Page 2 of 7
Re: Islamophobia meets a new Lowe
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 9:59 pm
by saxitoxin
Baron Von PWN wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Meanwhile, in Canada - a third-rate TV show few people have hear about lost an advertiser.
Oh no wait, that was a typo. Sorry.
Meanwhile in Canada, practicing Muslim women are now banned from becoming citizens.
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20 ... ns-111212/Sorry for the CTV link - as of the timestamp of this post, it didn't seem to be getting a fair bit of play on Auntie Beeb, otherwise I would have linked to it there.
not quite. they are required to show their face in order to receive citizenship.
IOW, unless they stop practicing Islam they can't receive citizenship. AKA - "practicing Muslim women are now banned from becoming citizens."
Re: Islamophobia meets a new Lowe
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 10:22 pm
by Baron Von PWN
saxitoxin wrote:Baron Von PWN wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Meanwhile, in Canada - a third-rate TV show few people have hear about lost an advertiser.
Oh no wait, that was a typo. Sorry.
Meanwhile in Canada, practicing Muslim women are now banned from becoming citizens.
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20 ... ns-111212/Sorry for the CTV link - as of the timestamp of this post, it didn't seem to be getting a fair bit of play on Auntie Beeb, otherwise I would have linked to it there.
not quite. they are required to show their face in order to receive citizenship.
IOW, unless they stop practicing Islam they can't receive citizenship. AKA - "practicing Muslim women are now banned from becoming citizens."
not neceseraly. That particular practice (by no means common to all Muslim women) has nothing which bars women from showing their faces to women. So if there were no men present they could say the oath with their faces uncovered.
Re: Islamophobia meets a new Lowe
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 10:29 pm
by saxitoxin
Baron Von PWN wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Baron Von PWN wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Meanwhile, in Canada - a third-rate TV show few people have hear about lost an advertiser.
Oh no wait, that was a typo. Sorry.
Meanwhile in Canada, practicing Muslim women are now banned from becoming citizens.
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20 ... ns-111212/Sorry for the CTV link - as of the timestamp of this post, it didn't seem to be getting a fair bit of play on Auntie Beeb, otherwise I would have linked to it there.
not quite. they are required to show their face in order to receive citizenship.
IOW, unless they stop practicing Islam they can't receive citizenship. AKA - "practicing Muslim women are now banned from becoming citizens."
not neceseraly. That particular practice (by no means common to all Muslim women) has nothing which bars women from showing their faces to women. So if there were no men present they could say the oath with their faces uncovered.
That's an interpretation issued by Minister Kenney, who is not an Imam and has only secular, not religious, authority. Recognizing Kenney as the supreme source for interpretation of Muslim religious practice in Canada is a violation of both the Charter and common sense.
Re: Islamophobia meets a new Lowe
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:27 am
by Baron Von PWN
saxitoxin wrote:That's an interpretation issued by Minister Kenney, who is not an Imam and has only secular, not religious, authority. Recognizing Kenney as the supreme source for interpretation of Muslim religious practice in Canada is a violation of both the Charter and common sense.
It is common knowledge that it is the case that women wearing the niqab or burka are able to show their faces to other women or family members. Kenney was not the one to make that judgement.
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:57 am
by 2dimes
I watched an episode of American Muslim. I thought I was watching Jersey shore because I've never seen that one.
Re: Islamophobia meets a new Lowe
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 11:23 am
by MeDeFe
The article mentioned an "oath of citizenship", do all Canadians swear that oath?
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 11:28 am
by 2dimes
MeDeFe wrote:The article mentioned an "oath of citizenship", do all Canadians swear that oath?
Only the ones not born here.
Re: Islamophobia meets a new Lowe
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 3:42 pm
by Baron Von PWN
MeDeFe wrote:The article mentioned an "oath of citizenship", do all Canadians swear that oath?
It's part of the citizenship ceremony new canadians take part in.
Re: Islamophobia meets a new Lowe
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 4:47 pm
by bradleybadly
I seriously thought this thread was going to be about Rob Lowe making amends with Muslim leaders for saying something disrespectful about Islam during his past.
Re:
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 4:49 pm
by MeDeFe
2dimes wrote:MeDeFe wrote:The article mentioned an "oath of citizenship", do all Canadians swear that oath?
Only the ones not born here.
Baron Von PWN wrote:It's part of the citizenship ceremony new canadians take part in.
So people who are born in Canada are somehow magically better citizens and don't have to swear the same oath as their less fortunate brethren? That's pretty fucked up imo.
Re: Re:
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 5:06 pm
by BigBallinStalin
MeDeFe wrote:2dimes wrote:MeDeFe wrote:The article mentioned an "oath of citizenship", do all Canadians swear that oath?
Only the ones not born here.
Baron Von PWN wrote:It's part of the citizenship ceremony new canadians take part in.
So people who are born in Canada are somehow magically better citizens and don't have to swear the same oath as their less fortunate brethren? That's pretty fucked up imo.
But it makes a lot of sense. Nationalism is the means of fostering self-identity and cooperation with the state. "Natural-born" citizens have lived within the state's sphere of influence for a much longer time, so it's unnecessary for the state to formally reaffirm a sense of cooperation with those who have been informally and formally cooperating for years.
For recent outsiders, it makes sense to formalize this "passage of rights." They haven't been in the self-reinforcing loop of nationalism, so one way of explicitly expressing compliance is through an oath. An oath is a contract, and "only bad people break contracts" is how the logic rolls. "Do you want to be a bad person? Well, align your acts with the oath you took." If there was no oath-taking, then there wouldn't be an explicit means of creating the incentive for people to cooperate.
Re: Re:
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:56 pm
by Symmetry
BigBallinStalin wrote:MeDeFe wrote:2dimes wrote:MeDeFe wrote:The article mentioned an "oath of citizenship", do all Canadians swear that oath?
Only the ones not born here.
Baron Von PWN wrote:It's part of the citizenship ceremony new canadians take part in.
So people who are born in Canada are somehow magically better citizens and don't have to swear the same oath as their less fortunate brethren? That's pretty fucked up imo.
But it makes a lot of sense. Nationalism is the means of fostering self-identity and cooperation with the state. "Natural-born" citizens have lived within the state's sphere of influence for a much longer time, so it's unnecessary for the state to formally reaffirm a sense of cooperation with those who have been informally and formally cooperating for years.
For recent outsiders, it makes sense to formalize this "passage of rights." They haven't been in the self-reinforcing loop of nationalism, so one way of explicitly expressing compliance is through an oath. An oath is a contract, and "only bad people break contracts" is how the logic rolls. "Do you want to be a bad person? Well, align your acts with the oath you took." If there was no oath-taking, then there wouldn't be an explicit means of creating the incentive for people to cooperate.
Interesting- what's your take on the pledge of allegiance in schools in the US?
Re: Re:
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 8:36 pm
by BigBallinStalin
Symmetry wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:MeDeFe wrote:2dimes wrote:MeDeFe wrote:The article mentioned an "oath of citizenship", do all Canadians swear that oath?
Only the ones not born here.
Baron Von PWN wrote:It's part of the citizenship ceremony new canadians take part in.
So people who are born in Canada are somehow magically better citizens and don't have to swear the same oath as their less fortunate brethren? That's pretty fucked up imo.
But it makes a lot of sense. Nationalism is the means of fostering self-identity and cooperation with the state. "Natural-born" citizens have lived within the state's sphere of influence for a much longer time, so it's unnecessary for the state to formally reaffirm a sense of cooperation with those who have been informally and formally cooperating for years.
For recent outsiders, it makes sense to formalize this "passage of rights." They haven't been in the self-reinforcing loop of nationalism, so one way of explicitly expressing compliance is through an oath. An oath is a contract, and "only bad people break contracts" is how the logic rolls. "Do you want to be a bad person? Well, align your acts with the oath you took." If there was no oath-taking, then there wouldn't be an explicit means of creating the incentive for people to cooperate.
Interesting- what's your take on the pledge of allegiance in schools in the US?
The above was only comparing and contrasting the oath itself. Of course, the state has formal means of reinforcing this self-identity with the state; however, this doesn't mean that the institution of nationalism can only be applied externally. It's also blends into the informal institutions like education--even private schools. It becomes self-reinforcing, which can inhibit the individual's ability to think freely.
The pledge of allegiance is a formal means of imposing nationalism, which is voluntarily chosen by private schools, and of course (from what I know) always performed in public schools.
For me, it's problematic because people tend to forget that they have the ability to form their own associations, or can draw stronger communal ties with each other. Nationalism supplants the need of self-governance and self-organization into the hands of the state, i.e. the federal government. I'm significantly less opposed to more local forms of government, i.e. local "states" because the voters' preferences are much more effective in influencing legislation and common law.
How does the oath relate to the pledge of allegiance? The oath serves as a (mediocre) substitute for all those years of kow-towing to a flag.
(Great question, Sym.)
Re: Islamophobia meets a new Lowe
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 8:45 pm
by PLAYER57832
saxitoxin wrote:Lowe's and Wal Mart also both pulled their advertising from Glenn Beck after being threatened with a boycott. Was that also a nefarious conspiracy or "the outcome of grassroots people power?"?
Neither and not comparable.
Glenn Beck is a vocal idiot, inflammatory to folks across the spectrum depending on the day (though more to some groups than others). This show was dumb, but the "problem" was that they were not shown to be the extremists that the right wing group seemed to think all Muslims were.
And Lowes does have a history of bowing to groups such as this right wing group. They do not, however seem to care much about real leftist groups like PETA, etc. (not that PETA deserves attention, but per your attempt to compare..).
Re: Islamophobia meets a new Lowe
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 8:46 pm
by PLAYER57832
BigBallinStalin wrote:Scale of 1 to 10: How much would player rage when she finds out about Public Choice?
LOL... new name for an old game.
The funny thing about people who are in college... you somehow seem to think that everything you are learning now has never existed before. (an illusion often promoted by the same colleges, but anyway...).
Re: Islamophobia meets a new Lowe
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:58 pm
by The Bison King
I'll have to to protest this by continuing to never shop at Lowes.
Re: Islamophobia meets a new Lowe
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:17 pm
by BigBallinStalin
PLAYER57832 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Scale of 1 to 10: How much would player rage when she finds out about Public Choice?
LOL... new name for an old game.
The funny thing about people who are in college... you somehow seem to think that everything you are learning now has never existed before. (an illusion often promoted by the same colleges, but anyway...).
I love how you pull stuff from your anus and upload it here. You might be on to something profitable!
Anyway, I'll mark you down for an 8.
Re: Islamophobia meets a new Lowe
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 11:18 pm
by john9blue
PLAYER57832 wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Lowe's and Wal Mart also both pulled their advertising from Glenn Beck after being threatened with a boycott. Was that also a nefarious conspiracy or "the outcome of grassroots people power?"?
Neither and not comparable.
Glenn Beck is a vocal idiot, inflammatory to folks across the spectrum depending on the day (though more to some groups than others). This show was dumb, but the "problem" was that they were not shown to be the extremists that the right wing group seemed to think all Muslims were.
And Lowes does have a history of bowing to groups such as this right wing group. They do not, however seem to care much about real leftist groups like PETA, etc. (not that PETA deserves attention, but per your attempt to compare..).
so it's only wrong to pull advertising from something that player doesn't disagree with or think is stupid...
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 10:15 am
by 2dimes
Symmetry wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:MeDeFe wrote:2dimes wrote:MeDeFe wrote:The article mentioned an "oath of citizenship", do all Canadians swear that oath?
Only the ones not born here.
Baron Von PWN wrote:It's part of the citizenship ceremony new canadians take part in.
So people who are born in Canada are somehow magically better citizens and don't have to swear the same oath as their less fortunate brethren? That's pretty fucked up imo.
But it makes a lot of sense. Nationalism is the means of fostering self-identity and cooperation with the state. "Natural-born" citizens have lived within the state's sphere of influence for a much longer time, so it's unnecessary for the state to formally reaffirm a sense of cooperation with those who have been informally and formally cooperating for years.
For recent outsiders, it makes sense to formalize this "passage of rights." They haven't been in the self-reinforcing loop of nationalism, so one way of explicitly expressing compliance is through an oath. An oath is a contract, and "only bad people break contracts" is how the logic rolls. "Do you want to be a bad person? Well, align your acts with the oath you took." If there was no oath-taking, then there wouldn't be an explicit means of creating the incentive for people to cooperate.
I'm going to have to opt out of complaining about how people born here are encouraged to love any other country more than this one. I could die in my ninties and still be sitting here typing up until, if I get into that.
Interesting- what's your take on the pledge of allegiance in schools in the US?
Re: Islamophobia meets a new Lowe
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 10:29 am
by PLAYER57832
BigBallinStalin wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Scale of 1 to 10: How much would player rage when she finds out about Public Choice?
LOL... new name for an old game.
The funny thing about people who are in college... you somehow seem to think that everything you are learning now has never existed before. (an illusion often promoted by the same colleges, but anyway...).
I love how you pull stuff from your anus and upload it here. You might be on to something profitable!
Anyway, I'll mark you down for an 8.
Here, smartass, listen to this...
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html? ... egmentID=2 or ignore it and continue as so many others have into the path of humanities' destruction instead of gain.
The problem with "Public Choice" (aside from the fact that its nothing new, despite your pretense) is that it is yet one more excuse or "explanation" for why its OK for those at the top to ignore what common people want. It is a given that a large number of people are stupid... BUT, if the leaders cannot actually lead, if they instead simply feed their own pockets/power, the power and greed of their supporters, then the ultimate result IS either environmental destruction or revolution or both... and if you are honest in your reflection of history, that is exactly what it tells us. All the rest... the political games, the names for various supposedly "different" economic systems are all meaningless labels for systems which all wind up doing the same thing. ,They wind up ALL resulting in concentration the same thing, because economics and politics both are just a reflections of humanity and humanity has not really fundamentally changed.. they ALL move toward concentrating power in a few, when they go beyond their beginnings or small enclaves. (you can have a truly communist and successful village.. you cannot have a truly communistic country, nor can you have a fully capitalistic one... similarly, Monarchies can work, for a time, when you have good rulers, but eventually you get one that is not so good... Democracy is better, but as we see now, still winds up with a few taking almost full control.)
As long as you continue to see, as you do now, listening to scientific evidence protecting the environment as mere "luxuries" that we will do "when we have time"... you will be contributing to the greatest evil possible on Earth.. the destruction of any potential for future generations here on Earth, short of many major disasters. That is, sure, a remnant of humanity will likely persist, but not anything like the lives we now know.
Re: Islamophobia meets a new Lowe
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 10:30 am
by PLAYER57832
john9blue wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Lowe's and Wal Mart also both pulled their advertising from Glenn Beck after being threatened with a boycott. Was that also a nefarious conspiracy or "the outcome of grassroots people power?"?
Neither and not comparable.
Glenn Beck is a vocal idiot, inflammatory to folks across the spectrum depending on the day (though more to some groups than others). This show was dumb, but the "problem" was that they were not shown to be the extremists that the right wing group seemed to think all Muslims were.
And Lowes does have a history of bowing to groups such as this right wing group. They do not, however seem to care much about real leftist groups like PETA, etc. (not that PETA deserves attention, but per your attempt to compare..).
so it's only wrong to pull advertising from something that player doesn't disagree with or think is stupid...
No, lack of support for Glenn Beck is not the opposite of Christian extremist racists. AND.. he is not truly representative of much of anything. He is just an idiot.
And... apparently you missed the part where I said my initial thought was just that this was a business move to not support a stupid show... UNTIL the Lowe's representatives came up with their excuses.
Re:
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 10:35 am
by 2dimes
2dimes wrote:Huh, I botched the quotes. Wierd.
Symmetry wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:MeDeFe wrote:2dimes wrote:MeDeFe wrote:The article mentioned an "oath of citizenship", do all Canadians swear that oath?
Only the ones not born here.
Baron Von PWN wrote:It's part of the citizenship ceremony new canadians take part in.
So people who are born in Canada are somehow magically better citizens and don't have to swear the same oath as their less fortunate brethren? That's pretty fucked up imo.
But it makes a lot of sense. Nationalism is the means of fostering self-identity and cooperation with the state. "Natural-born" citizens have lived within the state's sphere of influence for a much longer time, so it's unnecessary for the state to formally reaffirm a sense of cooperation with those who have been informally and formally cooperating for years.
For recent outsiders, it makes sense to formalize this "passage of rights." They haven't been in the self-reinforcing loop of nationalism, so one way of explicitly expressing compliance is through an oath. An oath is a contract, and "only bad people break contracts" is how the logic rolls. "Do you want to be a bad person? Well, align your acts with the oath you took." If there was no oath-taking, then there wouldn't be an explicit means of creating the incentive for people to cooperate.
Interesting- what's your take on the pledge of allegiance in schools in the US?
I'm going to have to opt out of complaining about how people born here are encouraged to love any other country more than this one. I could die in my ninties and still be sitting here typing up until then, if I get into that.
Re: Re:
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 10:47 am
by PLAYER57832
2dimes wrote: I'm going to have to opt out of complaining about how people born here are encouraged to love any other country more than this one. I could die in my ninties and still be sitting here typing up until then, if I get into that.
Except, its just not true... unless you are among those who think that the US is a sacred entity that cannot be criticized in any way, lest you be guilty of treason.
There is a BIG difference between saying other people have rights, etc, etc, and saying that you are "against" the US. Nationalism, in its extreme leads to wars and deprivation. Some nationalism leads to pride, but too much is as negative as any other idea of being better than other people.
Too much individual pride leads to bullying.
Too much pride in culture or race leads to racism and xenophobia.
Too much nationalism leads to xenophobia and attacks on other countries.
ETC.
Of course, there will always be some who take the other extreme, who take any little criticism as reason why the US should be taken away, but they are the abberations. It is when they are suppressed and NOT allowed to speak, and thus not allowed to be countred, that they gain their power.
AND.. if there is a problem today, it is that. Today people can too often speak, but ONLY to those who agree. The town halls, streets.. even schools all essentially "forced" people to confront those who disagreed with them. The internet isolated and gives people the illusion that they are facing true opposition, when they are really talking to people who just slightly differ from their own views.
And.. for the old example.. look at how many folks consider me a "raving liberal". Yet.. most who put out that label have never even heard of most true liberals. And... they utterly distort what early conservatives actually said (folks like Ronald Reagan).
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 11:09 am
by 2dimes
What part of my country do you live in player?
Re: Islamophobia meets a new Lowe
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 5:19 pm
by BigBallinStalin
PLAYER57832 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Scale of 1 to 10: How much would player rage when she finds out about Public Choice?
LOL... new name for an old game.
The funny thing about people who are in college... you somehow seem to think that everything you are learning now has never existed before. (an illusion often promoted by the same colleges, but anyway...).
I love how you pull stuff from your anus and upload it here. You might be on to something profitable!
Anyway, I'll mark you down for an 8.
Here, smartass, listen to this...
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html? ... egmentID=2 or ignore it and continue as so many others have into the path of humanities' destruction instead of gain.
Stick with Public Choice. Stop going on your tangents to environmentalism for now.
PLAYER57832 wrote:The problem with "Public Choice" (aside from the fact that its nothing new, despite your pretense) is that it is yet one more excuse or "explanation" for why its OK for those at the top to ignore what common people want.
No, it isn't. Please tell me where the founders of public choice say this.
Or, don't, so you can continue uploading from your anus.