Australian Politics Forum - Muslim unemployment rates in Australia

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98425

Re: Muslim unemployment rates in Australia
Reply #195 - Mar 4^th, 2013 at 8:20pm

Big Dave wrote on Mar 4^th, 2013 at 6:51pm:

Most Australians get paid about $800 a week and to get your tank filled up is about $50 . People are living week to week and never getting ahead. It's basic subsistence. Do you now understand karnal.

Stop krapping on. Petrol’s the same price today as when I drove a car 5 years ago. Fruit and veg - cheaper thanks to good rains and bumper crops. Milk and bread - supermarket wars; never been cheaper.

Electronic goods - a TV is cheaper in today’s money than a big box was in the 1980s. Personal computers - a fraction of the cost and a trillion times more powerful. Cars - when was the last time you could buy a new sedan for ten grand? 1980?

Rent is up, but home loans are ridiculously low. Wages are high. And, thanks to the high dollar, never in my lifetime have you been able to travel to Europe or Amerika and pay about the same as you do here.

The cost of living hyperbole is complete krap. Living in an Australian city has never been cheaper in real income terms.

Life has never been better. You need to look for the positives, Big Dave. Go to England and see how they have it.

Without a doubt, Australians are taking over as the world’s biggest whingers - at a time when they’ve never had it so good.

Basic subsistance? Having just come back from India, all I can do is have a big chuckle at that one.

Forgive me, Big Dave. You need to get out more.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 50566
At my desk.

Re: Muslim unemployment rates in Australia
Reply #196 - Mar 4^th, 2013 at 9:39pm

Quote:

At least get the story straight. He did not die from the attempt - in fact he flew for quite some time, and landed relatively softly - only hurting his back slightly.

You are confused gandalf. We are talking about a made up story. Just because Abu insists it was a valuable contribution to scientific research does not make it so. I realise that Islam commands you to automatically look favourably upon fellow Muslims, but this is taking it to absurd lengths.

Quote:

Painting muslims as mere liars is apparently not good enough for you - they have to be idiotic liar

But they are. How else would you interpret this? At first I thought it was just stupid to claim this to be a valuable contribution to science, when all he supposedly did was glue feathers to his arms and break his neck. Absurd enough I thought - that is until you came along and tried to back it up with that link, which makes it pretty obvious that the whole thing is a fabrication anyway. That Abu would put this dubious claim top of the list in his "setting the record straight" thread just adds to the lunacy. No wonder Muslims contribute so little of value. It is hard to stand on the shoulders of giants when you are propping up midgets. Are we really to believe that a group of people who put so much effort into taking intellectual credit where it is not deserved would document this for 700 years, then loose all references to it except a poem, which ironically enough makes fun of the guy? It is either another example of Muslims quashing what otherwise could have been a genuine contribution, or taking their attempt to fabricate a glorious history out of thin air to absurd levels.

Quote:

yes, because we'll ignore the 500 years in which basic science flourished under islam

Except of course that that actually contributed remarkably little, despite the otherwise fertile conditions.

Quote:

I was never confused - maths is a formal science

Sure, if you define science as not using the scientific method. You are going to unusual lengths to avoid the issue of Islam's ability to block the development of basic science.

Quote:

Also still waiting for the quote from Abu, or other muslim on this forum stating that drinking camel urine was the pinnacle of scientific achievement.

Lets start with a quote from me.

Quote:

Or shall I put that into the overflowing "FD-being-called-on-his-bullshit-claims" basket - along with the "no one considers maths a science" claim

We are speaking English here gandalf. It helps if you use the common meaning of words, which was obviously my intent with my reference to basic science. I have seen people try to argue that science means any form of knowledge. This does not mean that everyone gets confused because they don't know what we are talking about.

Quote:

In a sense, it's unfair to blame rulers for their failures. If George Bush had succeeded establishing demokracy in the Middle East, he could be the new Woodrow Wilson. If Nixon had achieved "peace with honour" in Nam, he could be seen as Teddy Roosevelt.

But they didn't. Their plans failed. History was against them.

What were you just saying about the opera not being over till the fat lady sings?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Postmodern Trendoid III

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 10277
Gender: male

Re: Muslim unemployment rates in Australia
Reply #197 - Mar 4^th, 2013 at 9:40pm

Karnal wrote on Mar 4^th, 2013 at 4:01pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 4^th, 2013 at 3:42pm:

There's nothing there that I didn't already know. Yet, the point I was trying to make, the one you seem intent to debunk, was that the church did reintroduce the Greek texts. The churches were the places of learning. Over time, their influence and hold on education withered. But in the early days it was them who encouraged learning. The Greek texts were "stolen" or "borrowed", depending on how you want to look at it, by Islam.

Why then, is Christianity not charged with borrowing or stealing the Greeks?

What ties Christianity and Western Europe to ancient Greece any more than Islam and the Middle East?

I doubt Medieval bishops would have identified with Aristotle or Plithy the Elder anymore than they identified with a Jewish mystic The whole notion of the West is a construct.

The first country since Rome to set up a republic was 18th century France. There was no historical momentum in the West towards liberal democracy. We cut and paste - chop and change. We borrow and steal from the "East" and vice-versa.

What makes Angle, Saxon and Teutonic barbarians - those who sacked Rome - anymore "Roman" than those semitic barbarians who took over the city of Byzantium? What makes old Roman territories (and former empires) like Egypt, Persia and Syria any less Roman, or "Western", than Britain or Gaul?

During the Dark Ages, civilization belonged with the Muselman. After the Dark Ages, it got transferred to the West. Who does it belong with now?

There is no clash of civilizations, it's just one empire seizing trade and shipping routes from another.

Despite all that (whatever point you were trying to emphasize), the Church was still a place of learning, and many of the early thinkers were religious.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand or even admit. It's a basic fact if anyone wants to do some research on it.

Now, what was it you're trying to say above? There is no West? There is no clash of civilizations?

Well, there is a West. A narrative has been constructed around it. Just as a narrative of what is Islam and what is Islamic civilization has been constructed.

It's a very post-modern interpretation of history to try and muddy the waters and claim every civilization/culture/tribe/nation/ethnicity just flows into one another and there are no boundaries between them. The very fact that each civilization/culture/tribe/nation/ethnicity, or whatever word you want to use, had a set of values and were willing to argue and fight for them over other values exemplifies that there were boundaries. These boundaries were real enough for there to be major differences and schisms between peoples to produce conflict.

The post-modern interpretation that says it's all just about seizing trade routes exemplifies why we live in a nihilistic age. If you denigrate and destroy the past then you destroy the present. And that's why the modern world is little more than day-to-day nothingness of work and consumption. Militant Islam is a really a fight against modernity. It's trying to reach into the future to stave off the nihilistic effect of the modern West.

For a future to be constructed there has to be a past; a past worth being proud of; a past that is worth living and breathing in the present; it is where you carry on the traditions of the ancestors and build on them into the future. The present then must also reach into the future encompassing the hopes and dreams of the people.

Today this cannot happen because the past is continually being destroyed by post-modern academics, therefore no foundation can be laid for anything to be built on it.

In my view, the future probably lies with Eastern Europe, China, Turkey, and maybe the USA.

Why? Because these are the only countries in the modern world still with balls. Western Europe, I am sad to say, is finished. It has been decimated by post-modern nihilists that have weakened its citizens and turned them into self-loathing fools. In all honesty, such weakness deserves to wither out into nothingness.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98425

Re: Muslim unemployment rates in Australia
Reply #198 - Mar 4^th, 2013 at 11:01pm

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 4^th, 2013 at 9:40pm:

Karnal wrote on Mar 4^th, 2013 at 4:01pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 4^th, 2013 at 3:42pm:

There's nothing there that I didn't already know. Yet, the point I was trying to make, the one you seem intent to debunk, was that the church did reintroduce the Greek texts. The churches were the places of learning. Over time, their influence and hold on education withered. But in the early days it was them who encouraged learning. The Greek texts were "stolen" or "borrowed", depending on how you want to look at it, by Islam.

Why then, is Christianity not charged with borrowing or stealing the Greeks?

What ties Christianity and Western Eulookrope to ancient Greece any more than Islam and the Middle East?

I doubt Medieval bishops would have identified with Aristotle or Plithy the Elder anymore than they identified with a Jewish mystic The whole notion of the West is a construct.

The first country since Rome to set up a republic was 18th century France. There was no historical momentum in the West towards liberal democracy. We cut and paste - chop and change. We borrow and steal from the "East" and vice-versa.

What makes Angle, Saxon and Teutonic barbarians - those who sacked Rome - anymore "Roman" than those semitic barbarians who took over the city of Byzantium? What makes old Roman territories (and former empires) like Egypt, Persia and Syria any less Roman, or "Western", than Britain or Gaul?

During the Dark Ages, civilization belonged with the Muselman. After the Dark Ages, it got transferred to the West. Who does it belong with now?

There is no clash of civilizations, it's just one empire seizing trade and shipping routes from another.

Despite all that (whatever point you were trying to emphasize), the Church was still a place of learning, and many of the early thinkers were religious.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand or even admit. It's a basic fact if anyone wants to do some research on it.

Now, what was it you're trying to say above? There is no West? There is no clash of civilizations?

Well, there is a West. A narrative has been constructed around it. Just as a narrative of what is Islam and what is Islamic civilization has been constructed.

It's a very post-modern interpretation of history to try and muddy the waters and claim every civilization/culture/tribe/nation/ethnicity just flows into one another and there are no boundaries between them. The very fact that each civilization/culture/tribe/nation/ethnicity, or whatever word you want to use, had a set of values and were willing to argue and fight for them over other values exemplifies that there were boundaries. These boundaries were real enough for there to be major differences and schisms between peoples to produce conflict.

Mistie, what were the major differences between the ever-shifting alliances and wars that defined Europe over the past 500 years? They had almost identical values, religion, social/political and class structures, and in most cases, the monarchs were related to each other.

You don’t need differences to have a war, just as you don’t need similarities to trade. You think the Silk Road was postmodern? The spice trade? The slave trade? Cities like Venice and Malacca and Zanzibar and Cordoba?

It doesn’t matter whethert we think the values of past empires and kingdoms were worth fighting for, and in most cases it mattered squat to them too. Without nation-states, soldiers in feudal times faught for whatever army paid most, or whoever made the offer first.

Unemployed returned soldiers presented a real problem in feudal Europe. Thomas Moore proposed hs Utopia to solve this problem - surplus soldiers could get into no end of trouble, and could cause wars themselves. The devil makes work with idle hands, as did gangs of highway robbers, pirates, and any landlord who wanted to increase his holding.

Soldiers don’t fight for values, they fight for a fee. The crusades were not the first mass employment program, and they will not be the last.

If you think wars are about values, you really need to brush up on history. Values are what interests like Hearst and Murdoch preach to sell newspapers and increase the value of their portfolios.

War is solely about access to resources, labour and surplus profit. If this is a postmodern view, I’ll eat my beret.

Back to top

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Muslim unemployment rates in Australia
Reply #199 - Mar 5^th, 2013 at 9:08am

freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2013 at 9:39pm:

I realise that Islam commands you to automatically look favourably upon fellow Muslims

Wow - you can even create bullshit claims that are merely a passing note to another bullshit claim. Do you ever get sick of just blatantly making sh*t up?

freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2013 at 9:39pm:

that is until you came along and tried to back it up with that link, which makes it pretty obvious that the whole thing is a fabrication anyway.

Its not obvious at all. The historical evidence for this meets the bare minimum criteria of what historians would generally consider acceptable - namely a contemporary document. wikipedia lists it as the first heavier-than-air attempt in history that is "backed by a contemporary documentary source." That the inventor Abbas Ibn Firnas existed is not disputed, and other innovations of his - such as the the reading glasses and a planisphere - are known. Its not ridiculous at all to consider that his flying machine might have existed - even without the documented evidence. Much historical "fact" has been accepted with far less.

freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2013 at 9:39pm:

Sure, if you define science as not using the scientific method. You are going to unusual lengths to avoid the issue of Islam's ability to block the development of basic science.

lol - you are hilarious. Really, what is your problem with acknowledging that maths and science are inextricably entwined? You talk about basic science - physics is basically all maths - without maths there would be no physics, and without the mathematical tools derived from the islamic world such as algebra, finding use for irrational numbers, implicit proof by induction - and even arabic numerals, there would be no physics, or virtually any of your "basic sciences" as we know them today. But not that thats the only scientific contribution to science by islam - others have been mentioned before.

Actually, why don't you elaborate on your throw-away statement about "Islam's ability to block the development of basic science". Lets hear it FD.

freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2013 at 9:39pm:

Lets start with a quote from me.

yes lets:

Gandalf:
Quote:

I'm not aware of it ever being mentioned in that context. Seems like you are the only person holding camel urine drinking as the pinnacle of islamic science.

FD replied:
Quote:

Like I said when I first brought it up, some Muslims did. I think it was Abu.

Now, please direct me to where "some muslims" claimed that discovering the benefits of drinking camel urine is the pinnacle of islamic scientific achievement. From my search on this forum, only two threads come up - neither of which have any muslims coming remotely close to saying what you claim they say.

freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2013 at 9:39pm:

We are speaking English here gandalf. It helps if you use the common meaning of words, which was obviously my intent with my reference to basic science

Good idea FD! Lets indeed use the common meaning of English words - say how about "advancement in maths contributes to the advancement of basic science"? Is that clear enough English for you?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 5^th, 2013 at 10:24am by polite_gandalf »

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 98425	Re: Muslim unemployment rates in Australia Reply #200 - Mar 5^th, 2013 at 10:51am Ah, habibis, the urine of the camel is a very health givings. It cures many ills. I have a frien who drink this every day - he never get sick. He sip like tea through a piece of sugar. One hump or two, it is a very Gudly drink.
Back to top	IP Logged

Postmodern Trendoid III

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 10277
Gender: male

Re: Muslim unemployment rates in Australia
Reply #201 - Mar 5^th, 2013 at 12:36pm

Karnal wrote on Mar 4^th, 2013 at 11:01pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 4^th, 2013 at 9:40pm:

Karnal wrote on Mar 4^th, 2013 at 4:01pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 4^th, 2013 at 3:42pm:

There's nothing there that I didn't already know. Yet, the point I was trying to make, the one you seem intent to debunk, was that the church did reintroduce the Greek texts. The churches were the places of learning. Over time, their influence and hold on education withered. But in the early days it was them who encouraged learning. The Greek texts were "stolen" or "borrowed", depending on how you want to look at it, by Islam.

Why then, is Christianity not charged with borrowing or stealing the Greeks?

What ties Christianity and Western Eulookrope to ancient Greece any more than Islam and the Middle East?

I doubt Medieval bishops would have identified with Aristotle or Plithy the Elder anymore than they identified with a Jewish mystic The whole notion of the West is a construct.

The first country since Rome to set up a republic was 18th century France. There was no historical momentum in the West towards liberal democracy. We cut and paste - chop and change. We borrow and steal from the "East" and vice-versa.

What makes Angle, Saxon and Teutonic barbarians - those who sacked Rome - anymore "Roman" than those semitic barbarians who took over the city of Byzantium? What makes old Roman territories (and former empires) like Egypt, Persia and Syria any less Roman, or "Western", than Britain or Gaul?

During the Dark Ages, civilization belonged with the Muselman. After the Dark Ages, it got transferred to the West. Who does it belong with now?

There is no clash of civilizations, it's just one empire seizing trade and shipping routes from another.

Despite all that (whatever point you were trying to emphasize), the Church was still a place of learning, and many of the early thinkers were religious.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand or even admit. It's a basic fact if anyone wants to do some research on it.

Now, what was it you're trying to say above? There is no West? There is no clash of civilizations?

Well, there is a West. A narrative has been constructed around it. Just as a narrative of what is Islam and what is Islamic civilization has been constructed.

It's a very post-modern interpretation of history to try and muddy the waters and claim every civilization/culture/tribe/nation/ethnicity just flows into one another and there are no boundaries between them. The very fact that each civilization/culture/tribe/nation/ethnicity, or whatever word you want to use, had a set of values and were willing to argue and fight for them over other values exemplifies that there were boundaries. These boundaries were real enough for there to be major differences and schisms between peoples to produce conflict.

Mistie, what were the major differences between the ever-shifting alliances and wars that defined Europe over the past 500 years? They had almost identical values, religion, social/political and class structures, and in most cases, the monarchs were related to each other.

You don’t need differences to have a war, just as you don’t need similarities to trade. You think the Silk Road was postmodern? The spice trade? The slave trade? Cities like Venice and Malacca and Zanzibar and Cordoba?

It doesn’t matter whethert we think the values of past empires and kingdoms were worth fighting for, and in most cases it mattered squat to them too. Without nation-states, soldiers in feudal times faught for whatever army paid most, or whoever made the offer first.

Unemployed returned soldiers presented a real problem in feudal Europe. Thomas Moore proposed hs Utopia to solve this problem - surplus soldiers could get into no end of trouble, and could cause wars themselves. The devil makes work with idle hands, as did gangs of highway robbers, pirates, and any landlord who wanted to increase his holding.

Soldiers don’t fight for values, they fight for a fee. The crusades were not the first mass employment program, and they will not be the last.

If you think wars are about values, you really need to brush up on history. Values are what interests like Hearst and Murdoch preach to sell newspapers and increase the value of their portfolios.

War is solely about access to resources, labour and surplus profit. If this is a postmodern view, I’ll eat my beret.

It's a Marxist analysis to reduce everything to economics. Values and/or wars can be fought for multiple reasons. Resources is one, and trade routes is another. Immaterial ideas can even drive wars. Usually, though, it is a mixture of ideas - resources and ideological values.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98425

Re: Muslim unemployment rates in Australia
Reply #202 - Mar 5^th, 2013 at 2:16pm

Well, that's a relief - I'm glad it's not a postmodern analysis anymore.

What ideological values were the Crimean war fought over? The Russo-Japanese war? The Boer war? The Opium war? The War To End All Wars?

It's the wars with values attached that are the most suspicious - "the Cold War","the War on Terror."

Give me a plain old imperial war any day. At least you know where you stand. In fact, I'd rather have a collection of pirates fighting over treasure in the high seas. Much more reasonable.

Get the snake pit of stitched alliances together and you know you're in for strife. Poland'll be in because their king's married to that syphilitic French woman. That'll force Prussia in and put the Silesians, Cossacks and Transylvanians' noses out of joint. England will be happy because the French are involved, and will secretly give arms to Russia, who this time are against the French because of their opposition to the the Poles, which was inevitable given the Polish Queen's second miscarriage, not to mention their proximity to the North Sea ports and the need for whale oil, etc, etc, etc.

Values? Give me one war fought over values and I'll eat my Marxist hat.

Back to top

IP Logged

Postmodern Trendoid III

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 10277
Gender: male

Re: Muslim unemployment rates in Australia
Reply #203 - Mar 5^th, 2013 at 4:06pm

WWII, from the perspective of the Nazis, was fought over more than just resources. Resources were obviously part of the war, as Hitler makes this clear in Mein Kamf when he castigates the Russians for owning such a large piece of land in comparison to their population size. The East was always what he wanted - from his early political days to his dying breath.

But WWII has at least 100 years of ideas fermenting behind it: Romanticism, Nationalism, and racial 'science.' Nazism is grounded in the Romantic philosophers' belief in an "organic" and "blood" relation between Germans. This then mixes with the racial 'science' theories of the day. All up, it was a belief in the superiority of the Germans - hence the term die Herrenrasse - this gave them the belief that they could treat any Untermenschen as they pleased. This is an idea, a value, and not a resource or trade route.

But that is the most extreme example. People have values that lead to conflict all the time. They don't have to spill out into war, they can be discussed in debates, or on forums like this. If there were no opposing values, this forum wouldn't exist.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 50566
At my desk.

Re: Muslim unemployment rates in Australia
Reply #204 - Mar 5^th, 2013 at 6:03pm

Quote:

Mistie, what were the major differences between the ever-shifting alliances and wars that defined Europe over the past 500 years? They had almost identical values, religion, social/political and class structures, and in most cases, the monarchs were related to each other.

I don't think we had identical values to the Nazis, and that was a defining war.

Quote:

It doesn’t matter whethert we think the values of past empires and kingdoms were worth fighting for

Normally they are worth fighting against.

Quote:

War is solely about access to resources, labour and surplus profit. If this is a postmodern view, I’ll eat my beret.

Would you say this about WWII? What about opposing people who want to steal your resources?

Quote:

Wow - you can even create bullshit claims that are merely a passing note to another bullshit claim. Do you ever get sick of just blatantly making sh*t up?

Abu went into some detail about this command.

Quote:

Its not obvious at all. The historical evidence for this meets the bare minimum criteria of what historians would generally consider acceptable - namely a contemporary document. wikipedia lists it as the first heavier-than-air attempt in history that is "backed by a contemporary documentary source." That the inventor Abbas Ibn Firnas existed is not disputed, and other innovations of his - such as the the reading glasses and a planisphere - are known. Its not ridiculous at all to consider that his flying machine might have existed - even without the documented evidence. Much historical "fact" has been accepted with far less.

Can you give an example of a single significant western scientific 'contribution' that is based on such dubious historical evidence? What does it say about these Muslims if they proved that manned flight is possible, and left it at that? Whether it is true or not, it still reflects badly on Islam.

Quote:

lol - you are hilarious. Really, what is your problem with acknowledging that maths and science are inextricably entwined?

I have no problem with that. I just reject your claim that it means they are one and the same, or that this is somehow relevant to my point that Islam stifles basic science. That you felt the need to broaden the definition of science so absurdly in order to disagree with me backs up my point. You just seem to have forgotten what it was.

Quote:

You talk about basic science - physics is basically all maths

You left out the bit about the natural world gandalf. I think that is an important part of physics. Perhaps you haven't thought about physics since high school and can only remember the maths, but every important bit of it can be expressed in plain English without an equation.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98425

Re: Muslim unemployment rates in Australia
Reply #205 - Mar 5^th, 2013 at 8:09pm

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 5^th, 2013 at 4:06pm:

WWII, from the perspective of the Nazis, was fought over more than just resources. Resources were obviously part of the war, as Hitler makes this clear in Mein Kamf when he castigates the Russians for owning such a large piece of land in comparison to their population size. The East was always what he wanted - from his early political days to his dying breath.

But WWII has at least 100 years of ideas fermenting behind it: Romanticism, Nationalism, and racial 'science.' Nazism is grounded in the Romantic philosophers' belief in an "organic" and "blood" relation between Germans. This then mixes with the racial 'science' theories of the day. All up, it was a belief in the superiority of the Germans - hence the term die Herrenrasse - this gave them the belief that they could treat any Untermenschen as they pleased. This is an idea, a value, and not a resource or trade route..

All good points. Nice post - but Liebensraum was all about land and resources as you describe.

The Krauts were miffed because their imperial ambitions under the Kaisers were curtailed and punished. Why couldn’t we have an empire? Bugger the rest of the world, we’ll have a thousand year Reich.

But who am I to judge? Nazism, Bushido, Liberte, Equalie, Fraternite, the End of Class Struggle, Demokracy, Us Against the Terrorists - all values with reference to an ethical standard of one form or another.

But are they civilized? Do they meet the standards of our own uniquely Western Enlightenment? Voltaire, Locke, Rouseau et al?

Never forget that offensive war is when those values have been expunged, when the debate is over and the talking’s done. Invasion is always about surplus capital and resource aquisition. "Pre-emption" is a nice little out.

Back to top

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 22246
A cat with a view

Re: Muslim unemployment rates in Australia
Reply #206 - Mar 5^th, 2013 at 8:54pm

Karnal wrote on Mar 5^th, 2013 at 8:09pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 5^th, 2013 at 4:06pm:

WWII, from the perspective of the Nazis, was fought over more than just resources. Resources were obviously part of the war, as Hitler makes this clear in Mein Kamf when he castigates the Russians for owning such a large piece of land in comparison to their population size. The East was always what he wanted - from his early political days to his dying breath.

But WWII has at least 100 years of ideas fermenting behind it: Romanticism, Nationalism, and racial 'science.' Nazism is grounded in the Romantic philosophers' belief in an "organic" and "blood" relation between Germans. This then mixes with the racial 'science' theories of the day. All up, it was a belief in the superiority of the Germans - hence the term die Herrenrasse - this gave them the belief that they could treat any Untermenschen as they pleased. This is an idea, a value, and not a resource or trade route..

All good points. Nice post - but Liebensraum was all about land and resources as you describe.

The Krauts were miffed because their imperial ambitions under the Kaisers were curtailed and punished. Why couldn’t we have an empire? Bugger the rest of the world, we’ll have a thousand year Reich.

But who am I to judge? Nazism, Bushido, Liberte, Equalie, Fraternite, the End of Class Struggle, Demokracy, Us Against the Terrorists - all values with reference to an ethical standard of one form or another.

But are they civilized? Do they meet the standards of our own uniquely Western Enlightenment? Voltaire, Locke, Rouseau et al?

Never forget that offensive war is when those values have been expunged, when the debate is over and the talking’s done. Invasion is always about surplus capital and resource aquisition. "Pre-emption" is a nice little out.

Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, G.W. Bush.....

In their own eyes, they did no wrong.

No person can act against their own conscience [....without first having destroyed some part of their own conscience ???].

???

Men can 'rationalise away' any conduct or violence against others - as being 'justified'.

I am sure that even a person like Adolf Hitler, believed that he himself, did embrace a high moral 'standard'.

???

So what is a valid moral 'standard' which we should aspire to ?

Isn't the ideal of how we would wish to be treated, the standard, that we should apply in our conduct toward others ?

Matthew 7:12
......whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 5^th, 2013 at 9:05pm by Yadda »

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 98425	Re: Muslim unemployment rates in Australia Reply #207 - Mar 5^th, 2013 at 8:59pm Yes. And love the lord your God as you would love yourself and love all of mankind. I agree.
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 50566
At my desk.

Re: Muslim unemployment rates in Australia
Reply #208 - Mar 5^th, 2013 at 9:11pm

Quote:

All good points. Nice post - but Liebensraum was all about land and resources as you describe.

There was a bit more to Nazism than Lebensraum. In any case, opposing people like Hitler or Muhammed whose ideology incorporates taking what you please through war and violence is more than just economics. What we understand today as economics is actually a rejection of this principle, and is a fundamental shift in thinking that came out of the west and contributed to the advances of the modern world.

Quote:

Bugger the rest of the world, we’ll have a thousand year Reich.

Perhaps Hitler had Muhammed in mind when he said this.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Muslim unemployment rates in Australia
Reply #209 - Mar 5^th, 2013 at 9:34pm

freediver wrote on Mar 5^th, 2013 at 6:03pm:

Abu went into some detail about this command.

Ah yes, we're back to Abu being the unquestioned authority on Islam again. But you'll forgive me if I take yet another unsubstantiated claim from you about what Abu said with a healthy grain of salt given your track record - most recently that Abu, or "some muslims" claimed that drinking camel urine was the pinnacle of islamic scientific achievement. A claim which you presumably have abandoned given you have ignored my request for any quotes.

freediver wrote on Mar 5^th, 2013 at 6:03pm:

What does it say about these Muslims if they proved that manned flight is possible, and left it at that? Whether it is true or not, it still reflects badly on Islam.

I don't disagree with that. But you need to make your mind up which criticism you are going to run with. Are you now accepting the possibility that the invention existed, and that it is silly to state that it was "obviously fabricated"? Such a position is silly, given that on any scholarly criteria its reasonable to think that there's a very good chance it did exist - given the primary evidence. But I have no problem with criticising people (non muslim as well as muslim - why does this have to be a muslim vs non-muslim thing??) - for not building on this achievement and developing aviation far earlier than it was.

freediver wrote on Mar 5^th, 2013 at 6:03pm:

I have no problem with that.

well you clearly do have a problem - since you are not even attempting to question islam's significant contribution to mathematics - rather you attempt to paint this contribution as having nothing to do with the advancement of science. Not that islam's contribution stops at mathematics - as mentioned before, Islam advanced all kinds of fields of science, such as medicine/human anatomy. Again, the first dedicated hospitals were built in the muslim world, and were copied by the Europeans.

freediver wrote on Mar 5^th, 2013 at 6:03pm:

this is somehow relevant to my point that Islam stifles basic science.

That was a point? I just thought it was yet another thoughtless throw-away line of yours. But since you insist on raising this claim to the status of a "point", it might be a good idea for you to actually elaborate on it. Please humour us FD.

freediver wrote on Mar 5^th, 2013 at 6:03pm:

You left out the bit about the natural world gandalf. I think that is an important part of physics. Perhaps you haven't thought about physics since high school and can only remember the maths, but every important bit of it can be expressed in plain English without an equation.

I'm guessing there must be a "point" somewhere in that too, but I can't see it.

FD, if only you were there during Einstein's time, you could have told him that all those pesky equations were actually unnecessary, and that his theory of relativity could have just been worked out simply by using "plain English". Imagine that - all those wasted years on useless mathematical equations Undecided

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged