[quote]
Organized white men are racists.[/quote]
Says who? Blacks, Latinos and their pathetic guilt ridden, identity-less apologist white proxies?
I’m not white, I’m being honest here. What are you fuckers afraid of.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Professor X wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Do I as a white man get to walk into a majority Mexican gym in California and demand a white only hour because of minority status? Just a thought experiment, but that’s the line of reasoning I’m hearing here.
Are you being serious? In America, where whites make up the majority, you think your analogy holds water because you picked one area of the country where whites usually don’t live in majority?
BB made the only decent point as far as how this plays out legally. The rest of you sound like little bigots.
You’re a black man, aren’t you? Here’s a little more food for thought on Islam’s stance towards slavery:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/slavery.htm
Muslims are a minority in the US, let 'em own slaves![/quote]
My race isn’t the issue here. I could care less what is written in the Quran. It is a religion held by a very large population on this planet. There are Ku Klux Klan members who truly think they are doing God’s work by hating other races. Does that label all of Christianity this way?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Professor X wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Do I as a white man get to walk into a majority Mexican gym in California and demand a white only hour because of minority status? Just a thought experiment, but that’s the line of reasoning I’m hearing here.
Are you being serious? In America, where whites make up the majority, you think your analogy holds water because you picked one area of the country where whites usually don’t live in majority?
BB made the only decent point as far as how this plays out legally. The rest of you sound like little bigots.
So what? Whites aren’t the majority in California. They’re not the majority in the world. What does majority have to do with morality, especially the morality of trying to impose a 7th century Arab legal system on everyone else?
If you are going to argue that white males need representation because they are under-represented in this country, please do better than trying to find a certain neighborhood where whites CHOOSE not to live.[/quote]
Actually, I’m just using the liberal line of reasoning here.
But I’m a minority, so I should have the right to walk into a majority area and demand that they conform to my cultural values for a certain period of time each day because I’m a minority.
[quote]Sikkario wrote:
Organized white men are racists.
Says who? Blacks, Latinos and their pathetic guilt ridden, identity-less apologist white proxies?
I’m not white, I’m being honest here. What are you fuckers afraid of.[/quote]
Puerto Ricans.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Professor X wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Do I as a white man get to walk into a majority Mexican gym in California and demand a white only hour because of minority status? Just a thought experiment, but that’s the line of reasoning I’m hearing here.
Are you being serious? In America, where whites make up the majority, you think your analogy holds water because you picked one area of the country where whites usually don’t live in majority?
BB made the only decent point as far as how this plays out legally. The rest of you sound like little bigots.
Because they’re arguing against discrimination? Who da thunk it?!
Please. Because they are arguing with such ferocity because of who is involved.
You can’t be that basic.
We weren’t complaining that Islamic women could use the gym at the same time us evil white christian men were. That would be bigotry. [/quote]
Of course not. You are simply arguing that their religion’s tenants should not be followed in public because it doesn’t mesh with our current society, and thus our society should not change.
Here we go:
[quote] Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, a great scholar and Islamic historian says in his book “Zad al-Ma’ad”, part 1, p160:
“Muhammad had many male and female slaves. He used to buy and sell them, but he purchased more slaves then he sold. He once sold one black slave for two. His purchases of slaves were more than he sold.”
“Muhammad had a number of black slaves. One of them was named ‘Mahran’. Muhammad forced him to do more labor than the average man. Whenever Muhammad went on a trip and he, or his people, got tired of carrying their stuff, he made Mahran carry it. Mahran said “Even if I were already carrying the load of 6 or 7 donkeys while we were on a journey, anyone who felt weak would throw his clothes or his shield or his sword on me so I would carry that, a heavy load”. Tabari and Jawziyya both record this, so Islam accepts this as true.”
[/quote]
Muhammad (al-insan al-kamil) owned black men. So because Muslims are a minority in the US, and minorities have a right not to live by the laws of the land, and because Muslims imitate Mohammed in faith and practice, let them own black men! Muslims own black men in the Sudan, why not here?
I don’t know why man, but I can’t stand white apologists. I can’t stand any people who don’t respect their own group, it means you don’t respect yourself.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Here we go:
Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, a great scholar and Islamic historian says in his book “Zad al-Ma’ad”, part 1, p160:
“Muhammad had many male and female slaves. He used to buy and sell them, but he purchased more slaves then he sold. He once sold one black slave for two. His purchases of slaves were more than he sold.”
“Muhammad had a number of black slaves. One of them was named ‘Mahran’. Muhammad forced him to do more labor than the average man. Whenever Muhammad went on a trip and he, or his people, got tired of carrying their stuff, he made Mahran carry it. Mahran said “Even if I were already carrying the load of 6 or 7 donkeys while we were on a journey, anyone who felt weak would throw his clothes or his shield or his sword on me so I would carry that, a heavy load”. Tabari and Jawziyya both record this, so Islam accepts this as true.”
Muhammad (al-insan al-kamil) owned black men. So because Muslims are a minority in the US, and minorities have a right not to live by the laws of the land, and because Muslims imitate Mohammed in faith and practice, let them own black men! Muslims own black men in the Sudan, why not here?[/quote]
My mistake. I thought you were worth the time debating with.
Oops.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Professor X wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Do I as a white man get to walk into a majority Mexican gym in California and demand a white only hour because of minority status? Just a thought experiment, but that’s the line of reasoning I’m hearing here.
Are you being serious? In America, where whites make up the majority, you think your analogy holds water because you picked one area of the country where whites usually don’t live in majority?
BB made the only decent point as far as how this plays out legally. The rest of you sound like little bigots.
Because they’re arguing against discrimination? Who da thunk it?!
Please. Because they are arguing with such ferocity because of who is involved.
You can’t be that basic.
We weren’t complaining that Islamic women could use the gym at the same time us evil white christian men were. That would be bigotry.
Of course not. You are simply arguing that their religion’s tenants should not be followed in public because it doesn’t mesh with our current society, and thus our society should not change.[/quote]
No, they can follow their religious customs in public, as long as they don’t expect others to accomadate them. And, I could demand that their religious customs and social norms are going to have to accomodate men working out alongside them in a publically funded gym.
[quote]Sikkario wrote:
I don’t know why man, but I can’t stand white apologists. I can’t stand any people who don’t respect their own group, it means you don’t respect yourself.[/quote]
Well, I don’t think of myself as part of a “white group.” No white man ever gave me the golden key to prosperity.
Edit: Besides, I don’t wear white, and the hood would make me feel claustrophobic.
[quote]Sikkario wrote:
Organized white men are racists.
Says who? Blacks, Latinos and their pathetic guilt ridden, identity-less apologist white proxies?
I’m not white, I’m being honest here. What are you fuckers afraid of.[/quote]
White men are generally afraid of their own shadows, for the most part. As it relates to this, though, they’re afraid of the scarlet letter “R” being applied to them. Race-consciousness is unfashionable in upper-middle and upper class white circles, though these generally only congregate with members of their own race.
The lower class whites have no money and therefore no voice other than the ballot box, which is dominated by candidates picked by upper class whites. Also, they’re watched by the ACLU and the SPLC as “hate” groups for organizing as whites.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Professor X wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Do I as a white man get to walk into a majority Mexican gym in California and demand a white only hour because of minority status? Just a thought experiment, but that’s the line of reasoning I’m hearing here.
Are you being serious? In America, where whites make up the majority, you think your analogy holds water because you picked one area of the country where whites usually don’t live in majority?
BB made the only decent point as far as how this plays out legally. The rest of you sound like little bigots.
Because they’re arguing against discrimination? Who da thunk it?!
Please. Because they are arguing with such ferocity because of who is involved.
You can’t be that basic.
We weren’t complaining that Islamic women could use the gym at the same time us evil white christian men were. That would be bigotry.
Of course not. You are simply arguing that their religion’s tenants should not be followed in public because it doesn’t mesh with our current society, and thus our society should not change.
No, they can follow their religious customs in public, as long as they don’t expect others to accomadate them. And, I could demand that their religious customs and social norms are going to have to accomodate men working out alongside them in a publically funded gym.[/quote]
Legally, you are completely right within this context. Morally, I question whether even half of the posters who raised a voice in this thread care about this topic based on “principle” alone.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I’d love to level a charge of hypocrisy, but I think it is just more a case that Lefties haven’t put any thought into the matter.
[/quote]
Level it, because I have put some thought into it. There are nuances involved. First of all, if any group (white, black, lesbian or zoroastrian) just said that they wanted to occupy the gym to exclude others because they are different then I think you would have a case.
However, these are women who, according to their religion, do not like to be scantily clad in front of men.
To return to my example of handicapped people. If they asked for the gym for a couple of hours a week because they have a special need, I could understand that also. They are not excluding because of race, nationality, gender, etc. They are excluding because of a special need, requirement.
Now, you may still have a point, but isn’t there a difference between someone wanting exclusive access to a facility because of a special need as opposed to someone wanting to exclude just because they dont like a certain race, religion, gender, etc, isnt there???
[quote]entheogens wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
I’d love to level a charge of hypocrisy, but I think it is just more a case that Lefties haven’t put any thought into the matter.
Level it, because I have put some thought into it. There are nuances involved. First of all, if any group (white, black, lesbian or zoroastrian) just said that they wanted to occupy the gym to exclude others because they are different then I think you would have a case.
However, these are women who, according to their religion, do not like to be scantily clad in front of men.
To return to my example of handicapped people. If they asked for the gym for a couple of hours a week because they have a special need, I could understand that also. They are not excluding because of race, nationality, gender, etc. They are excluding because of a special need, requirement.
Now, you may still have a point, but isn’t there a difference between someone wanting exclusive access to a facility because of a special need as opposed to someone wanting to exclude just because they dont like a certain race, religion, gender, etc, isnt there???
[/quote]
Good post.
[quote]entheogens wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
I’d love to level a charge of hypocrisy, but I think it is just more a case that Lefties haven’t put any thought into the matter.
Level it, because I have put some thought into it. There are nuances involved. First of all, if any group (white, black, lesbian or zoroastrian) just said that they wanted to occupy the gym to exclude others because they are different then I think you would have a case.
However, these are women who, according to their religion, do not like to be scantily clad in front of men.
To return to my example of handicapped people. If they asked for the gym for a couple of hours a week because they have a special need, I could understand that also. They are not excluding because of race, nationality, gender, etc. They are excluding because of a special need, requirement.
Now, you may still have a point, but isn’t there a difference between someone wanting exclusive access to a facility because of a special need as opposed to someone wanting to exclude just because they dont like a certain race, religion, gender, etc, isnt there???
[/quote]
Hmm, and if they were straight religious men who didn’t feel comfortable with homosexuals working out with them?
In Puerto Rico and Bolivia, whites identify as whites. That is like Spaniards whites, and we are proud to be Criollos (Meaning American people of European descent). We are shrouded in the same mystique and noble regard, that MTV places on african-americans and latinos along with the ultra trendy whites who make the cut by acting black enough in Anglo culture.
I’ve never met a Latino that was anything but proud of being mostly Spanish, in fact many of those of mixed blood choose to identify as white Spanish, rather than mixed race.
In the same way, a girl of mixed parentage in Angelo culture, feels it more noble to identify as black.
I think white anglo-saxons, are a sad confused people, I don’t understand their racial remorse.
I just want consistency. Either fuck all religions and keep them ALL out or make accomodations for ALL.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
My mistake. I thought you were worth the time debating with.
Oops.[/quote]
It’s definitely strange to hear a black man argue for a separate-but-equal policy. I thought we did away with that with Brown v. Board, but it looks like it’s making a comeback.
Anyways, the point lost on you is that the Muslims are attempting to impose Islamic values inch-by-inch on the kuffar. After spending much time studying that retrograde religion, I and many other infidels have decided shari’ah is not what it’s cracked up to be by the Muslims. You’re admitted ignorance of the Qur’an probably means you don’t have the requisite knowledge for a debate on this topic, however.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
You’re a black man, aren’t you? Here’s a little more food for thought on Islam’s stance towards slavery:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/slavery.htm
Muslims are a minority in the US, let 'em own slaves![/quote]
The Ku Klux Klan was a Christian organization by their definition. Does that mean that all Christians are Ku Klux Klan members? The KKK selectively pulled passages out of the Bible to justify their actions.
You can find the poltical gamut among Christians or Islams, Left to Right. Religious texts are often vague enough that everbody can find something in them supporting their cause.
It would be ludicrous to call all Christians KKK members as it would be to insinuate by virtue of that document that all Muslims are potential slave owners.
[quote]Sikkario wrote:
In Puerto Rico and Bolivia, whites identify as whites. That is like Spaniards whites, and we are proud to be Criollos (Meaning American people of European descent). We are shrouded in the same mystique and noble regard, that MTV places on african-americans and latinos along with the ultra trendy whites who make the cut by acting black enough in Anglo culture.
I’ve never met a Latino that was anything but proud of being mostly Spanish, in fact many of those of mixed blood choose to identify as white Spanish, rather than mixed race.
In the same way, a girl of mixed parentage in Angelo culture, feels it more noble to identify as black.
I think white anglo-saxons, are a sad confused people, I don’t understand their racial remorse.[/quote]
You should read “White Guilt” by Shelby Steele.