offensive.


You are pro Israel, right or wrong, and that is clear as day.


No, I'm anti-Hamas, there's a very big difference. If you'd like me to condemn all of Israel just out of 'fairness' I won't. That'd be the equivalent of condemning all Palestinians, which is the workings of a racist. I condemn Hamas specifically as a horrific organization that manages to kill more of it's own people than anyone else. An equivalent condemnation would be of Avigdor Lieberman and his Yisrael Beiteinu party as racists and a horrific evil, I'll happily condemn them as strongly as Hamas as they chant 'Death to Arabs' with as much vigor as Hamas chants 'Death to Israel'.

Wow! This is a surprise.

As much as I would like to have an UP-free Sift for two weeks, I don't think that this should have become a public discussion and I am abstaining.

Now let me say this. I am used to UP. I didn't even click on the link and I still haven't.

Now, I want to defend myself a little bit now because people seem to think that my relationship with UP has been tit for tat. I hope that no one ever thinks that I have or ever would make a comment like that. That kind of nastiness was not provoked by me. We have argued, but take the meanest thing I have ever said to her and it is not even nearly that bad. She likes to use whatever tools she can get her hands on to hurt me as much as possible. This in nothing new.

But I digress. UsesProzac may not be a troll in general, but she has been my personal troll since the day that Deedub81 decided to have a public discussion of UP's tendency to downvote nearly all of my comments. That is why I don't feel very friendly toward this particular thread. I can't seem to stay out of the limelight and it never does me any good.

I don't need protection from the Big Bad UP.

This next part won't be very popular, but I want to say it. This is not completely UP's fault. Mostly, but not completely. Let me tell you why. I am a passionate person, but if I want to survive here I cannot be direct in my opinions, sarcastic, or poignant. We Sifters have the right to say whatever we want, however we want, as long as we agree with the majority. That is why some of us can't be part of the club. It's too bad because I enjoyed the site for a while. I am not asking for pity. I am not free of blame. I say this because I hope that you realize how biased and hostile this environment is for people who disagree. As nasty as UP has been, she receives a fair amount of indirect encouragement from the community. If you want to help, try to be more friendly.