StarGateWars Forums

Just because you don't agree with something, doesn't mean it should be illegal.

Dr. House wrote:Just because you don't agree with something, doesn't mean it should be illegal.

It's not only about me, otherwise, it wouldn't be illegal.
It's a matter of culture, just as America's culture perceive some things as illegals while others wouldn't. (and USA are a democracy and yet forbid many things, same as France or other democracies do)

Legendary Jimster wrote:

Psyko wrote:

Legendary Jimster wrote:

Corran Horne wrote:
btw: what do you think about the new french anti-burqa laws?

I support it, because there's in my opinion a hierarchy in freedoms and some represent a real risk in security. Most famous example about burqa risks was the terrorist in the UK (after London bombings) who escaped cops hiding under a burqa, which hid his face, and identity.
Outside of the aweful cultural/traditional meaning behind it, it represents a real risk, same as people walking with hood hiding their face.

These women ask the freedom about not being free (they oppose the right to be free and equal to men and ask freedom to be segregated and considered as inferior to men). This paradox shows the idiocy around this burqa pro-movements popping up in Europe.

Actually, your post only proves that you are an idiot who knows nothing about the culture you are bashing.

Awful cultural/traditional meaning? Inferior to men? Segregation? The burqa doesn't qualify for any of these.

I <3 when ignorants accuse others who know more what they are talking about to be ignorant (wait, you did worse, you called me an idiot!!).

When you know a tenth about Europe/France's problems regarding this and other similar problems, come back with arguments, but until then... with your ignorant arrogant so called all knowing opinion about it.

Wrong again. I know less than a tenth about Europe's problems, especially France, as there are far too many problems that don't affect me for me to bother worrying about. However, I can tell from your posts that I know far more than one-tenth more than you do about Muslim culture.

Legendary Jimster wrote:Burqa is sign of freedom for women, while western women who can dress as they want are oppressed? I'm sure many european women would dream about wearing burqa to reach the "ultimate freedom". However I get the feeling I would be laughed about or even slapped if I told them they should wear burqa lolz (which would be a logical reaction)

It depends on what kind of freedom you are talking about. Women who wear burqas are free from worrying about appearances and vanity, dealing with men who only want them for their body, and allows them to be seen for their personality and who they are instead of how they look. However, too many bigots see burqa and scream terrorist or try to "free the oppressed women." Come on. The burqa is not a requirement, and most women choose to wear them.

Legendary Jimster wrote:To post something like this, either you know nothing on the subject, or you wear one. Cannot be otherwise..

There you go making assumptions. I have to be on either side of the spectrum to post such a comment? So either I know absolutely nothing and am pulling **Filtered** out of my ass like you do (minus the racism), or I wear a burqa so I know what I'm talking about. Or did you mean that as me wearing a burqa and being an oppressed woman who sees herself as a second-class citizen?

Yeah, there's no possible way that I could know anything about Islam or the Muslim community unless I'm a part of it. Is that what you're saying? If you are, you only prove your idiocy.

Legendary Jimster wrote:Either way, I award your post to be among the most ignorant posts I saw on those forums, after five years and half of membership, and probably having read hundred of thousands of posts! But I suspect it was a joke or something of that sort, or at least I hope so, because if it's not, the award remains.

Nice. I love winning awards. I'll add it to my collection.

Legendary Jimster wrote:

Dr. House wrote:You should ignore Pops, Psyko, he really has no **Filtered** clue what he is talking about and more times than not simply repeats the same tired crap he's been told by his government rather than actually using his brain to come to his own conclusion.

Hmmm I seem to recall that the talibans and their habits weren't branded as freedom spreaders.
I might have missed the memo that radical fundamentalist muslims were the good guys.

The Taliban is not Muslim. It is an organization that manipulates the uneducated. Nothing the Taliban does follows anything in the Koran, but people who don't know how to read have no way of knowing that. I could get into a whole lecture about it, in fact I had one written out, but I deleted it.

Let me finish by saying that a radical fundamentalist Muslim would in fact be one of the good guys.
Islam is a peaceful religion not so distantly related to Christianity, and since a fundamentalist "adheres to a strict set of basic principles and ideas," a fundamentalist Muslim would be more like Mother -freaking- Theresa. Not some brainwashed Taliban Jihadist.

So stop insulting the Muslim community with your idiotic belief that their religion makes them gun-toting terrorists out to destroy the Western World. The reality is far different.

Psyko wrote:Wrong again. I know less than a tenth about Europe's problems, especially France, as there are far too many problems that don't affect me for me to bother worrying about. However, I can tell from your posts that I know far more than one-tenth more than you do about Muslim culture.

That shows how wrong you are. You keep trying to tell yourself you know more than me, while it's not the case. France is country in EU with the most muslims, so I've came around their culture much often than you probably do. Yet, you still assume I know nothing because I don't think the same as you do. You admit yourself you don't know much about EU problems and still pretend to know more than me regarding a problem from Europe. Contradict much?

It depends on what kind of freedom you are talking about. Women who wear burqas are free from worrying about appearances and vanity, dealing with men who only want them for their body, and allows them to be seen for their personality and who they are instead of how they look. However, too many bigots see burqa and scream terrorist or try to "free the oppressed women." Come on. The burqa is not a requirement, and most women choose to wear them.

And those who wear it/are convinced to wear it often consider women who don't wear it are **Filtered** or easy/not self-respecting women (well, at least, the men who are behind the pro-burqa movements, or who support it think that about women not wearing it.). Bigotry is one of the keys of burqas, because you know, even though burqas aren't required or mentionned by Coran, people who hail them pretend it's part of, and currently represent the fundamentalists (salafism is among most famous radical branches), just like so called "christian" radical sects are seen as the extremists of christianity. So I fail to see what's the problem for being against an imposter cloth led by disgusting motives from imposters who draw mud into the religion they falsely pretend to represent..

I would also tell myself that they chose freely to do it by their own will without any pressure or propaganda if I wanted to sleep well at night. But my goal isn't to hide my head in sand thinking that people are all free to do what they do by their own will.

There you go making assumptions. I have to be on either side of the spectrum to post such a comment? So either I know absolutely nothing and am pulling **Filtered** out of my ass like you do (minus the racism), or I wear a burqa so I know what I'm talking about. Or did you mean that as me wearing a burqa and being an oppressed woman who sees herself as a second-class citizen?

You do realize that islam isn't a "race" and thus insulting me by "racism" is utter complete nonsense right? Just made sure you realized that, as I thought for a second you considered that being against talibans and the likes was being against muslims as a whole (STILL aren't a race but a religion). Which would indeed be a *big* prejudice.

I gave myself the right to do assumptions as well considering you heavily (and expected you would carry on which you indeed did) gave yourself freedom to do so about me and my SO CALLED ignorance. I answer the way I'm posted towards. If your post was less high horsed arrogant rude towards *me* then I wouldn't have posted this way towards you. Reap what you sow/what goes around comes around etc.

Yeah, there's no possible way that I could know anything about Islam or the Muslim community unless I'm a part of it. Is that what you're saying? If you are, you only prove your idiocy.

Thanks for proving my point. You are rude to people who don't think same and then be like "wth?" when those people don't beg for more disrespectfulness from your side. Ah well, I'm not a masochist..
You misunderstand what I said conveniently to try to throw it back at me in a twisted way. Sadly, I'm not idiotic enough to fall in this cheap trap. Like if I never faced that before.
What did this part had anything to do with my post else than a mediocre twisting?

The Taliban is not Muslim. It is an organization that manipulates the uneducated. Nothing the Taliban does follows anything in the Koran, but people who don't know how to read have no way of knowing that. I could get into a whole lecture about it, in fact I had one written out, but I deleted it.

Let me finish by saying that a radical fundamentalist Muslim would in fact be one of the good guys.
Islam is a peaceful religion not so distantly related to Christianity, and since a fundamentalist "adheres to a strict set of basic principles and ideas," a fundamentalist Muslim would be more like Mother -freaking- Theresa. Not some brainwashed Taliban Jihadist.

So stop insulting the Muslim community with your idiotic belief that their religion makes them gun-toting terrorists out to destroy the Western World. The reality is far different.

You are full of contradictions. You accuse me to be racist because I am against radicals and talibans, and then accuse me to be an idiot (wow you are good at being rude! That doesn't really asks for respect from me isn't it?) because you assume (you are good at assuming, heck, you beat me by far at it) that because I say talibans are bad, I say that all muslims are talibans. While you say that they aren't muslims. Now that's contradicting itself again.

It's YOU who has the idiotic belief that all muslims are talibans, because when I say taliban you think "he's insulting muslims". What else than linking both by yourself would lead you to think that?
I am also against radical/fundamentalist christians/sects claiming to be christians, does it mean I am against all christians? My god, soooo facepalm worthy it's not even funny.

I love people who are filled with contradictions, like this post of yours.

Ah well, not like I didn't expect it.

Before I bother to respond to your latest 'bout of idiocy, since you lack comprehension skills, I'd like to point out that a person without contradiction is not human.

Psyko wrote:Before I bother to respond to your latest 'bout of idiocy, since you lack comprehension skills, I'd like to point out that a person without contradiction is not human.

There's something you don't lack at least, that is disrespect towards those who don't think the same as you do, and also the particularity to "fire first" the rude behaving towards the other side.
I noticed in my experience in the net that those who resort quickly to insults/rudeness are those who usually don't have a strong arguments base and by insulting the other, try to distract the other side from the arguments, to continue the "arguementing" where they don't lack, the throw insults at other side style.

Ah well, you're neither the first nor the last of that kind I face in the internet.

Since you lack understanding skills, I felt like reminding that someone who contradicts him/herself on almost every point raised by themselves, and says something then the opposite on the same post can rarely be considered as a worth-to-consider poster. It's usually just about pointing the contradictions and that's all.
The excuse of "person without contradiction is not human" is a funny excuse though. You're not good at hiding your attempt at protecting your falling apart argumentation.


PS: a little hint, if you want to convince others you are right, don't jump the boat by starting with "you are an idiot" when you start your contribution in a debate. That rarely works.

Legendary Jimster wrote:

Psyko wrote:Before I bother to respond to your latest 'bout of idiocy, since you lack comprehension skills, I'd like to point out that a person without contradiction is not human.

There's something you don't lack at least, that is disrespect towards those who don't think the same as you do, and also the particularity to "fire first" the rude behaving towards the other side.
The more people are "tolerant", the least they can accept that people think differently. A good paradox.

Ah well, you're neither the first nor the last of that kind I face in the internet.

Since you lack understanding skills, I felt like reminding that someone who contradicts him/herself on almost every point raised by themselves, and says something then the opposite on the same post can rarely be considered as a worth-to-consider poster.
The excuse of "person without contradiction is not human" is a funny excuse though. You're not good at hiding your attempt at protecting your falling apart argumentation.

It is not that my post took one stand point and then the other. It is that you read it that way.

So I simply won't bother trying to spell it out for you.

As for me being rude first, yes I did think your post made you out to sound like an idiot. But you pushed me further by striking back calling me the ignorant one.

Even when I admit to not follow European politics (as I would not expect you to follow the politics of my own country), you used that as a strike against me. When I say that, based on your post, it looks as though I know more about a culture than you, you strike out as if I say you know nothing at all. You generalize everything I write and twist it in some defensive way to make what I say into something more malicious than it is intended.

I apologize that you don't like your posts for making you sound like an idiot. I'm sure you are quite intelligent. So I'm just going to polish the new award you gave me and find a nice shelf to put it on, then go along with my previously scheduled life.

That is because the same arguements were used against me in past, with the same "you are an idiot"/"you don't know about this culture to say this"/"you are against talibans therefore you must be racist against muslims" etc... and I just used the "automatic pilot" instead of the manual one. Because when you face the same group of arguments on a subject over time along with the keywords "idiots" or anything like that, you just use the same group of answers...because you feel, oh it's just again same record.

I'm not saying it's world vs me. I'm just saying that those arguments were used against me, and also others who tend to think as I do on the matter.

Don't argue with jim, it's a futile attempt and only serves to reinforce his own delusions

Thriller wrote:Don't argue with jim, it's a futile attempt and only serves to reinforce his own delusions

That is purely a matter of opinion/perspective. As much as you see "delusion" for my opinions, I see "delusions" from time to time in yours, or others on some subjects.
The truth of one is a delusion in another's eye.

Legendary Jimster wrote:

Thriller wrote:Don't argue with jim, it's a futile attempt and only serves to reinforce his own delusions

That is purely a matter of opinion. As much as you see "delusion" for my opinions, I see "delusions" from time to time in yours, or others on some subjects.
The truth of one is a delusion in another's eye.

see right there, you don't offer any coherent ideas to back your bigotry just inane similarities and non sequiturs.

The truth is truth..
To the end of reckoning.

not subjective to your insecurities and unfounded belief of moral superiority

Thriller wrote:

Legendary Jimster wrote:

Thriller wrote:Don't argue with jim, it's a futile attempt and only serves to reinforce his own delusions

That is purely a matter of opinion. As much as you see "delusion" for my opinions, I see "delusions" from time to time in yours, or others on some subjects.
The truth of one is a delusion in another's eye.

see right there, you don't offer any coherent ideas to back your bigotry just inane similarities and non sequiturs.

The truth is truth..
To the end of reckoning.

not subjective to your insecurities and unfounded belief of moral superiority

That is AGAIN a matter of perspective/opinion.
What you consider as a "coherent" idea to back my "bigotry" (I love the random tagging ) I am sure doesn't exist, because you totally refute the very existence of another point of view (the use of term "bigotry" is a good incarnation of that, using a strong word to exclude in a evil corner any opinions that should never considered as anything but negative and unfounded).
It's like an atheist asking from a religious person "coherant" reasons about why he should believe. Or a capitalist to a communist (or the opposite) why does the opposite side could be worth considering as an alternative.
It's asking knowing you would reject anything provided, even if those arguments would convince most people, it wouldn't matter, because you deem them to be wrong accordin to your own set of values. You accuse me to be stubborn, but so are you in your own opinions.

What you don't understand Jim is that i would LOVE for you to post a good argument counter to my opinion... but you always disappoint.

There is a reason people qualify your posts as "less than acceptable". Because they ARE.

Your attempt to spin what i say around towards me is the equivalent of the "ruber v glue" case which was thrown out of court when i was 10.

You'll need a better precedent you want to proceed with your line of debate.

Thriller wrote:What you don't understand Jim is that i would LOVE for you to post a good argument counter to my opinion... but you always disappoint.

There is a reason people qualify your posts as "less than acceptable". Because they ARE.

Your attempt to spin what i say around towards me is the equivalent of the "ruber v glue" case which was thrown out of court when i was 10.

You'll need a better precedent you want to proceed with your line of debate.

People who disagree with me don't agree with what I say (sometimes I convince them, well, probably more when french is used than english), those who do agree with me often prefer what I post than those who disagree.

I can say that I don't often find people who think differently than me to be convincing to make me reconsider my opinions. Well, Jack can be, so can Semper and Juliette on some subjects. You sometimes are too. But sometimes not.

I've already reconsidered my positions because of others' arguments in past. I didn't think the same four years ago. But I'm not following the flow everytime I see someone who disagrees with me. Because otherwise, it would just be ping pong for whenever I would see a convincing person. And that, isn't thinking by oneself, isn't it?


That's why sometimes I don't even bother providing more arguments to my cause, because I feel that I will waste time for nothing. I mean by that, it will be considered as "unreceivable" arguments and my time will have been wasted, just like the last two or three hours in this thread. People think I'm not good at doing it, I sometimes wonder why I still bother if I'm that bad.

I encourage people to form their own opinions.

But banning a burqa because you believe it to be oppressive, without actually proving it is oppressive, only serves as political theater and sets a terrible precedent.

I believe it already stands in your country; articles of clothing can be asked to be removed in cases where it in the interest of following the course of law. And such requests cannot be denied on religiouse grounds since you have a secular government.

SO what's the point of this law.... liberating women.

You deny a women what she can wear in order to protect her liberty. Do you not see the hypocrisy there Jim.

IT's just a peice of clothing.... no one should be scarred of an overly large bed sheet.

You already have laws in place for domestic violence, religious tolerance and
Spousal abuse. If they are not working maybe they need to be redressed.

Let the crazy people wear their crazy clothes..... but if you were going to ban anything, it should be this

Really what were you thinking

PS. If you want to talk about things in French, i would be more than happy too. Or even translate if your stuck.