First, a cite for that extermination camp being the run by Christians. Baring that, a cite showing their “encouraging” it.
Where’s this tyranny? They banned minarets, and architectural feature. Not mosques. And you’re wrong about history. Many cultures have been overrun. Hell, look at the Native Americans. It hard to point to a culture overrunning a culture because it used to be that one people came in and simply conquered the other—lives, culture, everything. It was obliterated. And anyone alive either got on board or was done away with.
Answer this concerning my previous example: You’re a judge with sole authority involved in three different trials.
In Trial #1) a person aimed for and ran over a person he had a an argument with.
In Trail #2) a drunk driver hits and kills a guy on a bike because his reaction time was impaired.
In Trial #3) a man has a heart attack at the wheel and accidentally kills someone.
What sentence do you give each of them? Do they all get the same? Why? Why not?
I said “campaign”, not “camp”. And for the christian, American connection, the thread on the subject is here; post #10 is the first that mentions the Family, the Christian group in question. Which is very powerful, and why you aren’t likely to see America so much as condemn it.
Who were lsughtered by plagues and miltary force. And were far less technologically advanced than the foriengers, and a collection of disparate tribes not a single nation. The analogy isn’t even close.
What relevance has this? If you want to create some sort of comparison between our “civilized” behavior and the “uncivilized” behavior you condemn this would be a better analogy:
In Trial #1 a person aimed for and ran over a person he had an argument with.
In Trial #2 a person who wanted some gas runs over a crowd of people in the way, yelling “I’m doing this for your own good!” out the window as he does so.
In Trial #3 a person does the same as in #2, but also swerves out of his way to hit a guy in a turban, stopping for a moment to spit on the corpse.
I’m trying to understand you. Let’s stick with what I asked you. It’s very simple. Here it is again:
You’re a judge with sole authority involved in three different trials.
In Trial #1) a person aimed for and ran over a person he had a an argument with.
In Trail #2) a drunk driver hits and kills a guy on a bike because his reaction time was impaired.
In Trial #3) a man has a heart attack at the wheel and accidentally kills someone.
What sentence do you give each of them? Do they all get the same? Why? Why not?
No, I’m just trying to see to what degree you take the notion that intention does not matter. You’ve stated numerous times that it does NOT matter—that dead is dead. So, I’m trying to see if that’s what you really believe by giving you a simply crafted hypothetical.
So, how would Judge Der Trihs rule in those three examples?
No, I’ve been repeatedly saying that there’s no important difference between killing people on purpose because you hate them, and killing people because you just don’t care or are “doing it for their own good”. “Collateral damage” is not an accident. Especially not in unnecessary wars fought for profit and ideology. So you are using a false analogy.
What does it mean to be a “secular Muslim”? Can you be a secular Christian? It seems that if you are secular you are not a Christian or a Muslim. It’s not like being a Jew which is also an ethnicity.
Well, you can be raised as a Muslim but not necessarily practice. My parents both would probably describe themselves as Muslim but neither of them does anything like pray or go to mosque. I don’t think it’s all that different from being a secular Jew, to be honest.
Of course you can. A secular Christian or Muslim ( like most of the ones in Switzerland ) would be one who goes to church/mosque on holy days, occasionally prays, celebrates various rites and ceremonies, but basically live a secular life. Like a Muslim who does things like drink alcohol, pays limited if any attention to religious dietary rules, doesn’t wear burqas, and so on.
:rolleyes: Your refusal to answer a very simple question is an answer in itself. I must say you did the wise thing. Otherwise you would have had to admit to your beliefs being in direct conflict with your other set of beliefs.
I know piles of secular Christians. Indeed, I know a lot more secular Christians than devout ones. They recognize that Jesus’s words had wisdom and they use Christian words and metaphors when they need to think about the big issues in life. They recognize the social and community value of church, as well as any personal peace it bring them, and attend occasionally. They take part in religious rituals (church marriage, etc.) because it is a part of their culture and they believe that there is a human need for rituals marking the rites of passage in our lives.
But if pressed, they’d admit that their religion does not represent the ultimate truth for everyone- their belief is more about their religion’s value to them and their culture. They may or may not actually believe in God, but they recognize that their religion does not have an exclusive connection with God. They find spiritual truths in the Bible, but admit that there probably aren’t a ton of literal truths in it. They also find beauty in Hindu temples, Jewish rituals, Buddhist meditation, etc. but they find that the trappings of Christianity hold special resonance for them, almost certainly because of how they were raised.
You don’t really believe everyone singing “Away in a Manger” this month actually believes the Bible word-for-word, do you?
Well, there are tons of Muslims who take the same stance about their religion.
Nonsense. Your loaded questions had nothing to do with what I’ve been saying ( that was why you asked them, of course ). I answer them, and then you’ll spend the next three pages insisting that my answers mean something that they don’t. That will save you from having to argue against my actual positions, or defend your own.
Well, i’d say it depends (shockingly!) I don’t think there are many criteria by which some immigrants are more acceptable, other than work qualifications. I’d say that generally the amount should depend to some extent on unemployment figures and population density, too (really, it would make most sense if those two were linked, as i’d guess they are). Beyond that, there are the limits imposed by ability to process - it should be some number considerably below the estimates at which documentation, oversight, and so on can work at. But they’re really the only limiters I can think of. I’m sure I must have left some out, though.
Nonsense, indeed. You’ve made claims regarding the role intent plays in actions that cause the death of innocents. I try to get a better understanding of your position regarding the role of intent in the deaths of innocents by constructing a very simple, clean hypothetical. You stubbornly refuse to answer. I can only assume that you see the ridiculous corner you’ve placed yourself in. In which case, I guess the exercise I put forth was, in fact, successful. The only thing missing is you being willing to accept the ramifications of your absurd claims.
Thanks for taking a stab at this. I don;t disagree with what you’ve written. But would you say that another factor might be the ability for the culture to absorb and aculturate the waves of immigrants. And do you think people have a right to devise an immigration policy that might better preserve the culture? Basically, do people have the right to preserve their way of life if they so desire?
I expect they can see that you are deliberately distorting or ignoring what I am saying, and have asked questions that have nothing to do with what I said. You created a “simple, clean” hypothetical that has no relationship to what I am saying, and is a rather obvious loaded question. You carefully do not include the category of “intent” that I attributed to our own actions; which renders it a useless analogy at best.
You are trying to set up some sort of rhetorical trap to divert the discussion away from matters you don’t want to discuss. Which is no doubt also the reason you keep harping on those silly questions.
A tricky question. I think i’d say yes to some extent. The problem is that however long that is depends so highly on other factors and legislation. I think I might have a different reason than you, however - at least in part, since my motivation would be the general keeping of the peace and cultural assimilation on both sides, rather than the protection of one culture per se.
I don’t believe that there are any rights beyond those that the law agrees on, so for me this is a tautological question. It’s a right if the people choose to legislate it as such. I don’t think that it is any more (or less) a natural assumption of ability than any other policy.
I’d say the question after this to ask would be, if we agree to that last part (which, I would wager, you do ;)), what then if anything trumps that right, in other words how far may it be taken or what issues are more important than it; and then to look at the actual suggested methods to see whether they fall within the acceptable range; and finally as to whether the method itself is actually a good one. My personal answer, and here I suspect i’ll join you in predictability, is that this particular method is both trumped by other more important issues (at least, to my eyes, and I would argue within the overall ideas of at least the UK or US, though I couldn’t say for Switzerland), and that if it was acceptable, it’s still a very bad idea that’ll cause greater problems, rather than help to solve them.
Nope. I’m trying to understand your position. I find it a very odd and morally bankrupt position that intent has nothing to do with the deaths of innocents, but that’s what I get from your rantings. So, I seek to gain understanding by saying, in essence, “Wait, you don’t really believe that, do you? If so, as it appears you do, let me make sure, here’s a really simple hypothetical by which I will be able to understand your most basic position.” After that is done, based on what your answers are, they’re could/will be other questions to further limn your position. You can even offer more on your own. But there is a very basic question underlying the issue of deaths of innocents and their causes. We seem to not agree on what I take as some fundamental assumptions. Therefore I craft a question that will begin to increase my understanding of your position in order that the discussion can move forward.
Your steadfast insistence to not answering is bizarre, as you are on a debate board and your answering would clarify to me, an others I’d guess, YOUR OWN POSITION.
Nope. It has perfect relationship. It’s a stripped down hypothetical that looks directly at people who were killed and three levels of intent. so, stop weaseling.
Nope. After you answer the most basic hypothetical, we can then build on that foundation so you can communicate your position with all it’s nuances. But if you cannot or refuse to answer such a simple hypothetical, i can only assume that you realize you’ve been talking out of your ass and the positions you’ve laid forth are indefensible—and you just don’t want to get caught.
Nope again. I’m trying to understand your position concerning intent when people are killed. It’s pretty fucking simple if you stop weaseling. Try it, you’ll see.
The question really couldn’t be an fucking simpler. Man up.
For the record, let it be known that our resident American military hater, Der Trihs, has once again spouted his illogical hate and spread his morally bankrupt world view. Then, when asked to clarify his position with a straight answer to a very simple question, has stubbornly refused to answer it and disappeared.