Katboy's Comments (13)

“He wasn't a politician. You mentioned one in your post.”

“Also, the idea that non-Muslim women would be forced to wear a 'burkini' in the UK is absolute right wing fantasy.

Distrust of all religion aside, the idea that 'the Caliphate' is coming to Europe is beyond ridiculous. Barring divine intervention, it is simply not going to happen.

I'd put the idea of a 'muslim takeover of the west' in the same league as:
"Should the West choose to remain reactionary in how it deals with Muslim extremism -- real or perceived -- then it unwisely relinquishes its fate to the hands of terrorists who know that it would only then take a few more attacks to sink Western societies into self-defeating frenzy. Make no mistake about it, merely inflicting explosions that tear down towers of steel and glass is not terrorism's ultimate goal or greatest threat, being a catalyst for Western self-implosion is."

Pure fantasy.”

“JFTR - Pim Fortuyn was murdered by a nutty animal rights activist, not a nutty religous fanatic (though it may be reasonable to put all fanatics in the same category).”

“Not sure if this should be classed as a mistake or a strawman-by-proxy, but Hungarian people are not Slavs!

See also: European history in the early twentieth century, WWI, etc.

I'd expect a dressing down if I referred to Iranian people Arabs, so please be more culturally aware.”

“{typo]
"Tolerance does NOT mean bending over backwards to accommodate the whims and desires of any religion"”

“[cont'd]
Religious edifices are precisely the opposite of practicing religion privately.
Religious buildings are designed (again, especially by monotheists) to dominate their physical environment and, by extension, influence the minds and internal environments of people around them. That’s what they’re for, by definition.
Whatever one’s conception of the ultimate power in the universe, it seems safe to assume that it need not be pandered to with enormous edifices. It’s unlikely to be impressed, if it made the universe. Giant religious building are built to impinge upon – to impress, to awe, to strike fear into - the minds of humans. I find it hard to believe that anyone would deny this.

As for "personal freedoms ... the modern free world [was] founded upon”, that, to me, would be *the separation of church and state*. That’s what dragged us out of the dark ages. The freedom to practice one’s personal religion without persecution is a side effect of this huge advance.

That is the definition of religious tolerance. Tolerance does NOT mean not bending over backwards to accommodate the whims and desires of any religion, it means allowing them to practice without fear of persecution, despite how offensive their *views* may be to another individual or group.

The point where tolerance may be rightly abandoned is when views become actions, when a group attempts to make its arbitrary (and often intolerant) beliefs into law, or force its point of view upon others.

Straw men and disingenuous arguments do not help your”

“"so would Stalin."

What an excellent, well-thought out response. Was Godwin's law expanded to cover this slight variation on the old argument-ender?
Yes, perhaps Stalin would agree with this, as would millions upon millions of other people who were not soaked in the blood of others. Heck, I love a cup of coffee in the morning, and Stalin probably did as well. How meaningful.

The fact that you equate forced conversion to a dominant religion with a perfectly reasonable desire not to be impinged upon by other people's religious edifices (NOT practices) speaks volumes about your ideas of equality and freedom.

Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion.

The fact that I would prefer not to see any new religious buildings cluttering up my physical environment is not even tangentially related to "banning them from practicing their religions in the privacy and sanctity of their houses of worship". The fact that you try to construct this straw man is intellectually dishonest.”

“Organised religion is not a tool, it is an instrument for turning people into tools.

Spirituality is personal. Religion is received from an outside source, and shares its root with 'ligature', meaning to bind - whether it's binding people together or binding an individual to restrict movement is down to your interpretation, but received, organised, dogmatic religion restricts people.
Some think this kind of restriction is a good and noble thing. Others, like myself, think that religion lessens people,.

A hammer can be used to build or to kill, but the act of wielding a hammer is unlikely to affect a person's notion of what should be built or who should be killed.

Religion does do this, on a massive scale. Which is not to say that religion automatically turns people into killers, but all religions (especially the monotheistic ones) have very clear delineation of the worthy from the unworthy. I don't need to mention what tends to happen to the unworthy, the cycle tends to be repeated whether it's a christian, muslim or jew making that judgement.

Organised religion is violent, almost by definition, in that it forcibly binds people together by claiming influence over and knowledge of the greatest human mysteries. The fact that this force is almost invariably directed at young, developing minds who don't have defences against this kind of manipulation moves it into the realm of abuse, IMHO.

I'd ban the building of any new, overtly religious buildings.”

“The MMR vaccine is public domain - ANY company can make a generic version. Your fantasies about 'drug company profits' are unfounded.

But reading your posts above, you seem to have the incredibly ignorant idea that vaccines 'don't work', that it's all a scam.

Apparently, the smallpox vaccines were given for no good reason (eradicating the disease from the planet was just a coincidence, I guess).

It must be nice to have intuitive knowledge that trumps scientific fact. Thank you Professor Tinfoil!”

“I assume you named yourself after the eye that got plucked out, rather than the one that still sees...

In simple terms: automotive transport is utterly necessary for the US (and every other industrialised nation) to function. Guns are not. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that there are many modern nations with virtually no gun ownership that work very well indeed - better than the US in most cases, but none without automotive transport.

Do you see how that works?
With no transport, no food or economy. Without guns ... thousands of fewer deaths per year and a downturn in the gun-selling economy.

Which one is preferable?

Also, if you're so enamoured with personal freedom that you'll accept tens of thousands of dead citizens every year in order to safeguard basic liberties, I assume you're in favour of legalising all drugs?”

“'homicides with firearms are up 300 percent"

What, from 3 deaths to 9? Please learn just a little something before you spout statistics you barely understand (let alone 'facts' that sound disingenuous as the ones above)

Australia was comprehensively disarmed back in the early Nineties. After a few rage massacres that were performed with semi-auto assault rifles, if memory serves. It was the nightmare disarmament scenario that the gun-strokers in the US babble about, and guess what, Australian liberties haven't shrunk any faster than the rest of the industrialised world (which is to say they ARE being curtailed, same as US and UK, but that the lack of guns makes no difference).

It's hilarious that gun fans seriously consider their ownership of firearms to be an obstacle to future government oppression. Every adult male in Iraq owns (or owned) an AK at the very least. Didn't help much against Saddam, didn't help much against the US.

If there ever comes a day when the US govt decides to use deadly force against 'insurgent' Americans, your fight-back fantasies will be over very quickly indeed, and you'll get your wish of holding a gun in your cold, dead hands.

Australia is a fairly violent country, but since there are very few guns available, there is an extremely low fire-arm homicide rate. Very simple to understand.”

“That would be NEVER!
The Irish Troubles have never, ever featured suicide bombers (except for the occasional idiot who blew themselves up by accident)..
In fact, most bombings in the last 25 years or so had warnings issued, so as to reduce the risk of civilian casualties.

Your other points about the peace process in NI show a huge lack of understanding.

Clinton was not particularly important to the process - he's rarely (if ever) mentioned in Eire or the UK.

The IRA being 'the' political leadership in NI? That's just ridiculous. The Catholics are still the minority in NI (though not for much longer).

You might be confusing Sinn Fein with the IRA (the BBC makes this mistake every single time) but. again, Bubba had little to do with Sinn Fein joining the peace process.

Please don't reduce other people's complex and painful histories into misunderstood soundbites in order to make a pedestrian political point.”

“That's false equivalence. Like claiming that atheists or supporters of evolution are just 'followers of another religion'. It only seems that way to people who are unable to think critically.

The difference here is that the enemies of christianity and islam are mostly imagined, notional or fantastical.

The enemies of America (and people at large) identified by Nader are real and exert a demonstrable influence on all our lives.

Can you see that, objectively, Satan is unlikely to have a negative impact on the planet in the next 50 years, whereas, say, industrial polluters almost certainly will?”