Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Anelka's quenelle

Johnny Canuck3 said:
Full of Fail. Sounds like a place that would be just south of Lindisfarne. Or maybe the Vale of Tears.

What does it mean, anyway: 'You're wrong'?
Click to expand...

It's a particularly objectionable element of late capitalist relativism, here effortlessly reflected by our local Fool.

The idea seems to be that every statement is performative--as opposed to declarative--and can thus be adjudged "successful" or "unsuccessful" as opposed to "true" or "false."
 
Edie said:
You've not offended me mate, I just wondered if you were even aware that a lot of your posts about Christianity sound scathing. You've good reason for all I know anyway.
Click to expand...

I do have my reasons, can't really talk about them all here. The main one is the heaven and hell thing though, I just can't get over it especially when some people are so hypocritical about what they believe, for them to start going on about hell? No. There are plenty of problems in Judaism as well, by all means criticize what's taught in it because some of it is also a load of bollocks.
 
frogwoman said:
I do have my reasons, can't really talk about them all here. The main one is the heaven and hell thing though, I just can't get over it especially when some people are so hypocritical about what they believe, for them to start going on about hell? No. There are plenty of problems in Judaism as well, by all means criticize what's taught in it because some of it is also a load of bollocks.
Click to expand...
Tbh I'd rather just leave other peoples beliefs alone :)
 
Pickman's model said:
the fact that police and workers have been kicking the crap out of each other on the streets for more than a century is indeed a powerful argument for their non-alignment. the fact that arabs and israelis have been kicking the crap out of each other for more than 65 years is indeed a powerful argument for their non-alignment. i'm not sure your powerful argument works.
Click to expand...

Look at it this way.

When you see, as one often does, the fans of Cardiff City brawling with the fans of Swansea City, do you conclude that these groups of young men must have completely divergent interests and utterly irreconcilable differences?

Or do you rather conclude that their brawling indicates a shared mentality, similar tastes and virtually indistinguishable interests?

That's how I see Commies v. Fash.
 
phildwyer said:
Look at it this way.

When you see, as one often does, the fans of Cardiff City brawling with the fans of Swansea City, do you conclude that these groups of young men must have completely divergent interests and utterly irreconcilable differences?

Or do you rather conclude that their brawling indicates a shared mentality, similar tastes and virtually indistinguishable interests?

That's how I see Commies v. Fash.
Click to expand...

The difference is that communism in theory is about creating a classless society, workers standing up for their rights etc. Fascism isn't
 
phildwyer said:
No, the evidence is that everyone knows that many young men like scrapping for its own sake. If you don't know that, you were never a young man.
Click to expand...
you're making a rather different claim here, that everyone knows that many young men like fighting for its own sake, which is rather different than your earlier assertion that "young men will fight about anything". why the changes?
 
Edie said:
I think a persons in dangerous territory being "anti" any religious beliefs. Who are they to say what's true or not for another?
Click to expand...

Nah, I disagree there. There are beliefs that have caused loads of damage and were justified on a religious basis. What about the christian identity churches in the southern US that think that god has forbidden black people to join because of their interpretation of the bible saying god commanded white people to be racist? Or settlers in the west bank thinking that God told them to destroy amalek who they think are Palestinians?
 
Pickman's model said:
where do you stand on satanists?
Click to expand...
I don't really think they exist :D
frogwoman said:
Nah, I disagree there. There are beliefs that have caused loads of damage and were justified on a religious basis. What about the christian identity churches in the southern US that think that god has forbidden black people to join because of their interpretation of the bible saying god commanded white people to be racist? Or settlers in the west bank thinking that God told them to destroy amalek who they think are Palestinians?
Click to expand...
Theres a distinction between thought and belief and action eh.
 
Edie said:
I think a persons in dangerous territory being "anti" any religious beliefs. Who are they to say what's true or not for another?
Click to expand...
You just said that they can believe what they want and their beliefs should be left alone. Minutes after challenging a poster for what you thought are beliefs you disagree with. You either believe what you say and act on it, or you don't, in which case then you have no grounds on which to attack people for being anti Christian.
 
Edie said:
I don't really think they exist :D

Theres a distinction between thought and belief and action eh.
Click to expand...

If someone is being indoctrinated each week to believe that Palestinians are a nation that god commanded them to destroy and that the land of Israel exclusively belongs to the Jews then how is that going to affect how they behave when they see a real Palestinian? Especially since their racism is what GOD HIMSELF has told them to do? Do you really think there's no connection between beliefs and actions?
 
phildwyer said:
No it isn't.

Most forms of racism and bigotry--and all the forms we need to worry about--are perfectly open and unabashed.

Too many people waste too much time in futile inverted McCarthyism.
Click to expand...

Most forms of racism and bigotry have masked as well as open forms, expecially where "institutional" bigotries are practiced.
 
butchersapron said:
You just said that they can believe what they want and their beliefs should be left alone. Minutes after challenging a poster for what you thought are beliefs you disagree with. You either believe what you say and act on it, or you don't, in which case then you have no grounds on which to attack people for being anti Christian.
Click to expand...
Frogwoman is entitled to her opinions about Christian beliefs. I think she should be aware when she's expressing them not to sound scathing though.
 
Edie said:
You've got a really big chip on your shoulder about Christians.
Click to expand...

Edie, some cunt comes up to you on the street and gives you some stick that includes references to "your" people and their supposed historic crimes, and you've got every right to think that people who do that - i.e. preachy Christian street-ranters in this case - are cunts.

However:
a) That doesn't mean you've "got a chip on your shoulder about Christians", or
b) That you've got any animus against other faiths at all.
 
Edie said:
I don't really think they exist :D

Theres a distinction between thought and belief and action eh.
Click to expand...

Well earlier up the thread I was saying how some Christians today think that before Jesus, non-jews couldn't pray to God, couldn't get to heaven etc. If they believe that shit about the Jews of the past do you not think it might influence how they see Jews today and what they think the religion says on these matters?
 
I also have a problem with the idea that faiths and beliefs should not be attacked because of the great comfort and strength they can provide to the faithful. Because the same logic can be applied to, for example, anti-semitism. I'm sure many an anti-semite gets comfort and strength from having a nice simple explanation for the ills of the world and the problems they've faced in their own life.
 
phildwyer said:
I meant in terms of organized politics. Obviously individuals often try to conceal their bigotry.
Click to expand...

You're kidding. Post-Thatcher Toryism is all about trying to conceal bigotry behind various veneers of policy, as is Blairism and post-Blairism to some extent.
 
butchersapron said:
You being the judge of that and the enforcer of the judgement. Of course, this sort of weak attack on her and others beliefs counts as leaving them alone.
Click to expand...
Listen we live in a world where people have an enormous range of beliefs. I think it's perfectly acceptable to both express and challenge beliefs but I'd say it should be done with respect and not from a starting position of assuming you're right and the other person is wrong when it comes to religious beliefs. Is that hippy bullshit? Maybe. But tolerance is pretty important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom