|
Post by general313 on Apr 10, 2017 19:05:46 GMT
It seems that since 9/11, on average about one American per year is killed by a foreign terrorist (including some Muslims presumably). Meanwhile "anal cancer" kills more than 50,000 Americans each year. So I'm going to go with "anal cancer".
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Apr 10, 2017 19:09:12 GMT
If Trump and his supporters had any sense, maybe they should shift their focus from passing laws to restrict visas from Muslim countries to more spending on cancer research.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2017 19:31:00 GMT
People don't really 'make fun' of Islam, because it is too sensitive. I see people making fun of Islam all the time. That's what all those cartoons are about, after all. People make fun of Islam and then there's either a massive protest, or a Muslim goes to the offices of the place that was making fun of them and kills several people (Charlie Hebdo). It's the same arguments that people use to criticise Christianity, except Islam is Christianity on steroids. It's Christianity from several millennia ago. That's easy. Islam is something which multiplies and divides uncontrollably, turning the body (society) sick and has to be ameliorated by something unpleasant (blasphemy/chemotherapy). A virus is something that is contagious and the greater the degree of affliction, the more it causes the individual to behave in unhealthy ways (i.e. religious extremism and terrorism). It vitiates the affected individual's ability to think and behave rationally, much in the way that a virus causes bodily dysfunction. Both a virus and religion can be treated with an inoculation. In the form of religion, this inoculation may be a mild form of religion, such as Church of England, which basically acts like a vaccine. Once you have the right antibodies (education and rational thinking) you may be immune to the virus, although unfortunately in the case of religion you still have to suffer because of the symptoms of others. Another good analogy that I read recently was to like religion to Japanese Knotweed, which is an invasive weed that is difficult to control. This is in reference to the high birthrate of Islam. The problem with this is that Islam is obviously relevant enough that Dara felt that he was obliged to justify why he wasn't doing jokes about Islam. That proves that there was demand for jokes about Islam, unlike jokes concerning Portuguese politics in the US. Islam is arguably more politically and culturally relevant than Christian to the types of audience who would watch that comedian's stand up routines, with mockery of Christianity having become old hat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2017 19:39:42 GMT
@miccee Their conservative beliefs are not your concern. I've never had to follow a Muslim practice or belief. You are allowed to make fun of any religion you want. The thing about humor is in order for it to be funny, people need to at least pretend to understand what they are laughing at. Most comedians, something the OP is clearly not anyway, don;t know Islam and so there's no reason to waste material on it. If you are talking about vandalism and trespassing in connection with that mockery, then this may be a different topic as a person who does this deserves to be in jail. The conservative beliefs of Islam are my concern, as they are becoming a more powerful voting bloc on referendum issues. If Muslims team up with conservative Christians, then this could be deleterious. I know that people in the US don't understand much about religions and cultures other than US Christianity; but that certainly is not the case in the UK and Europe. And I agree about vandalism and trespassing. www.independent.co.uk/voices/snoopers-charter-theresa-may-online-privacy-investigatory-powers-act-a7426461.htmlAnd the US is certainly not excluded. I don't know whether the NSA spying has anything to do with Muslims, but I have read in the news recently that all travellers to the US may have to give up their passwords. And the fact that Muslims are also under surveillance is not 'moot'. The privacy and liberties of other groups are being encroached upon due to the perceived threat of terrorism from Muslims. Not irrational. The government has a legitimate reason to be concerned about ISIS and the security of their citizens, in light of terrorist attacks. An individual such as you or I might not be concerned personally about this threat, because we know that the chances of being affected are very remote. And I certainly think that the level of threat does not warrant the encroachment upon my privacy and my rights. But governments tend to implement surveillance whenever there is any excuse to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Jillian on Apr 10, 2017 19:44:28 GMT
Which is worse, bigotry, racism or stupidity? Stupidity (as in the op´s original question) because it beckons racism, bigotry and hatred.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 10, 2017 21:36:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Apr 11, 2017 5:03:56 GMT
In all seriousness, Islam will most likely eventually just die off as Christianity seems to be doing. I'm not sure there's really been much strides made towards curing anal cancer.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 11, 2017 11:20:06 GMT
In all seriousness, Islam will most likely eventually just die off as Christianity seems to be doing. I'm not sure there's really been much strides made towards curing anal cancer. Christianity is not dying off. Assuming Armageddon never happens, your grandkids will be watching people go to church routinely.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Apr 11, 2017 17:03:16 GMT
People make fun of Islam and then there's either a massive protest, or a Muslim goes to the offices of the place that was making fun of them and kills several people (Charlie Hebdo). That is the exception, not the rule. Charlie Hebdo, for example, has been attacked twice (in 2011 and 2015, though the 2011 attack targeted the building itself, not the people), and after each attack they received support from Muslims. But what about all the times they were not attacked? Charlie Hebdo was founded in 1970, though ceased publication in 1981. They resumed in 1992, and have been going ever since. So that's 36 years, 34 of which were entirely devoid of attack. So you can hardly argue that whenever someone makes fun of Islam, there's an attack or protest. Because the opposite is the case: only rarely does mockery lead to protests of any kind. It requires an additional catalyst, and in the case of this particular attack, it was the current conflicts in the Middle East. One of the attackers, Cherif Kouachi, gave an interview by phone before he died, in which he claimed to have been sent by Yemen's Al Qaeda. As if Al Qaeda would bother with some minor satirical publication in France, with no distribution outside of France. First they decided what country to strike, France - then they decided on the specific target, Charlie Hebdo. It had nothing to do with Charlie Hebdo itself, because they were simply doing what they had already been doing for decades. But Charlie Hebdo was an obvious French target once they decided to strike France. Cherif Kouachi also referenced France's responsibility in killing women and children in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. Like I said, there's a reason this attack happened when it did, and not 15-20 years earlier. There was no Christianity "several millennia" ago, so nice hyperbole there. Furthermore, it is Christianity from 300 years ago - max. And that's only in the extreme cases. The more liberal Muslim countries are like the West some 30-40 years back. And no, it's not the same arguments people use. Sure, the same arguments are used by a minority of extremely anti-theist cooks, and whenever I come across such arguments, I refute them. Same as I do when they are used against Islam. Most of the arguments against Christianity, however, are of an entirely different calibre. I cannot respect that view. I cannot even take it seriously. It is The Eternal Jew all over again. High birthrate is associated with wealth and education. Like the song says, "the rich get rich and the poor get children". And if you look at Muslim immigrants in Europe, sure first generation immigrants have lots of children, but second generation immigrants have fewer children, and third generation immigrants have about the same number of children as the locals. He wouldn't have even mentioned it if the question hadn't been put to him. A demand for jokes about Islam, sure - but without material, how is one to build anything? And don't pretend that it's knowledgeable people who demand these jokes - these are people who know just as little about Islam as the next guy, but they want someone to do a charicature, based on stereotypes. Face it, they don't want jokes about Islam so much as jokes about "muzzies". People who actually ask for such jokes have an unhealthy obsession with Islam - a stand-up comedian deals with everyday gripes, not your personal niche interests. Unless he's at a gathering of such people. And try this one on for size: If someone demanded Dara do more Jew jokes, how should Dara respond? What sort of jokes should Dara do? "Aren't you just sick of how Jews run everything?" Can you feel the bad taste in the back of your mouth?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Apr 11, 2017 17:04:50 GMT
In all seriousness, Islam will most likely eventually just die off as Christianity seems to be doing. I'm not sure there's really been much strides made towards curing anal cancer. Christianity is not dying off. Assuming Armageddon never happens, your grandkids will be watching people go to church routinely. "Assuming Armageddon never happens"
It won't, certainly not the one you're thinking of at least. I'm slightly more afraid of a zombie armagedon than a Biblical one.
"your grandkids will be watching people go to church routinely."
They'll be watching very small groups of fanatics going trying to hold on to what's left of Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Apr 11, 2017 17:14:35 GMT
In all seriousness, Islam will most likely eventually just die off as Christianity seems to be doing. I'm not sure there's really been much strides made towards curing anal cancer. Christianity is not dying off. Assuming Armageddon never happens, your grandkids will be watching people go to church routinely. It is certainly dying off around here. Churches are mostly empty, as people use them mainly for familiar rituals like weddings, baptisms and funerals. Hardly anyone in Scandinavia goes to church regularly. These are the only events that will pack churches, and even then the level of participation is low. Catholics and Orthodox Christians are much better at keeping their flock, and it is my belief that this is because they have more rigid rules and rituals, and more of them. Protestant churches have become too open, too inclusive, for their own good.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 11, 2017 17:38:22 GMT
To be clear, Christianity's numbers should go down since not many Christians live up to its pretty meager standards and it was never supposed to be gigantic.
Further, if certain denominations are unable to explain their teachings or defend perverts, then it is perfectly fine that their numbers diminish.
Plus some Christians are facing banishment like JW's in Russia.
However, that doesn't mean Christianity won't be around in anything but a clearly recognizable form a hundred years from now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2017 18:21:57 GMT
People make fun of Islam and then there's either a massive protest, or a Muslim goes to the offices of the place that was making fun of them and kills several people (Charlie Hebdo). That is the exception, not the rule. Charlie Hebdo, for example, has been attacked twice (in 2011 and 2015, though the 2011 attack targeted the building itself, not the people), and after each attack they received support from Muslims. But what about all the times they were not attacked? Charlie Hebdo was founded in 1970, though ceased publication in 1981. They resumed in 1992, and have been going ever since. So that's 36 years, 34 of which were entirely devoid of attack. So you can hardly argue that whenever someone makes fun of Islam, there's an attack or protest. Because the opposite is the case: only rarely does mockery lead to protests of any kind. It requires an additional catalyst, and in the case of this particular attack, it was the current conflicts in the Middle East. One of the attackers, Cherif Kouachi, gave an interview by phone before he died, in which he claimed to have been sent by Yemen's Al Qaeda. As if Al Qaeda would bother with some minor satirical publication in France, with no distribution outside of France. First they decided what country to strike, France - then they decided on the specific target, Charlie Hebdo. It had nothing to do with Charlie Hebdo itself, because they were simply doing what they had already been doing for decades. But Charlie Hebdo was an obvious French target once they decided to strike France. Cherif Kouachi also referenced France's responsibility in killing women and children in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. Like I said, there's a reason this attack happened when it did, and not 15-20 years earlier. Believe me, Muslims complaining and protesting about blasphemy is not the exception, even if attacks are rare events in the west. And violent recourse against blasphemers is certainly far from unusual in Muslim majority nations. I meant centuries and for some reason was confused. And someone who is an ex-Muslim (and therefore is very knowledgeable about the religion) and who campaigns against religious conservatism/extremism (Ali Hirsi Ayaan) is also labelled as an 'extremist' and a 'racist' (even if they are of the same race) by mainstream media in a manner that ex-Christians are not. That is the mainstream view on this board concerning Christianity, and you can still bring yourself to post here because it is the white majority whose beliefs are being derided. And I say that Christianity is also a virus and a cancer, but currently a more benign and treatable form of illness. And most of the so-called 'new atheists' would share my view that Islam is an insidious cancer or virus. Birthrates amongst religious people are always higher than amongst atheists, because atheists understand that there is no 'need' to have children other than their own desire. And the more seriously people take their religion, the more children they tend to have. Prosperity is also inversely correlated with religiosity. The fact that he was asked about jokes concerning Islam rather than jokes concerning the Greenland Inuit yields that there is understood to be a certain level of demand for jokes concerning Islam. He could respond to that demand by making mirth of the fact that many people invest so much of their lives; of their hopes and personal identity in something which is a comforting and self-aggrandizing delusion. The same as he might do in the case of Christianity, but with Islam, that tends to be taken to a more extreme level due to the requirements of the religion and the discretionary choices that some Muslims make (with regards to clothing, etc). That doesn't necessarily require an expert knowledge on the part of the comedian or the audience. If you can make jokes of those nature at the expense of Christians, then you can do so at the expense of Muslims whilst still remaining an intelligent and insightful liberal comedian. And people are now more likely to have an "everyday gripe" with Islam than with Christianity in this country. If Muslims can show that they are capable of being able to withstand humour at their expense and at the expense of their religion without a protest or trying to have the jokes criminalised, this could go a long way towards helping them to integrate into western societies. Bill Maher is hardly a Nazi propagandist (and buys into the simile of Islam being akin to a cancer or a virus) and maintains fairly impeccable liberal credentials whilst remaining steadfast in his refusal to revere Islam. And if Dara can do amusing jokes about the Jews, then he should go for it although it is a less relevant topic. And I would say the same thing concerning jokes about homosexuals or Scottish people (categories which include me). But the example that you posted about is Nazi propaganda, and not humour.
|
|