|
Post by fixit on Jan 26, 2015 17:08:18 GMT -5
When you come up to speed on the issues you'll realise what a ridiculous statement you just made. So - (1) In pre-invasion Iraq when Iraq was under UN sanctions how many were killed by Hussein? (2) How does that number compare with friend and ally Saudi Arabia? (3) Explain to me how bombing and killing even more civilians would help with that? Incidentally, my comment wasn't meant universally. I'm in favour of military action against ISIS. I'm still not in favour of bombing as a method of improving women's rights. Saddam was notorious for evading UN sanctions and WMD inspections. Saudi Arabia has a lot to answer for, but there's probably no Islamic majority country that shares our secular values and freedoms. Do you think we should disengage from all of them? Collateral damage is part of military action, and the coalition didn't target civilians in the way that their enemies do. I am in favour of bombing as a method of improving women's rights when they are raped and enslaved and murdered for the pleasure of Islamic jihadists.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jan 26, 2015 17:51:05 GMT -5
Sharon, I wish it were true that as you say, "that there is a large more or less stable population on this planet."
One of the biggest problems facing the world today in the elephant in the living room that everyone pretends isn't there, World Population.
There is Net gain of over 140 people every minute.
The net growth during my posting: fill in the blank______________ On the site that I found you can Click on the arrow to hear how fast population is growing.
At what time in history do you think the population of the world doubled?
It was later than you might think, about the time my first child was born, 1961.
I worded that poorly. I wasn't meaning a stable population in the sense of numbers of people on the planet. That is a completely different issue. I am aware that overpopulation poses challenges to the future of life on this planet. (Now, explaining what I was getting at may present its own challenges.) I was meaning that the majority of the people on the planet are here, probably for the foreseeable future (i.e., not leaving the planet for a while), along with all the life lessons/ wisdom that they have accumulated thus far. So it represents a kind of stability in terms of evolving consciousness in human kind.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jan 26, 2015 18:04:31 GMT -5
I worded that poorly. I wasn't meaning a stable population in the sense of numbers of people on the planet. That is a completely different issue. I am aware that overpopulation poses challenges to the future of life on this planet. (Now, explaining what I was getting at may present its own challenges.) I was meaning that the majority of the people on the planet are here, probably for the foreseeable future (i.e., not leaving the planet for a while), along with all the life lessons/ wisdom that they have accumulated thus far. So it represents a kind of stability in terms of evolving consciousness in human kind. Interesting idea. Will have to noodle that one for awhile. An example that jumps to mind is the experience of the moms of the Irish lads in Northern Ireland who finally said - "STOP! This is enough. Find another way to solve your squabbles . . . . and by in large, they did!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 26, 2015 18:42:33 GMT -5
However ... an Islamic country has the perfect right to do things differently if that represents the will of the people, and there is no infringement of civil liberties or individual rights. It's difficult to imagine that individual rights could be preserved if sharia law replaces civil law. But integration of sharia law or voluntary arbitration using sharia law might be able to preserve individual liberties and rights in some countries. On these shores ... no. The best example of sharia (or perhaps better put, Qur'anic law) and non-Muslim law existing side by side is Malaysia. But it has it's problems. How does one prosecute a secular Muslim. What do you do about non-Muslims who want access to Muslim punishment for people they don't like? How can a government justify separate forms of justice for all its equal citizens. Better yet, at least in Malaysia, it amounts to (1) enforcing religious law, and (2) providing more liberal civil rights to a minority population. Judging by how people in fully secular countries complain about special privileges for minorities, imagine how they would scream if their minorities actually had greater freedoms than they had.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 26, 2015 18:46:16 GMT -5
I am in favour of bombing as a method of improving women's rights when they are raped and enslaved and murdered for the pleasure of Islamic jihadists. Bombing who?? I would suggest you consider shooting their abusers rather than bombing -- that kills women too.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 26, 2015 19:00:17 GMT -5
I also oppose tax payer funded charter or religious schools, on the same principle. All for one, and one for all, when it comes to laws and publicly funded education. I think we're on the same page here. This raises another concern, perhaps outside the scope of this thread: Does the nation have a duty to protect it's children from religious brainwashing? Do parents have a right to religiously brainwash their children? Should someone like Jim Jones and the Temple Cult be allowed to open a religious school? What about Scientology? What about Catholic schools and Seventh Day Adventist schools? What about Islamic schools teaching kids jihad and hatred of our secular society? Do children raised in a secular society have a right to a secular education, or do parents have the right to have their children educated any way they please? Society tries to protect children from sexual abuse by their own families. Should it also try to protect children from brainwashing by their own families? I don't have the answers, I'm just asking the questions. Here in Ontario Canada you can open any kind of school you want, but: 1) the teachers must have a degree from an accredited university plus a year or two of teachers' college. 2) you must fund it yourself. 3) you must meet minimum curriculum standards. So that works out okay as we have private schools (read, rich kids) and Christian and Jewish schools. Alberta, Canada does provide government funding for private and religious schools. But standards also apply for those schools. That leaves home schooling. One of our daughters went to "on line" school for a couple of years. Long story. Anyway, with her high social intelligence, she quickly fell to organizing get togethers and assemblies for other kids at this government run online school. Most of the families we met were quite well-balanced and often fascinating people and there are many different reasons why kids are home schooled. But some of the parents were kooks, and I felt sorry for the kids. But parents do have the right to home school here, and as far as I can tell, they can teach the kids anything at all, or worse, teach them nothing at all.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 26, 2015 19:15:19 GMT -5
I am in favour of bombing as a method of improving women's rights when they are raped and enslaved and murdered for the pleasure of Islamic jihadists. Bombing who?? I would suggest you consider shooting their abusers rather than bombing -- that kills women too. Are you in favour of sending in US ground troops to do that?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 26, 2015 19:15:24 GMT -5
So - (1) In pre-invasion Iraq when Iraq was under UN sanctions how many were killed by Hussein? (2) How does that number compare with friend and ally Saudi Arabia? (3) Explain to me how bombing and killing even more civilians would help with that? Incidentally, my comment wasn't meant universally. I'm in favour of military action against ISIS. I'm still not in favour of bombing as a method of improving women's rights. Saddam was notorious for evading UN sanctions and WMD inspections. Saudi Arabia has a lot to answer for, but there's probably no Islamic majority country that shares our secular values and freedoms. Do you think we should disengage from all of them? Collateral damage is part of military action, and the coalition didn't target civilians in the way that their enemies do. I am in favour of bombing as a method of improving women's rights when they are raped and enslaved and murdered for the pleasure of Islamic jihadists. I had forgotten just how bad Saddam Hussein was, although the memories are coming back. His two sons, for example. So perhaps in the very long run, Iraq will be better off. However, I think that the invasion of 2003 was a very bad move. The US should not have gone in at that time. We were lied to about WMD, and many lives were lost on both sides in a litany of errors and bungling. The fact that neither NATO or the UN would endorse the invasion should tell you something. It's only due to General Patraeus that any positive results were achieved at all. It might seem contradictory that I believe NATO or the UN should go in to ISIS. The reason is that ISIS is a rogue state, and the entire state is corrupt and egregiously malevolent. In Iraq many ordinary and innocent lives were lost. My gut feeling is that ISIS won't last long for several reasons. Unlike terrorist organisations like 'al Qaeda' they are not embedded into a civilian population, and they are isolated geographically. Almost the entire world is against them, and China and Russia can not by any stretch support them. The only reason that some countries are holding back is the long and sorry experience in Iraq. I should add that my predictive powers are not notable, unless it's by how often I've been wrong.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 26, 2015 19:34:25 GMT -5
Someone will have to shoot me to put me out of my reverie (archaic form). So, I am sitting here thinking about earlier comments made regarding Western culture and about the sale of lethal weaponry to despots provided they sign an agreement saying they won’t use the weapons against their own people. Then Mary posts an update on the justice system of a particular Islamic sect and Rational reminds us of the similarity of this judicial code to that described in the Old Testament. And I begin to wonder . . . . . . . as citizens of the world embrace multiculturalism, what is a reasonable rate of change to expect for social evolution? We have been at this game for what, maybe 70,000 years since the cognitive revolution and the early attempts to form stable social groups. For most of that time societies have had the luxury to “Go west young man, go west” as H. Greeley advised. But now there are no more “wide open spaces” within which social fission can operate. So now what? Apartheid has been tried, wouldn’t recommend it. Assimilation has been tried (actually seemed like a pretty rational choice to me) but the “powers that be” in this post-modern world tell us that is just suppression by another name. So I guess we are down to living “cheek to jowl” in a great multi-cultural global community. Any other choices before we move on? How is this going to work? We have this arbitrarily sized and shaped piece of geography, we shan’t give it a name because that might unleash the horrors of nationalism. All we have is this arbitrary space populated by diverse ethnic, cultural, religious and political persuasions. Without giving any preferences to any special interest, how are we going to make it work humanely, equitably, with love, compassion and happiness for all? Remember, we are an evolved species just like every other creature. We have genes that will be expressed in one or more forms of dominance, like it or not. How can that fact be accommodated and still achieve a society in stable equilibrium? We are all grown, mature, ethical and rational people, how do we avoid another “Je suis Charlie”? A 'Bill of Rights' is just a piece of paper, but I believe it makes a difference. Basically, any group of people within a given society should be able to conduct their lives as they best see fit, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights and all the laws on down support that great idea, here in Canada. Canada has a history of multiculturalism. Just the other day I was reading someone's comments on the BBC web site to the effect that British multiculturalism was a mess and that it was just a bad idea that had started in Canada. Wow, we actually started something, even though nobody seems to like it. But anyway. Our county was begun by Mennonites who still live according to their traditions and beliefs. The country in the late 19th century was a patchwork of First Nations and Metis communities, French and English ruled areas, and land grants to Hutterites, Doukhobours, Icelandic, German, Ukrainian and other peoples who all sought to live as they best saw fit, and often had not been allowed to do that elsewhere. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights protect diverse peoples and lifestyles like no other country does. They need to, because people themselves are often so petty about anything they find different. We lived for 20 years in a small town surrounded by Old Order Mennonites, and they outnumbered modern kids at the local school. When I was on the parents' council I remember how petty some of the parents could be. For example, Mennonites were not allowed to go on the big annual school trips held near the end of the school year, so they had a special field day on the school playground. Some of the parents (always seemed to be a few women for some reason) were adamant that the field day should be cancelled - if the Mennonites could not attend the school trip, they should have nothing. Meanwhile, the local school was benefitting financially from the Mennonite kids not going. This is one example of many as far as 'Old Order Mennonites' are concerned. I would add that generally common sense and good will prevailed in these situations. It's great to be able to understand and speak to what our country stands for - that each person can live life as they best see fit as long as they don't harm anyone else. Another great quote that applies here. Our Supreme Court chief magistrate Beverly Maclachlan stated that everyone in Canada belongs to a minority of some kind. It's very true, and that's why we have had to learn to get along.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 26, 2015 20:54:51 GMT -5
Bombing who?? I would suggest you consider shooting their abusers rather than bombing -- that kills women too. Are you in favour of sending in US ground troops to do that? Doing what? You haven't told me who you'd bomb.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 26, 2015 21:30:22 GMT -5
Someone will have to shoot me to put me out of my reverie (archaic form). So, I am sitting here thinking about earlier comments made regarding Western culture and about the sale of lethal weaponry to despots provided they sign an agreement saying they won’t use the weapons against their own people. Then Mary posts an update on the justice system of a particular Islamic sect and Rational reminds us of the similarity of this judicial code to that described in the Old Testament. And I begin to wonder . . . . . . . as citizens of the world embrace multiculturalism, what is a reasonable rate of change to expect for social evolution? We have been at this game for what, maybe 70,000 years since the cognitive revolution and the early attempts to form stable social groups. For most of that time societies have had the luxury to “Go west young man, go west” as H. Greeley advised. But now there are no more “wide open spaces” within which social fission can operate. So now what? Apartheid has been tried, wouldn’t recommend it. Assimilation has been tried (actually seemed like a pretty rational choice to me) but the “powers that be” in this post-modern world tell us that is just suppression by another name. So I guess we are down to living “cheek to jowl” in a great multi-cultural global community. Any other choices before we move on? How is this going to work? We have this arbitrarily sized and shaped piece of geography, we shan’t give it a name because that might unleash the horrors of nationalism. All we have is this arbitrary space populated by diverse ethnic, cultural, religious and political persuasions. Without giving any preferences to any special interest, how are we going to make it work humanely, equitably, with love, compassion and happiness for all? Remember, we are an evolved species just like every other creature. We have genes that will be expressed in one or more forms of dominance, like it or not. How can that fact be accommodated and still achieve a society in stable equilibrium? We are all grown, mature, ethical and rational people, how do we avoid another “Je suis Charlie”? A 'Bill of Rights' is just a piece of paper, but I believe it makes a difference. Basically, any group of people within a given society should be able to conduct their lives as they best see fit, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights and all the laws on down support that great idea, here in Canada. Canada has a history of multiculturalism. Just the other day I was reading someone's comments on the BBC web site to the effect that British multiculturalism was a mess and that it was just a bad idea that had started in Canada. Wow, we actually started something, even though nobody seems to like it. But anyway. Our county was begun by Mennonites who still live according to their traditions and beliefs. The country in the late 19th century was a patchwork of First Nations and Metis communities, French and English ruled areas, and land grants to Hutterites, Doukhobours, Icelandic, German, Ukrainian and other peoples who all sought to live as they best saw fit, and often had not been allowed to do that elsewhere. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights protect diverse peoples and lifestyles like no other country does. They need to, because people themselves are often so petty about anything they find different. We lived for 20 years in a small town surrounded by Old Order Mennonites, and they outnumbered modern kids at the local school. When I was on the parents' council I remember how petty some of the parents could be. For example, Mennonites were not allowed to go on the big annual school trips held near the end of the school year, so they had a special field day on the school playground. Some of the parents (always seemed to be a few women for some reason) were adamant that the field day should be cancelled - if the Mennonites could not attend the school trip, they should have nothing. Meanwhile, the local school was benefitting financially from the Mennonite kids not going. This is one example of many as far as 'Old Order Mennonites' are concerned. I would add that generally common sense and good will prevailed in these situations. It's great to be able to understand and speak to what our country stands for - that each person can live life as they best see fit as long as they don't harm anyone else. Another great quote that applies here. Our Supreme Court chief magistrate Beverly Maclachlan stated that everyone in Canada belongs to a minority of some kind. It's very true, and that's why we have had to learn to get along. Great! Multiculturism! Nothing is universal! There will never be peace! Good job, all of you Utopian, co-exist, I-have-no-sin, Bob's of the world!
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 26, 2015 22:30:27 GMT -5
I am in favour of bombing as a method of improving women's rights when they are raped and enslaved and murdered for the pleasure of Islamic jihadists. Bombing who?? I would suggest you consider shooting their abusers rather than bombing -- that kills women too. Islamic jihadists who rape and enslave and murder women. Like the folks in the picture below who have been radicalised by Muslim clerics:
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 26, 2015 22:44:29 GMT -5
Bombing who?? I would suggest you consider shooting their abusers rather than bombing -- that kills women too. Islamic jihadists who rape and enslave and murder women. Fixit, just a little something to think about to show some perspective. On home grown domestic violence according to the American Bar Association:
"In 2000, 1,247 women and 440 men were killed by an intimate partner.
In recent years, an intimate partner killed approximately 33% of female murder victims and 4% of male murder victims. "
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 26, 2015 22:50:45 GMT -5
Islamic jihadists who rape and enslave and murder women. Fixit, just a little something to think about to show some perspective. On home grown domestic violence according to the American Bar Association:
"In 2000, 1,247 women and 440 men were killed by an intimate partner.
In recent years, an intimate partner killed approximately 33% of female murder victims and 4% of male murder victims. "
How does that compare with Syria?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 26, 2015 22:56:31 GMT -5
Fixit, just a little something to think about to show some perspective. On home grown domestic violence according to the American Bar Association:
"In 2000, 1,247 women and 440 men were killed by an intimate partner.
In recent years, an intimate partner killed approximately 33% of female murder victims and 4% of male murder victims. "
How does that compare with Syria? By ignoring what is happening in our own back yard.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 26, 2015 23:03:51 GMT -5
Bombing who?? I would suggest you consider shooting their abusers rather than bombing -- that kills women too. Islamic jihadists who rape and enslave and murder women. Like the folks in the picture below who have been radicalised by Muslim clerics: Hopefully you have more reason to bomb these guys than the presumption that they rape and kill women. As individuals, you don't know whether they rape and kill women or not. What they are ALL doing is conducting a brutal war against civilization -- bomb them for that reason. On the other hand, would you bomb a whole troupe of US soldiers because some of them rape and kill women. Some of them do, you know.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 26, 2015 23:07:49 GMT -5
How does that compare with Syria? By ignoring what is happening in our own back yard.
He maybe doesn't know that there are places in this country where no one but radicalized WASPs (Christians, that is) are welcome -- a no-go zone in effect.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 26, 2015 23:25:14 GMT -5
Saddam was notorious for evading UN sanctions and WMD inspections. Saudi Arabia has a lot to answer for, but there's probably no Islamic majority country that shares our secular values and freedoms. Do you think we should disengage from all of them? Collateral damage is part of military action, and the coalition didn't target civilians in the way that their enemies do. I am in favour of bombing as a method of improving women's rights when they are raped and enslaved and murdered for the pleasure of Islamic jihadists. I had forgotten just how bad Saddam Hussein was, although the memories are coming back. His two sons, for example. So perhaps in the very long run, Iraq will be better off. However, I think that the invasion of 2003 was a very bad move. The US should not have gone in at that time. We were lied to about WMD, and many lives were lost on both sides in a litany of errors and bungling. The fact that neither NATO or the UN would endorse the invasion should tell you something. It's only due to General Patraeus that any positive results were achieved at all. It might seem contradictory that I believe NATO or the UN should go in to ISIS. The reason is that ISIS is a rogue state, and the entire state is corrupt and egregiously malevolent. In Iraq many ordinary and innocent lives were lost. My gut feeling is that ISIS won't last long for several reasons. Unlike terrorist organisations like 'al Qaeda' they are not embedded into a civilian population, and they are isolated geographically. Almost the entire world is against them, and China and Russia can not by any stretch support them. The only reason that some countries are holding back is the long and sorry experience in Iraq. I should add that my predictive powers are not notable, unless it's by how often I've been wrong. Probably ISIS won't last in Syria and Iraq now that the US and allies have finally stepped up to the plate but they will need to stick with it. Islamist extremism will last a long time I believe. ISIS do have sympathisers all around the world so in that sense their ideology is embedded in civilian populations. ISIS are active in Libya and Boko Haram is carving out an Islamic Caliphate in Africa. I think Saddam will go down in history as having killed more than ISIS - he just wasn't so overt about it.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 26, 2015 23:33:39 GMT -5
Hopefully you have more reason to bomb these guys than the presumption that they rape and kill women. As individuals, you don't know whether they rape and kill women or not. What they are ALL doing is conducting a brutal war against civilization -- bomb them for that reason. Of course there is more reason than that. Some women are so brainwashed by their Islamic faith that they go willingly to prostitute themselves to Islamic State fighters. No wonder their women wear burqas.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 26, 2015 23:35:52 GMT -5
Hopefully you have more reason to bomb these guys than the presumption that they rape and kill women. As individuals, you don't know whether they rape and kill women or not. What they are ALL doing is conducting a brutal war against civilization -- bomb them for that reason. Of course there is more reason than that. Some women are so brainwashed by their Islamic faith that they go willingly to prostitute themselves to Islamic State fighters. No wonder their women wear burqas. Did you, BRW, notice all the Muslim women at the SAG awards the other night?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 26, 2015 23:45:28 GMT -5
Hopefully you have more reason to bomb these guys than the presumption that they rape and kill women. As individuals, you don't know whether they rape and kill women or not. What they are ALL doing is conducting a brutal war against civilization -- bomb them for that reason. Of course there is more reason than that. Some women are so brainwashed by their Islamic faith that they go willingly to prostitute themselves to Islamic State fighters. No wonder their women wear burqas. My post wasn't about women in Islamic countries !
For you to accuse women for wearing a burka for the reason that you give is being just as sexist as those that you complain against!
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 27, 2015 0:03:05 GMT -5
Of course there is more reason than that. Some women are so brainwashed by their Islamic faith that they go willingly to prostitute themselves to Islamic State fighters. No wonder their women wear burqas. My post wasn't about women in Islamic countries !
For you to accuse women for wearing a burka for the reason that you give is being just as sexist as those that you complain against!
help me out here - why do they wear burqas?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 27, 2015 0:09:32 GMT -5
My post wasn't about women in Islamic countries !
For you to accuse women for wearing a burka for the reason that you give is being just as sexist as those that you complain against!
help me out here - why do they wear burqas? Since you are the one making the accusations, why don't you check it out for yourself?
I already know.
However, I am of the belief that if people do the work of research themselves, -the knowledge will be mean more to them & stay with them.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 27, 2015 0:38:34 GMT -5
Did you, BRW, notice all the Muslim women at the SAG awards the other night? There are a lot of white Westerners who don't want to kill Muslims.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 27, 2015 0:41:16 GMT -5
There is a large more or less stable population on this planet. Every day a small percentage of new human beings arrive on this planet. Every day a small percentage of human beings leave. The problem is that one of these small percentages is more than twice the other.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 27, 2015 0:50:52 GMT -5
I don't believe Christians have the upper hand these days. Avro Manhattan makes, and supports, the claim that the catholic church is the largest financial power in the world. If you don't think christians have the upper hand who do you think does? And why?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 27, 2015 1:05:36 GMT -5
I am in favour of bombing as a method of improving women's rights when they are raped and enslaved and murdered for the pleasure of Islamic jihadists. You seem to be focusing on particular groups for little reason. You are in favor of indiscriminate bombing of Islamic jihadists but do not even mention the countries with the highest rape rates: Lesotho Trinidad & Tobago Sweden Korea New Zealand United States of America Belgium Zimbabwe United Kingdom I am guessing that in some cases the criminals are not Islamic jihadists. Maybe they are all atheists.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 27, 2015 1:15:59 GMT -5
I am in favour of bombing as a method of improving women's rights when they are raped and enslaved and murdered for the pleasure of Islamic jihadists. You seem to be focusing on particular groups for little reason. You are in favor of indiscriminate bombing of Islamic jihadists but do not even mention the countries with the highest rape rates: Lesotho Trinidad & Tobago Sweden Korea New Zealand United States of America Belgium Zimbabwe United Kingdom I am guessing that in some cases the criminals are not Islamic jihadists. Maybe they are all atheists. No, I'm not in favour of indiscriminate bombing. Where did you get that from? BTW, I'm in favour of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights which protects men and children as well as women. Your rape statistics are skewed towards the countries who have the most accurate reporting in place. Are you suggesting that a woman is more likely to be raped or murdered in the US than in Syria?
|
|