A little controversy

TalkISCheap

Pathetic. It is totally pathetic when someone can not (finally) post a mature topic, hoping for some considered debate, when keyboard-happy eejits start a gleefully pointless flame-fest.

To be honest, I don't think that the debate is Islam, but rather tolerance. We see ourselves as having a "free press" and being open and accepting, but are we really? People are afraid of the unknown, it's natural. Islam, 'the middle east', the 'arab world' are the unknown today. We all have a vague idea about what is going on but really know comparitively little. It is very hard to understand a society without living there for a number of years.

On civil liberties etc.: every legal system needs a basic framework, a benchmark of what is acceptable. In ireland, this was naturally the catholic values. Although they have been naturally eroded to an extent, the core values are still there in some shape or form. In the middle east, the same has happened with the muslim belief system. Whatever you belive about the islamic values, you cannot criticise them for living in clerical theocracies, or "oppressing women" because this is the system they have lived in for many years now. All we can do is push for a free press and a proper justice system (whatever that may be, lol) and hope that the muslims themselves debate the issues openly, and decide for themselves how they want to live.

IMO.

And Bazookatone - hear hear.

Bazookatone

TalkISCheap wrote:

Whatever you belive about the islamic values, you cannot criticise them for living in clerical theocracies, or "oppressing women" because this is the system they have lived in for many years now. All we can do is push for a free press and a proper justice system (whatever that may be, lol) and hope that the muslims themselves debate the issues openly, and decide for themselves how they want to live.

And Bazookatone - hear hear.

What we are observing in the Middle East is a natural process of cultural evolution, as societies, beliefs and values mingle and mix, some flourish and some decline. Any attempt to accelerate or stifle that process will fail, sooner or later. Eventually, the countries of the Middle East will find a state of stable equilibreum, just as we have in Europe, and it will last for a while, until external factors change and it is forced to evolve again (as will, indeed, our own society).

Barry Aldwell

Bazookatone wrote:

What we are observing in the Middle East is a natural process of cultural evolution, as societies, beliefs and values mingle and mix, some flourish and some decline. Any attempt to accelerate or stifle that process will fail, sooner or later. Eventually, the countries of the Middle East will find a state of stable equilibreum, just as we have in Europe, and it will last for a while, until external factors change and it is forced to evolve again (as will, indeed, our own society).

Said "natural process" does not take into account the Soviet Union shipping weapons en masse to anyone in the region who wanted them (with the exception of Israel, who were already being supplied with same by the yanks)

Undergod

Who says it's not? There were always weapons in the long evolutionary period Jack talked about, they have to come from somewhere. Cultures tend towards homogenisation, they naturally assimilate and influence each other.

This looks like it's going to turn into an ethical-Prime-Directive-what-right-have-we-free-will-versus-fate debates, so I'll gracefully retire 'til the coast is clear.

StupidLikeAFox

imp

I just plain don't like black people.

}:>

Raphael

Um imp, we're still on in Boston.

TalkISCheap

Cultures tend towards homogenisation, they naturally assimilate and influence each other.

Actually looks like we're heading for the Globalization-vs-Cultural Identity Debate!

crash_000 Am i the only one seeing this as a very broad and completely aimless debate? i mean, this topic is similar to a black V. White discussion without ignoring all the millions and billions of intermittent greys.

and so at the risk of banning, no it is not "completely aimless" - for once smart kids are debationg smart topics.

All I fear is that in their attempt to gain a "cultural identity" the Islamic states feel that they have something to prove to the McD's, Levis and Starbucks homogenised West. All we need to do is to facilitate the discussion, and to dissolve the feeling thet we are "The Enemy".

When fear and ignorance is taken from the radical (or plain misinformed) leaders on both sides, the pressure will be relieved. Bush, Blair et al. and the Islamic Groups such as Islamic Jihad and al-Qaida use the instinctive fear of the unknown to push their agenda. Take away their tool through information, (hence my stressing of a free press) and they lose their following.

Crash

Well actually i should've changed that from "very broad and aimless debate" to "very broad and aimless TOPIC for debate" :P

TalkISCheap

and i should probably stop being so damn pedantic

Undergod

TalkISCheap wrote:

...such as Islamic Jihad and al-Qaida...

I automaticaly mistrust almost everything in the Media I can find an excuse for, but there's a growing belief that al-Qaida are probably a far less widespread and powerful organization as 'they' would have you believe. By placing the label on every Islamic terrorist who isn't of any major group, the West have given all radical cells and fanatic loners a great big scary banner to unite under. There's a SF sort story called Silas Black that illustrates this perfectly, can't exactly remember the author.

In case anyone misunderstood me about my 'Cultures tend towards homogenisation,' comment, I was stating what appears to be the case, I wasn't saying this should be the way. I don't particularly want Islamic cultures (because refering to a single Islamic culture is just plain incorrect) to assimilate the West, or viceversa. Both have a lot to offer, and I'm not even going to bother finishing this post, because you all know moreorless what I'm thinking.

Oisín Collins

Islam is a tricky subject. So many people just have the wrong impression of what it is. It's seen as a banner for terrorists to unite behind and that has severly damaged the reputation of the religion in the Western World. As for the cultural issues imposed on women, it really is unfair of anyone outside of the Islamic faith to judge how those people choose, and yes it often is a matter of choice, to live their lives.

As for the seemingly mindless arguments, cut it out. If you must bicker between yourselves use Private Messages and leave us all the hell out of it.

Just one quick question:
"Just coz you wanna be seen as mister sensible lets debate big meaningful topics."

Since when has being sensible been a bad thing?

LiamD

Nothing wrong with being sensible, but your bruv has been banging on bout spelling mistakes for ages.Everyone else just got over it, but he's still trying to be Mr. sensible grammar man.

If you want to be left out of the arguments
"As for the seemingly mindless arguments, cut it out. If you must bicker between yourselves use Private Messages and leave us all the hell out of it."
then why do you start this up?Seems hypocritical to give out to people for arguing but then post something provocative to get a reaction out of me.

Your bruv is the only one who's been banned for arguing lately, says a lot dont ya think?

Oisín Collins

Yeah, thats a fair point, sorry for the comment. Didn't mean to rise you.

Honestly though? Looking at the backposts I'm amazed more people haven't been banned.

Plunky

Says that Neil had a problem that he was willing to vent. Not a lot else TBH!
All Oisin was doing there, Liam, was suggesting that people take their arguments to a different medium - the fact that you decided to respond negatively and attempt to start an argument says a lot about you, doesn't it?

ONTOPIC again, I don't think that Islam has been fairly represented in any medium - we get the "oohthey'rebad" western opinion from our media, and the "oohthewestisbad" eastern opinion from the internet and satellite channels. There be no unbiased opinion, so I think we just have to try and understand their culture and try not to be bigoted in relation to them, and treat them fairly. Try to integrate our cultures to stop more backlashes from BOTH sides...

LiamD

I was just backing up a mate, much like you're doing now.

Zounds

LiamD wrote:

I was just backing up a mate, much like you're doing now.

wow, astute...















http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=astute .....y'know, just in case

Plunky

Hehehe nice one, Zounds!

Crash

If this doesnt stop right now Oisin, Zounds, Plunky and LiamD will all be getting a 3 day STFU period.

Zounds

crash_000 wrote:

If this doesnt stop right now Oisin, Zounds, Plunky and LiamD will all be getting a 3 day STFU period.

I was merely complimenting LiamD's skills of perception, I don't think that should a bannable offence now, seriously

TalkISCheap

there's a growing belief that al-Qaida are probably a far less widespread and powerful organization as 'they' would have you believe. By placing the label on every Islamic terrorist who isn't of any major group, the West have given all radical cells and fanatic loners a great big scary banner to unite under

There was a documentary on last year about the fact that the original al-Qaida split in the mid-90s and their weapons and expertise were left idle and uncontrolled. Then several fanatics revived a few cells and *presto*

GLOBAL TERROR THREAT

(run for your lives!!!!!!!)

But however blown out of proportion the threat is, it is still the fear, the percieved threat that is the problem. If Ireland were hit by a terrorist attack in 10 mins time, most of us would still be here tomorrow, discusing it on boards. However we would be more fearful and hence willing to support more draconian or unnecessary measures by "them". Al-Qaida (whoever they are )don't need to be 'routed' or 'smashed' or any other tabloid headline, just brought into the realm of donald rumsfelds "known-knowns".

Undergod

TalkISCheap wrote:

just brought into the realm of donald Rumsfelds "known-knowns".

<grin>

Yeah, what you said is more or less my point.

TalkISCheap

i might just edit all my posts on this thread to contain just your al-Qaida quote and that one line :rolleyes:

verbiage...

Bazookatone

What do people think about the whole "Safety vs Civil Liberties" debate that's been pushed to the forefront because of 9/11. One side (succinctly) says that the individuals rights are secondary to the security of the state, the other side (succinctly) says vice versa.

Before you all go "that's an over simplification, there's soooo much you left out there", I know that, I'm short on time and I can't write much more.

If the neo cons in the US had their way, everyones DNA would be on file, everyone would carry identity cards, be held without trial or charge etc.

on the other hand.

Can we really let people set off bombs and hi jack airplanes when we could catch them, using new technology, just because it infringes on peoples right to privacy????


Let the dabate begin..........

Piste

Didn't we do this one in discussion in ctyi? 'Twas fun

It wasn't me!

Yup. And my point from then still stands. I don't care how much trouble it could save, I don't agree to having my privacy invaded 24/7 by the government. It's just not right. There's a reason people don't like to be interrogated by police. Everyone's guilty of something. The fact is, most of us don't deserve to get caught, and as such, the government shouldn't be able to keep constant watch on us all. Hello 1984. :rolleyes:

jono087

ya, but a certain amount of surveillance is surely necessary..... granted too much is obtrusive and invasive but it might still be necessary.....

Bazookatone

jono087 wrote:

ya, but a certain amount of surveillance is surely necessary..... granted too much is obtrusive and invasive but it might still be necessary.....

This is great. A real discussion! Ok, I reckon everyone can agree that we have a right to privacy, but also, that to do their job, the Police need to be able to have the power to (basically) spy on someone without their knowledge.

But where does the line that we should not cross lie?
Should it be possible to hold a person indefinately without charge?
Should refusing to answer a question be taken as an admission of guilt?
Should it be possible to try a person under 18 as an adult if their crime is sufficiently serious?

Let the games begin

LiamD

Bazookatone wrote:

This is great. A real discussion! Ok, I reckon everyone can agree that we have a right to privacy, but also, that to do their job, the Police need to be able to have the power to (basically) spy on someone without their knowledge.

But where does the line that we should not cross lie?
Should it be possible to hold a person indefinately without charge?
Should refusing to answer a question be taken as an admission of guilt?
Should it be possible to try a person under 18 as an adult if their crime is sufficiently serious?

Let the games begin

Should it be possible to hold a person indefinately without charge?
No definitely not but I think they should get a week's holding time for the more serious crimes instead of just a few hours.

Should refusing to answer a question be taken as an admission of guilt?
No way, there are so many reasons why someone might not answer a question, this does not prove guilt at all, on the contrary I think.

Should it be possible to try a person under 18 as an adult if their crime is sufficiently serious?
No, because no matter how grown up teenagers think they are they still cannot be counted as adults and should be tried as minors.

Bazookatone

LiamD wrote:

Should it be possible to try a person under 18 as an adult if their crime is sufficiently serious?
No, because no matter how grown up teenagers think they are they still cannot be counted as adults and should be tried as minors.

I agree with all your answers, but people I've talked to have said "today, teenagers are exposed to sex, drugs and violence far more than they used to be, so they are more de sensitised. They're far more clued in about these things than they were thirty years ago. We shouldn't allow them to get away with brutal crimes by pretending that they are innocent children when they are capable of the same brutality as any adult, sometimes even more."

They have a point. Now we live in a world where children are given far more freedom than ever before. Just look at the OC, or Dawson's Creek. Very casually they portray casual sex, teenage pregnancy, heavy drinking, cheating, like it's a completely normal part of everyday life. I've met teenagers were trying to live a life that could have been ripped out of the OC's first season.


"I don't care that he's got a girlfriend, we're soulmates, so it's not wrong if he cheats on her."
"I'm ready to be a father, I may be fifteen, but I'm really mature."
"I hate my parents, they don't understand me. I'm so emotionally crippled"
Worse, too many parents today

1) have no clue what they're kids are really like
2) are more concerned with their children's approval than than doing what's best for them.

Let's face it, kids today have been allowed to become deluded as to how the real world works, and, in general, they and no-one else takes responsibility for it.

Should we not impose some real consequence for minors who are out of control, like the threat of being tried like an adult.