The University of Oslo bans Islamist extremist group
Posted by Non_mooching_artist 11 years, 2 months ago to Culture
If they can do this, why can anyone here grow some and do the same??
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
You ought to choose a different word.
When you say that a man is "feminine" simply because he backed down from a confrontation, essentially what you're doing is asserting that femininity is frivolous, weak, and passive. Also, you're saying that backing down from a fight is a bad thing, when really it's not.
"James, you ought to discover some day that words have an exact meaning."
~ Francisco to James Taggart, Atlas Shrugged
Captain Sheridan - Babylon 5
Backing down from a fight is a bad thing.
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?… Has it ever occurred to your, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?…The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." - Syme
I had a confrontation the other night with a drunken woman who I was trying to keep from destroying inventory. I was polite; formal. She asked me, "Why you talkin' to me that way?" It later occurred to me that I'd encountered a similar communication gulf with lots of people lately. It increasingly seems to me that the class of people who shop there are devolving into grunting cavemen. And it's my opinion that it's the result of and the purpose of political correctness.
Oh well, I get offended & ticked off too by the words that some people use(in daily life), but I don't let it get me bent out of shape. I'd say with your opening paragraph, clearly, you didn't let my words get you worked up. Thumbs up.
You have seen the love scenes between Dominque and Roarke in The Fountainhead, and between Dagny and pretty much anybody in Atlas Shrugged? 'weak and passive' describes their reaction to the men they want.
Firebrands until they're dominated, then weak and passive. And happy. Probably just like Rand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUBnxqEVK...
But, the males-without-testicles who amuse me are the ones who see me treat a woman as an equal man and step in to protect and defend her to the point of threats of violence.
Completey unaware of the doublethink necessary for them to regard women as "equal" and yet requiring masculine protection from other men.
In particular I find it amusing because it's almost always a verbal battle (I don't hit girls because I don't hit people), and anyone who's known a female verbal combatant knows that women need no protection in that arena. Some of the most horrible comments I've heard have come from incensed women in an argument.
I won't claim to be a typical male specimen, but this particular "instinct" to which you refer is not something I ever recall feeling.
Trying to imagine it from a more primitive, pre-language vantage point, I think I would feel that a male behaving according to cultural norms for a female was primarily scary. Perhaps after a period of observation, and examination of his musculature, I might decide he was weak...
my husband would say-there are no coach purses in the Gulch. lol
O. M. G.
You want to see instinct, go watch two teenagers court.
single celled organisms only have auto. knowledge. teens are responding with learned behaviors and feelings
Our minds are more complex and theirs very simply, but they do learn, the do have personalities and they do think.
Just as a side note, the dumb one that cant leave the fence alone, he goes into my freezer first. It just tastes better when you know it was the one that kept making you chase it.
Hay I have my hot button issues too.
I'm disgusted. And trying to shout from the rooftops, but only making some headway. Have found recently, some surprising kindred minds.
If this war, we need to declare it. If its not we need to drop it. Half way doing something is like not doing it at all.
Post WWI, disillusioned youth, chaos and fear and starvation. It was a way out of that. The poisoned promises. They wanted a way to distinguish themselves from their parents and the mores that defined them. Very interesting, Circuit.
I could be an extremist as well. I am an extremist by the dictionary definition
extremist ex·trem·ist [ik-stree-mist]
1. a person who goes to extremes, especially in political matters.
2. a supporter or advocate of extreme doctrines or practices.
adjective
3. belonging or pertaining to extremists.
http://Dictionary.com Unabridged
|
Collins World English Dictionary
extremist (ɪkˈstriːmɪst)
— n
1. a person who favours or resorts to immoderate, uncompromising, or fanatical methods or behaviour, esp in being politically radical
— adj
2. of, relating to, or characterized by immoderate or excessive actions, opinions, etc
I am very uncompromising on principles that I knew to be true/correct until someone proves otherwise at which point I evaluate and change my knowledge of truth and am very extreme to that knowledge. Any compromise with evil makes you evil. I hope we are all extremists; extremists with the ability to learn and think.
That word should be a positive thing to be, not a negative. Its good for people to have principles and adhere to them, if they do they are extremists.
The correct question to me is what does a person believe in, have faith in or have confidence in being correct? That motivational force is what they should be extreme about, and if its getting 72 virgins by killing the infidel, well that is a belief/faith/confidence that I cannot abide to have around.
You declare war against that belief with the intent to wipe it out, or you do not fight it. A battle half fought is worse than one not fought at all.
They declared war repeatedly for about the last 50 years or so, we never declared it back, we just lean back and take the punches but never really go after them in return.
All are not looking for the 72 virgins in the afterlife. Many just want to live there life in peace. Now I would also add that I think most of the Muslims that I have been around do not fully understand the religion, because the nuts that are after the 72 virgins are more in line with the hard core nature of the Muslim faith.
We need to declare war on the ideology that the more radical extreme of there faith practice. It needs to be official, and have a detailed goal that the war is over when that goal is achieved.
That war can be fought many ways, but must be declared and with a clear goal. Take WWII which had congress declare war and with the clear goal of taking the Germans and Japanese out of the fight. Where is such a declaration of the war of the last 50 years, or the cold war before it. The Iraq and Afgan wars, the Korean war... basically everything we have been in since WWII has had no goal, some have had declaration of war but no terms for success.
How do we expect to fight a battle that has no definition of what we plan to achieve.
Its like sinking all your savings into a new business with no business plan or product, but going out and renting the office building space and retail space and then hiring a few people and telling them find something to do in the empty buildings. That is exactly what are doing now with the undeclared, unconstitutional war we are fighting.
I am a Member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day saints. My church practiced (note pass tense) polygamy for several years. Often on when on site and the questions "Are you Mormon?" and "Don't you practice polygamy in your church?" come up I would joke around about having multiple wives.
Well, one of the kinda scary muslims pulled me aside and started a conversation with "How do you get the women to go for it in the US, I would like more wives but how do you do it?"
Well that resulted in a rather uncomfortable conversation about how I was joking around and do not really have multiple wives. He was looking for someone from the Fundamentalist LDS church (FLDS) not the LDS church.. bla bla. I never joked about it again with people.
Facts:
1. Ayn Rand is the "why" underlying our acquaintance (SHE, is the source of the integration of philosophy, or, if you prefer, the source of the integrated philosophy around which we gather here to openly debate the state of the union).
2. LetsShrug and khalling are the most active contributors to this forum.
3. None of the aforementioned women utilize feminism (primarily, or even secondarily) to advance their causes. They use reason and integrity to argue their points in spite of the potential ease of degrading themselves by wielding PC anti-sexism as a means to their ends.
The repugnant nature of Islamic fundamentalism is hardly even tertiarily sexist. That it is collectivist and totalitarian are the reasons it is our enemy. So too, is Communism (responsible for taking the lives of over 100,000,000 individuals over the last century) our enemy. Conceding to the PC anti-anti-Communist or anti-anti-Islam interpretation of history is unforgivable to anyone afforded the current, partially stifled, rights of a US citizen.
"Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something.
"Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides?" - Robert A. Heinlein
Once upon a time, within my lifetime, a 'certain standard' of conduct demanded that one not date outside of one's own race. In spite of the media propaganda, such racism was *not* reserved to the province of a small, ignored minority; if it was, the civil rights movement would never have been necessary.
Should we stick to that standard of conduct?
"A woman's place is in the home"
"It's a man's moral responsibility to provide for his family"
These were 'certain standards' at one time. Which ones should we impose on the population, and which ones should we "allow" them to adopt or dismiss?
Someone once said that it's the speech we hate that most needs protection. I maintain that speech, in the form of with whom we choose to do business, needs such protection.
""Are we to understand that if the public deems it necessary to curtail your profits, you do not recognise its right to do so?"
"Why, yes, I do. The public may curtail my profits any time it wishes - by refusing to buy my product."" - Henry Rearden, "Atlas Shrugged"
If I choose business practices with which you disagree, you are free not to do business with me. If enough disagree, I may be forced to change my practices or go out of business.
Once upon a time I designed a GUI for a 3D terrain manipulation program. During a meeting, a colleague gave me a copy of the finished product. As I looked the box over, I saw on the back where a percentage of the sale was going to the Nature Conservancy.
I joked, "it's a good thing I didn't have to pay for this; I wouldn't have bought it knowing they were donating to the Nature Conservancy".
Outraged, another colleague said, "They can spend their money however they like! You can't tell them how to spend their money!"
I calmly pointed out to him that they chose to advertise their support of the Nature Conservancy. They almost certainly did so in hopes of increasing their revenues. In which case, they have no gripe coming if that same blurb *costs* them revenues by people who disagree with their support.
Good questions.
Who should decide?
Here I am speaking of our similar public institutions, like the Oslo University (a public university). How a sole proprietor wishes to hobble their own business by discrimination is not my concern. I am asking of things which have been decided by our government and enshrined in our constitution... how public institutions, laws and conduct relative to equality are regulated.
My concern was primarily for the discrimination against those who discriminate. The standard of conduct in question is one of tolerance. Of course, this example primarily regarding sexist practices of a religion is in Oslo (Norway has a state religion) and our Constitution is not binding, but how it relates to us should be examined.
Since our public culture, our political structure requires tolerance of other religions and beliefs (First Amendment: ... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...) should we tolerate religious zealotry that is discriminatory in nature (sexist, etc.) and also discriminates against other faiths? This seems to be contradictory, yet it must occur to guarantee religious belief protection is not used to undermine religious belief and political principle… This seems a basic tenet of our culture our governance and jurisprudence. Should we tolerate, as a society, other belief systems to be introduced which undermine existing norms and standards? Should we allow people to openly undermine women’s equality? to treat women in our midst as second class citizens?
It is a case of questioning the wisdom of tolerating the intolerant or enforcing tolerance on them while partaking of public institutions… this is the conundrum. Do we not have community standards we now enforce? We don’t allow people to abrogate the rights of others. Women have equal rights. We can’t incite a riot... indecent exposure… sexual harassment… every ism under the sun... etc. Are they all without justification? Some must have legitimacy. What protections of equal treatment are necessary for public tranquility?
Respectfully,
O.A.
I recommend you read The Sura which describes the life of Mohammed. Once you know and understand him, you'll know what muslims are all about, worldwide.
I agree completely with banning extremist groups from universities. They're free to do their sexist stuff somewhere else.
More important, though, is that there be other organizations offering a non-extremist perspective.
Who should do the banning, in the case of private universities? The university board of trustees, or the local, State or federal government?