Je suis Charlie

Censura Posts : 4902 Join date : 2012-01-01

Parallax wrote:

nordmann wrote:

Parallax wrote:: I doubt that I'll ever get seriously embarrassed though because I don't live in an ivory tower...those people have much further to fall and would accordingly suffer the greater embarrassment.

I'm sorry Parallax, but I haven't a clue what you mean by any of this. Who are "these people" who wouldn't face embarrassment because you apparently don't live in a tower of ivory? Is it "the muslims" again?

The "people who carried out the 911 attack" have no right to anything, I would say. They are dead.

That statement is what I took as mildly sarcastic and what led to everything else. People who live in ivory towers talk like that and by so saying I've probably outlived my welcome.
Further, I think your group is drawn from academics and left leaning posters and I would not fit very well because I'm somewhat right of center. So let me say goodbye and thank you all for your hospitality.

Parallax

Parallax,

I wouldn't interfere in this thread because I write under my own name. The same in my French forum
http://geopolitique.passion-histoire.net/
We had there already "exalted ones"...and such an exalted one can live around the street corner and have access to the internet and as we are public fora...
I did some research for "roof isolation" and now whenever I start my internet even the BBC World page there is recently advertisement (in Dutch!) above the page for roof isolation.
I had the same when I did research for the Scottish cap of Ferval, but then with all kind of caps to buy...

Kind regards and with esteem, Paul.

PS: I never visit the bar and all those other places, even from the BBC time, while I have even now a lack of time to "compose" all my messages on the different fora and especially by all the research I do to substantiate my statements. Yes and my French and English are still foreign languages for me...so with a pile of dictionaries at hand reach...
And I hope you join further the group...BTW: On the Salon Géopolitique, we had sometimes similar discussions as this one...which had to be conducted in good ways by the Dictator in office...

Nobiles Barbariæ Posts : 7223 Join date : 2011-12-25

Opinion is a good thing to have, Parallax, and very welcome on this site which, after all, promotes discussion. It helps though if opinion is not merely stated but that the process whereby it has been formulated is also explained, especially on a site that discusses history, where contemporary events invariably tend to be assessed and debated with reference to relevant historical data. Whether one claims to be "left" or "right" wing in one's views is not actually important at all, what matters to people here tends to be the ability to cite or refer to the pertinent data that has led to this view.

The sarcasm you attribute to my statement above could not be further from the truth. You asked a direct question "What right do people who carried out the 911 attack have to be offended at anything we say or do?" and my answer was equally direct, intended also to convey the innate problems in generalisation in these matters, where in this instance Muslim offence at caricatures of their favourite prophet should not be taken to mean that the same people would automatically find themselves in accord with the political and religious views of the zealots who performed that murderous act in 2001. Yet the wording of your question suggested such a generalisation and the most effective answer therefore was the straight one I provided, or so I thought.

I am glad to hear that your participation in this discussion has at least encouraged you to learn a little more about muslim condemnation of atrocities such as the recent one in Paris. Your acknowledgement that this is a true, if under-reported, phenomenon is diametrically opposed in terms of perception and interpretation to the statement you had made earlier in which you averred that it did not appear to happen at all. This showed a commendable openness to revise your view based on new data, something I had regarded optimistically as an indication that your contribution in any discussion would be open to consideration, dynamic and all the more welcome for that.

However it appears such optimism was misplaced and you have apparently chosen to protect your views by withdrawing them completely from critical inquiry - a strategy that is unfortunately so effective in helping maintain a set opinion that it works equally as well with prejudiced opinion, jaundiced opinion, ignorant opinion and non-opinion as it does with one that has been reasoned. It is not a strategy I would therefore care to recommend to anyone given the obvious drawbacks it contains, so can only wish you good luck with it. You'll need it, I fear.

Aediles Posts : 80 Join date : 2014-12-12

Damn Paul, you do have a way with words! Beautiful command of the language, but you use it like a rapier rather than a normalized tone of disagreement and I'll bet I'm not the first one to say that to you. You could probably use some luck yourself.
By the way, I did give you an example of what I considered a shallow, somewhat caustic, remark and what set me off initially:" The "people who carried out the 911 attack" have no right to anything, I would say. They are dead". Wasn't that rather superfluous and a bit haughty? That's one thing I could never tolerate well in conversation...haughtiness. Perhaps I'm sensitized to it. Anyway, It wasn't personal on your part, I'm sure, so have a good life...and watch that sharp tongue, you might stick someone with it:)

Subject: Re: Je suis Charlie Sun 18 Jan 2015, 16:16

Parallax wrote:: You do not talk to vipers temperance...you find a stick and destroy them, or risk a bite in the future.

I have been pondering - somewhat ruefully - on that comment you made last week, Parallax: history would suggest that you are right. Would you give us more of your thoughts on the foolishness of appeasement? Appeasement, of course, is not the same as tolerance.

Two quotes come to mind: "Walk softly, but carry a big stick", which I believe is an African proverb made famous by Roosevelt, and this from King Lear:

We are not the first
Who with best meaning have incurred the worst.

PS Do you really mean Paul, in your post above? Paul's command of English (not his first language) is indeed excellent, but he never uses it "like a rapier". Interesting simile.

Aediles Posts : 80 Join date : 2014-12-12

Well, I'm pleasantly surprised that several fellow posters would like me to stay on. It's a nice feeling and I will give it another try. What the heck, we might as well squeeze what we can out of life's offerings or risk missing things that might be interesting or important to us. So be it...I'm back.

Subject: Re: Je suis Charlie Sun 18 Jan 2015, 18:43

How odd - I've just signed in as you were posting that. Glad you haven't gone, Parallax. Please wash and iron the huff and return it to Priscilla's locker in the bar.

I was going to add something to my above question about appeasement. We all associate the word with Chamberlain-Hitler, of course, but there must be many earlier examples. I've just read that the Romans of all people actually tried to appease the Goths and Visigoths. Is this true? Has appeasement ever been successful?

I know this is straying away from Gil's original question, but I'm just trying to keep things going here...

Censura Posts : 2772 Join date : 2012-01-16

Welcome back, Pax. I just try to be centre these days - in fact staying upright and steady in any sense can be a trial. I felt ever so chuffed to be labelled academic. Returned handknittted huffs are indeed gladly collected at the bar.
Appeasement - I've just read that Imran Khan and new wife were sent away by grieving parents of the 132 children killed in Pakistan. His political appeasement mode had made not a jot of difference. Apparently, military courts there will now try terrorists because the judiciary stopped convicting......... threat to all concerned in law and all their families was taking a toll.

Subject: Re: Je suis Charlie Sun 18 Jan 2015, 19:38

Parallax wrote:: Well, I'm pleasantly surprised that several fellow posters would like me to stay on. It's a nice feeling and I will give it another try. What the heck, we might as well squeeze what we can out of life's offerings or risk missing things that might be interesting or important to us. So be it...I'm back.

Don't be surprised, we all disagree at sometime and the occasional squabble is quite normal around here. It would be terribly boring if we all had the same views anyway, there'd be nothing to discuss or to learn.

Glad you are back btw.

PS. Although I haven't forgiven you yet for calling us academics. Heaven forbid! Smile

Censura Posts : 2602 Join date : 2011-12-27

I'm pleased to see you've returned too, Parallax and, if I may be so bold, what a well chosen board name you have. That's probably what we need, the parallax view. You're not Warren Beatty, are you?

Censura Posts : 1560 Join date : 2011-12-27

I'm always a little cautious about outright condemnation of "appeasement" - is it not possible that the term could be applied to "the correction of proved abuses and the redress of real grievances" which formed the basis for the philosophy of the modern Conservative party, as opposed to the "change nothing" views prevalent in the previous Tory party? Also, bear in mind that the opposing "si pacem vis para bellum" attitude also resulted in World War just as surely as "appeasement" led to the Second.

Censura Posts : 2602 Join date : 2011-12-27

I'm cautious about the use of the word at all given it is so often applied in hindsight and the difference between that and 'successful negotiations' can be a question of time and perspective.

Nobiles Barbariæ Posts : 7223 Join date : 2011-12-25

Appeasement is not at all a relevant term within the context of muslim extremism since two of the essential ingredients required simply do not exist - a central authority making demands with which one can potentially negotiate and, for that matter, a clear and consistent set of demands which can form the starting point for such negotiations. This is a typical feature of religious, as opposed to political, extremism - the absence of a logical chain of authority and the tendency for demands to be subjectively volatile in their detail, dependent on whatever hothead has arrived at the latest set to be advertised.

In the broader sense in any case it is very difficult to bracket appeasement within the historical gamut of political negotiations. While it always means acceding to demands, whether this accession is intelligent or stupid, intended to buy time or intended to buy permanent peace, prosecutable through consensus or in need of enforcement, all depends on the particular circumstances. Rome's dealings with Attila, for example, were pure appeasement and very expensive, but at least allowed the empire to ride out that threat. Chamberlain's appeasement of Nazi Germany was aiming for permanent peace in Europe but at best simply bought Britain some much needed time for belated rearmament. They had as a policy superficial resemblences only and differed fundamentally in intention, conduct and effect.

Subject: Re: Je suis Charlie Mon 19 Jan 2015, 10:26

nordmann wrote:: This is a typical feature of religious, as opposed to political, extremism - the absence of a logical chain of authority and the tendency for demands to be subjectively volatile in their detail, dependent on whatever hothead has arrived at the latest set to be advertised.

Probably an irrelevant question, but I'll ask it anyway.

Isn't "religious", when we talk about extremism, exactly the same as "political"? And aren't both words, in this context, inaccurate - a kind of perversion? The spectacle of men in relentless pursuit of power and control over others is nothing to do with the teachings of either the Islamic Prophet or the Christian Messiah, or of Aristotle, whatever such men may claim. This, sadly, has always been so. The agenda of these "seekers" is all about ego and the triumph of the will - their will - a goal which is surely the opposite of that sought by a person of genuine and humble spirituality, or of a person genuinely passionate about good, fair and effective government.

I am not trying to introduce God stuff into the conversation again - everyone's had quite enough of that, I know - but it does make me annoyed when people, be they Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or atheist/philosopher, talk glibly about "religion" and "politics" - when the men we are dealing with here are neither religious nor political. They are simply bad b*stards.

But what to do? as Priscilla asks. Blessed are the peacemakers? Obviously not. We've had comparisons with hissing vipers and starving staffies - and Churchill wisely warned against feeding crocodiles.

I've looked up appeasement: I was surprised to discover the word was first used in 1919:

appeasement n. "pacification," from Middle French apeisement, Old French apaisement "appeasement, calming," noun of action from apaisier (see appease). First recorded 1919 in international political sense; not pejorative until failure of Chamberlain's policy toward Germany in 1939 (Methods of appeasement was Chamberlain's description of his policy).

I seem to smell the stench of appeasement in the air.

Margaret Thatcher

Walk softly, but carry a big stick: pretty good advice, I suppose. But when exactly to use your stick - that's the problem.

Time to shut up.

Nobiles Barbariæ Posts : 7223 Join date : 2011-12-25

Temp wrote:: Isn't "religious", when we talk about extremism, exactly the same as "political"? And aren't both words, in this context, inaccurate - a kind of perversion?

An extremist is simply someone who wants to get their way and employs methods generally considered extreme to do so. You can argue that the religious zealot is really a political animal, and I wouldn't quibble with that. You can argue that both political and religious extremists are all simply bad bastards, and I would tend to agree in the case of the vast majority. However there is still a distinction to be made and it resides in the demand, not the character of the extremist. An IRA extremist, or a Palestinian extremist etc, will make demands that might be repugnant to the powers that be and might be pursued through absolutely vile means but their demands are completely political - having to do with autonomy, self-determination, representation in the body politic and all the other aspects to life which traditionally reside solely within that ambit and for which mechanisms (political mechanisms) exist to resolve them if and when the process reaches that point.

The demand, for example, never to draw a cartoon of Mohammed has political overtones and parallels, but it is in essence a religious demand. The importance of the issue to the person making the demand is based on religious, not political, principles. The motivation to employ extreme methods to prosecute the demand is likewise one that only works or makes sense to a person with religious tendencies and who places theological precepts at the same level of importance as political ones (even higher more likely in this case). This in itself can often be interpreted in society as being noble behaviour - the religious individual whose faith leads him to oppose tyranny for example. In this case however it is ignoble indeed, serving no purpose that is exalted in any sense except subjectively to the individual who has chosen to demand it with menace.

So yes, the behaviour and mindset in use here might well be dismissed as so radical a departure from the basic religious precepts encouraged by the core theology to which the subject subscribes as to have no valid link with them any more (a departure often taken by religious zealots). But that does not bring them necessarily into the realm of political precepts, nor does it automatically equate the extremist with his rather more political bedfellows.

Appeasement might be a modern word, but it is a modern word for a very old political expedient. And that's the problem. No political expedient will ever adequately address a religious zealot's demand. One first has to accept as valid the disguise of religious precepts as political ones (eg. blasphemy as a civic crime) before one can even begin to negotiate. In my view this is social regression.

Censura Posts : 1560 Join date : 2011-12-27

Totally OT - since I started this thread, I am receiving loads of spam from French language casino sites to add to the existing ones in English. Coincidence?

Nobiles Barbariæ Posts : 7223 Join date : 2011-12-25

More interesting if you had suddenly started to get spam from Mecca casino sites.

Which makes me wonder - what did the original wave of muslim immigrants in the UK ever make of all this ... ?

Je suis Charlie - Page 2 Mecca-bingo-image-1-450945087

Je suis Charlie - Page 2 Mecca-bingo-image-1-450945087

Aediles Posts : 80 Join date : 2014-12-12

Temperance wrote:

Parallax wrote:: You do not talk to vipers temperance...you find a stick and destroy them, or risk a bite in the future.

I have been pondering - somewhat ruefully - on that comment you made last week, Parallax: history would suggest that you are right. Would you give us more of your thoughts on the foolishness of appeasement? Appeasement, of course, is not the same as tolerance.

Two quotes come to mind: "Walk softly, but carry a big stick", which I believe is an African proverb made famous by Roosevelt, and this from King Lear:

We are not the first
Who with best meaning have incurred the worst.

PS Do you really mean Paul, in your post above? Paul's command of English (not his first language) is indeed excellent, but he never uses it "like a rapier". Interesting simile.

No temperance, I meant nordmann. It was just one of those errors that come with age:) Yes, Paul's command of English is very good.

Regarding Teddy Roosevelt's...and carry a big stick", the rest is "and you shall do well" We could use a Teddy Roosevelt in the US right now.
I would reply to your question on appeasement in two ways. First, Chamberlains appeasement of Hitler was disastrous as we all know and it apparently encouraged Hitler to continue his military designs.
On the other hand when J.F. Kennedy faced down the Russians over the Cuban missile crisis he quietly guaranteed the US would never attack Cuba and he pulled the US missiles out of Turkey. This is a form of appeasement surely but it may have saved the world from a nuclear Armageddon. So appeasement can be like a gun in the hand of a policeman or a criminal. It just depends upon why and how you use it.
In the case of the Muslims, the Isis types, I don't think appeasement would really be the right approach. Perhaps what we should worry about is the Muslims already living in Europe...the benign ones. Growing numbers of them will be voting in elections.These are the "guest workers" who helped Europeans make a comeback after WWll in the 1950's and 1960's. They were supposed to leave They just came for jobs when Europe needed help but, "who wants to leave after they've seen Paree":)
The Muslim birth rate is about three times that of non Muslims (as of 2003), and expected to double by 2015...like right now, while the non Muslim population shrinks.
At any rate, the power of the Muslim vote will change European politics considerably in the future so the real danger isn't from the Isis types but from within, as benign as it may seem and be.
It's like "Little Shop of Horrors" movie...feed me, eat...hungry:) Remember that carnivorous plant?
I don't know if I answered your question satisfactorily. Much of my data is from Brookings Institute and it dates back to 2003 but the date is irrelevant on most of it. Perhaps not allowing citizenship for guest workers would have been the thing to do to begin with. After all, they were already citizens of their own countries. They could have gone home to vote.
Permissiveness is ruining many countries, I live in one so i know.

Aediles Posts : 80 Join date : 2014-12-12

ferval wrote:: I'm pleased to see you've returned too, Parallax and, if I may be so bold, what a well chosen board name you have. That's probably what we need, the parallax view. You're not Warren Beatty, are you?

No ferval, I'm just me and happy to be so.
Yes, I immediately liked the name Parallax when it entered my mind. I've spent minutes at a time when trying to choose a name for other programs but this one came to me right away. Strange that out of the all the words we know that when you need a password you just cannot think of one.
Thanks for the comment and you know what they say about bad pennies:)

Aediles Posts : 80 Join date : 2014-12-12

Islanddawn wrote:

Parallax wrote:: Well, I'm pleasantly surprised that several fellow posters would like me to stay on. It's a nice feeling and I will give it another try. What the heck, we might as well squeeze what we can out of life's offerings or risk missing things that might be interesting or important to us. So be it...I'm back.

Don't be surprised, we all disagree at sometime and the occasional squabble is quite normal around here. It would be terribly boring if we all had the same views anyway, there'd be nothing to discuss or to learn.

Glad you are back btw.

PS. Although I haven't forgiven you yet for calling us academics. Heaven forbid! Smile

I humbly withdraw the "academic" bit Islanddawn and you are quite right, life without disagreements would be dull.
Thank you.

Nobiles Barbariæ Posts : 7223 Join date : 2011-12-25

Parallax wrote:: The Muslim birth rate is about three times that of non Muslims (as of 2003), and expected to double by 2015...like right now, while the non Muslim population shrinks.

The Catholics are doing their best to out-baby them though.

Your mathematics are questionable in any case; at the moment muslim women are popping them out at an average rate of 2.2 mini-Mohammeds per female while the potential white supremacists are still only 1.8 per mater. Not three times, as stated by you, and there is no statistical model predicting the muslim mammies opting for 4.4 children from this year onwards.

Interestingly where muslims far outstrip the christians is in terms of conversions (obviously a more attractive proposition to religious ditherers). If the disparity in the conversion rate continues according to present statistical trends then within 5,000 years they will have completely eliminated the opposition and Jesus will be back to where he started as a prophet again. Mind you, the same statistical model used in 1890 before the advent of the motor car predicted London would be under six feet of horseshit by 1940.

Censura Posts : 1560 Join date : 2011-12-27

Parallax wrote:

Quote :: Permissiveness is ruining many countries, I live in one so i know.

I'm not sure that "permissiveness" is any more ruinous than repression.

Aediles Posts : 80 Join date : 2014-12-12

nordmann wrote:

Parallax wrote:: The Muslim birth rate is about three times that of non Muslims (as of 2003), and expected to double by 2015...like right now, while the non Muslim population shrinks.

The Catholics are doing their best to out-baby them though.

Your mathematics are questionable in any case; at the moment muslim women are popping them out at an average rate of 2.2 mini-Mohammeds per female while the potential white supremacists are still only 1.8 per mater. Not three times, as stated by you, and there is no statistical model predicting the muslim mammies opting for 4.4 children from this year onwards.

Interestingly where muslims far outstrip the christians is in terms of conversions (obviously a more attractive proposition to religious ditherers). If the disparity in the conversion rate continues according to present statistical trends then within 5,000 years they will have completely eliminated the opposition and Jesus will be back to where he started as a prophet again. Mind you, the same statistical model used in 1890 before the advent of the motor car predicted London would be under six feet of horseshit by 1940.

Parallax;
"Europe’s Muslim population is projected to grow from 44.1 million in 2010 to 58.2 million in 2030. The greatest increases – driven primarily by continued migration – are likely to occur in Western and Northern Europe, where Muslims will be approaching double-digit percentages of the population in several countries."

Did you forget about continued immigration? Is that in your projection of "within 5,000 years"?

The "three times" rate you assign to me is an excerpt from" Europe's Muslim Street", where I took most of my data. I don't recall saying anything about" 4.4 children". That must be one of your derivations. Perhaps you could plant it in that six foot pile of dung and see what comes of it. Cheers

Aediles Posts : 80 Join date : 2014-12-12

Gilgamesh of Uruk wrote:

Parallax wrote:

Quote :: Permissiveness is ruining many countries, I live in one so i know.

I'm not sure that "permissiveness" is any more ruinous than repression.

Well Gil, I guess it depends upon who's getting repressed. Right or wrong there is only one pie and the more pieces you give away the less are left...it is ever so. If you use the US as an example of permissiveness would you say the country is better off for it? Je suis Charlie - Page 2 2921425829

Censura Posts : 2602 Join date : 2011-12-27

Perhaps if you were to explain in what way you see the USA as being 'permissive' and how you believe that that has 'ruined the country' we might be able to respond to your question.

Censura Posts : 1560 Join date : 2011-12-27

Parallax wrote:

Gilgamesh of Uruk wrote:

Parallax wrote:

Quote :: Permissiveness is ruining many countries, I live in one so i know.

I'm not sure that "permissiveness" is any more ruinous than repression.

Well Gil, I guess it depends upon who's getting repressed. Right or wrong there is only one pie and the more pieces you give away the less are left...it is ever so. If you use the US as an example of permissiveness would you say the country is better off for it?

I don't know enough detail about the US to judge - but surely one of the things we expect from our governments is that they take actions that will increase the size of the pie? Compare the size of the US pie now with a century ago, and tell me it is still the same size - I'm of the opinion that it is substantially larger.

Subject: Re: Je suis Charlie Tue 20 Jan 2015, 21:58

Parallax,

""Europe’s Muslim population is projected to grow from 44.1 million in 2010 to 58.2 million in 2030. The greatest increases – driven primarily by continued migration – are likely to occur in Western and Northern Europe, where Muslims will be approaching double-digit percentages of the population in several countries."

Did you forget about continued immigration? Is that in your projection of "within 5,000 years"?

The "three times" rate you assign to me is an excerpt from" Europe's Muslim Street", where I took most of my data. I don't recall saying anything about" 4.4 children". That must be one of your derivations. Perhaps you could plant it in that six foot pile of dung and see what comes of it. Je suis Charlie - Page 2 3885497126

"

I think the big problem is a bit the same as in every part of the world: the ghetto forming.
When I was in Detroit I discussed it with a white woman, who explained that overtime whole districts of the inner city were taken by black communities, pushing the whites to the outskirts surrounding the city and to the better and more expensive priced districts.
The same I see happen or has already happened in Brussels, Antwerp, Ghent etc in for instance Belgium. It is not yet that far as I heard during my visit in South Africa (some 30 years ago, it can be worser nowadays) that villas of richer people are completely isolated from the surroundings, nearly as a fort by armed gunmen. When I was in New Mexico, visiting Santa Fe, a friendly tourist agency woman, who was not pleased that our trip was cancelled instead took us to her home and gave us instead a visit to the local Indian community. (Was it a coincidence that I on all my trips to the US always met friendly and cooperative people?). But what surprised me was that the location of the house of the woman was in a parc of houses with a fence around it and a guard at the entry (don't remember if he had a weapon or not).
Ghettos are perhaps also the slums of Rio de Janeiro and other big cities on the globe...?

And I think it is in these Muslim ghettos, to speak for Belgium as for instance in Antwerp a well known district and the same in Ghent, that radical ideas have a fertile ground to flourish.

And now back to the looming overwhelming Muslim occupation of Europe in the future. Backed by to call but one that I know the far right in the Netherlands: "The Netherlands are full", or perhaps also the French far right...?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_the_European_Union_by_Muslim_population

"In Western Europe, Muslims generally live in major urban areas, often concentrated in poor neighborhoods of large cities.^[5]
According to the Pew Forum, the total number of Muslims in Europe in 2010 was about 44 million (6%),.^[6] The total number of Muslims in the European Union in 2010 was about 19 million (3.8%).^[6] The French capital of Paris and its metropolitan area has the largest number (up to 1.7 million according to The Economist)^[7] of Muslims than any other city in the European Union. London also has a substantial community of Muslim origin, numbering about 1 million within the limits of Greater London and exceeding this figure when the entire metropolitan area is taken into account.
If the current rate of migration of Muslims to Europe and the Muslim fertility rate remains constant, by 2030, people of Muslim faith or origin are predicted to form about 10% of the French population^[6] and 8% of the European population.^["

Total number of Muslims in Europe 2010: 44 million or 6%
Total number of Muslims in the European Union: 19 million or 3.6 %
Prognose for 2030 in Europe 8%.
But I agree the hard core of this 8 % in the ghettos of Europe can give a serious problem and therefore dialogue is necessary. If I remember as for instance in Belgium how nearly in my lifetime or lets say in the last 150 years another Abrahamic faith has adopted to the laic state. And perhaps all the three Abrahamic faiths have some similar difficulties to adapt to a neutral laic state?

In the time I did research for the ex BBC history messageboard about a similar question about Belgium and I see now that thanks to Wikipedia there is much more information now
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Belgium

Kind regards, Paul.

Aediles Posts : 80 Join date : 2014-12-12

ferval wrote:: Perhaps if you were to explain in what way you see the USA as being 'permissive' and how you believe that that has 'ruined the country' we might be able to respond to your question.

Political correctness has certainly taken it's toll. I'm not going to pursue that otherwise I will be spending too much time doing research. The little cartoon below is just one part of the problem. At any rate, I think you already know what I mean.

Je suis Charlie - Page 2 B-O

Censura Posts : 1560 Join date : 2011-12-27

Surely the cartoon is also part of the solution? Once something is recognised as ludicrous, aren't we in a better state to dispose of it?

Aediles Posts : 80 Join date : 2014-12-12

PaulRyckier wrote:: Parallax,

""Europe’s Muslim population is projected to grow from 44.1 million in 2010 to 58.2 million in 2030. The greatest increases – driven primarily by continued migration – are likely to occur in Western and Northern Europe, where Muslims will be approaching double-digit percentages of the population in several countries."

Did you forget about continued immigration? Is that in your projection of "within 5,000 years"?

The "three times" rate you assign to me is an excerpt from" Europe's Muslim Street", where I took most of my data. I don't recall saying anything about" 4.4 children". That must be one of your derivations. Perhaps you could plant it in that six foot pile of dung and see what comes of it. "

I think the big problem is a bit the same as in every part of the world: the ghetto forming.
When I was in Detroit I discussed it with a white woman, who explained that overtime whole districts of the inner city were taken by black communities, pushing the whites to the outskirts surrounding the city and to the better and more expensive priced districts.
The same I see happen or has already happened in Brussels, Antwerp, Ghent etc in for instance Belgium. It is not yet that far as I heard during my visit in South Africa (some 30 years ago, it can be worser nowadays) that villas of richer people are completely isolated from the surroundings, nearly as a fort by armed gunmen. When I was in New Mexico, visiting Santa Fe, a friendly tourist agency woman, who was not pleased that our trip was cancelled instead took us to her home and gave us instead a visit to the local Indian community. (Was it a coincidence that I on all my trips to the US always met friendly and cooperative people?). But what surprised me was that the location of the house of the woman was in a parc of houses with a fence around it and a guard at the entry (don't remember if he had a weapon or not).
Ghettos are perhaps also the slums of Rio de Janeiro and other big cities on the globe...?

And I think it is in these Muslim ghettos, to speak for Belgium as for instance in Antwerp a well known district and the same in Ghent, that radical ideas have a fertile ground to flourish.

And now back to the looming overwhelming Muslim occupation of Europe in the future. Backed by to call but one that I know the far right in the Netherlands: "The Netherlands are full", or perhaps also the French far right...?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_the_European_Union_by_Muslim_population

"In Western Europe, Muslims generally live in major urban areas, often concentrated in poor neighborhoods of large cities.^[5]
According to the Pew Forum, the total number of Muslims in Europe in 2010 was about 44 million (6%),.^[6] The total number of Muslims in the European Union in 2010 was about 19 million (3.8%).^[6] The French capital of Paris and its metropolitan area has the largest number (up to 1.7 million according to The Economist)^[7] of Muslims than any other city in the European Union. London also has a substantial community of Muslim origin, numbering about 1 million within the limits of Greater London and exceeding this figure when the entire metropolitan area is taken into account.
If the current rate of migration of Muslims to Europe and the Muslim fertility rate remains constant, by 2030, people of Muslim faith or origin are predicted to form about 10% of the French population^[6] and 8% of the European population.^["

Total number of Muslims in Europe 2010: 44 million or 6%
Total number of Muslims in the European Union: 19 million or 3.6 %
Prognose for 2030 in Europe 8%.
But I agree the hard core of this 8 % in the ghettos of Europe can give a serious problem and therefore dialogue is necessary. If I remember as for instance in Belgium how nearly in my lifetime or lets say in the last 150 years another Abrahamic faith has adopted to the laic state. And perhaps all the three Abrahamic faiths have some similar difficulties to adapt to a neutral laic state?

In the time I did research for the ex BBC history messageboard about a similar question about Belgium and I see now that thanks to Wikipedia there is much more information now
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Belgium

Kind regards, Paul.

"I think the big problem is a bit the same as in every part of the world: the ghetto forming"...

It is a problem but I wonder because prior to WWll in the US we had an area named "Harlem", which was and is still a Black community. It is a ghetto but the big difference then was that the Black heads of family...the men, did not abandon their wives and children so the children were raised with more discipline rather joining gangs or running free. Black attitudesof "you owe me" led to permissiveness and that affected many other areas. For example, as you pointed out, ghettos are the culture media for radical ideas.
It is also a fact that if Black's buy a home in a white neighborhood that the values of homes in that area go down so the effects of permissiveness and political correctness, (are they interchangeable?) are widespread. Obviously books could be written on the subject...but not by me.
Your comments were interesting Paul, thank you!

Aediles Posts : 80 Join date : 2014-12-12

Gilgamesh of Uruk wrote:: Surely the cartoon is also part of the solution? Once something is recognised as ludicrous, aren't we in a better state to dispose of it?

Gil,
Recognizing the problem is only a part of solving it. Our republican congress has apparently been cowed by our illustrious, executive privilege
taking leader. Maybe...just maybe, since the republicans now hold both houses, something will get done. If BS was money our country would not be in any debt at all. Anyway, I would really like to get back to history and shelve the political dialogue. We haven't done much of that.

Nobiles Barbariæ Posts : 7223 Join date : 2011-12-25

Parallax wrote:: Black attitudes of "you owe me" led to permissiveness and that affected many other areas.

Even getting back to history seems problematic in this discussion if the above historical assertion you make is true. Did blacks, through adopting an attitude of "you owe me", really lead to society in "other areas" outside of Harlem acquiring excessive freedoms and/or lax morals?

I've checked the dictionary and am none the wiser as to what you mean. Permission to do what, assumed by who, and awarded by who? If by "permissive" you indeed mean they have acquired freedoms they should not be entitled to then it would be interesting to know what these freedoms might be (in the "land of the free") and "who" should now have the freedom to curtail these others' freedoms?

Aediles Posts : 80 Join date : 2014-12-12

nordmann,
why do you say getting back to history is problematic? What does it have to do with my assertions?
Harlem was no different than any other Black area, I used it only because of it's proximity to where I lived in my youth and was exposed to what was happening.
Your use of the words "excessive freedoms" sounds like bait to me so I'm going to pass on that one.
I don't want to get into some verbal quagmire with you though I think you feed off that sort of thing, by the looks of it.
You are trying paint me as something I am not...so for the record, I am not against freedom for anybody, I don't care about anyone's religion but neither do I want to finance these things.
Live free...pray to your God...but don't bill me for it.

Tell me your views regarding freedom in America and Blacks too, if you will. I'm sure you have a view.

Aediles Posts : 80 Join date : 2014-12-12

I would refer you to "A Generation of Entitlement" By Kate S. Rourke 2011 Vol.3 No.01.

Here is the opening paragraph:

[url=javascript: void(0)]Cite[/url] [url=javascript: void(0)]References[/url] [url=javascript: void(0)]Print[/url] 2 Comments

It is as equally important however, that those with young children disrupt the recently growing trend of the last few decades of raising children with the entitlement attitude. It is the responsibility of parents now to break the cycle. A temporary solution is not what this country needs, because the entire work of industries to fix the mentality of the current generation of workers will be a useless effort if the next generation of workers in the next few decades comes in with the same problems that are currently tearing our economy apart. There needs to be a longer term solution that will permanently alter this notion of entitlement and that can only be accomplished by alteration of the parenting techniques today.

Nobiles Barbariæ Posts : 7223 Join date : 2011-12-25

Well, like you I have a problem with the word "freedom" when it is used politically. It seems always to come with provisos which are invariably of more consequence than the freedom that is being referred to and yet these rarely get mentioned.

But the problem I had with several of your previous comments linguistically is in how you are using the word "permissive". For me this word suggests liberalism, a laissez-faire political ideology when it comes to personal behaviour and therefore what is socially acceptable on that basis. I am struggling however to find any causality between, say, the political and sociological developments emanating from within the American black community as a whole over decades and a subsequent increase in permissiveness. I'm just wondering do you actually mean to use another word entirely, but I don't wish to be putting words in your mouth or misunderstanding you. That's all.

Nobiles Barbariæ Posts : 7223 Join date : 2011-12-25

Thanks also for the referral to the opinion article, written apparently by a 2014 graduate of a New Hampshire university "with a concentration in [sic]" Mass Communications and Political Science. What you refer to as the opening paragraph is actually the first paragraph of the second page of her article as published on a "Student Pulse" website, a site which publishes undergraduates' works. However I managed to locate and get through her entire piece and I share with the views expressed in follow-up comments published on the site by other readers a worry that Ms Rourke uses too inexact language and too little analytical application in justifying her conclusions, the bulk of which relate to the need for collective parental responsibility in applying an agreed agenda to counteract a false expectation of entitlement engendered (by unspecified sources) in US youth since 1982. It is one thing having an opinion, having a right to an opinion, having a right to shout one's opinion from the rooftops etc etc. It is quite another challenge entirely explaining how come one has it. I hope Ms Rourke, in her post-graduate student career as a mass communicating political scientist (good luck to her with that), concentrates upon (or even "in") this aspect to the public presentation of her no doubt sincerely held views.

Aediles Posts : 80 Join date : 2014-12-12

nordmann wrote:: Well, like you I have a problem with the word "freedom" when it is used politically. It seems always to come with provisos which are invariably of more consequence than the freedom that is being referred to and yet these rarely get mentioned.

But the problem I had with several of your previous comments linguistically is in how you are using the word "permissive". For me this word suggests liberalism, a laissez-faire political ideology when it comes to personal behaviour and therefore what is socially acceptable on that basis. I am struggling however to find any causality between, say, the political and sociological developments emanating from within the American black community as a whole over decades and a subsequent increase in permissiveness. I'm just wondering do you actually mean to use another word entirely, but I don't wish to be putting words in your mouth or misunderstanding you. That's all.

I would submit that the word "permissive" has many synonyms, as illustrated below. How does my previous usage
not qualify? Please do suggest another word...really. Perhaps it will clarify your viewpoint to me also.

Synonyms:

mildness (noun)
acceptance, amiability, benevolence, benignity, broad-mindedness, charity, clemency, cordiality, easiness, evenness, forbearance, geniality, gentleness, insipidity, kindness, latitude, laxity, lenience, liberality, liberalness, libertarianism, liberty, meekness, mildness, moderateness, moderation, open-mindedness, peaceableness, quietness, softness, sweetness, tenderness, tolerance.

Quotes for Permissiveness:

Acceptance
synonyms
abandonment, abdication, accession, accord, accordance, acquiescence, adherence, affirmation, agreement, allegiance, allowance, amiability, approbation, approval, arrangement, assent, authentication, benevolence, benignity, bond, broad-mindedness, capitulation, cessation, charity, clemency, compact, compliance, concord, concordance, concurrence, confirmation, conformance, conformity, consensus, consent, contract, cordiality, covenant, deal, deference, devotion, disclamation, discontinuance, easiness, empathy, endorsement, evenness, faithfulness, fealty, forbearance, fulfillment, geniality, gentleness, genuflection, homage, insipidity, kindness, latitude, laxity, lenience, liberality, liberalness, libertarianism, liberty, loyalty, meekness, mildness, moderateness, moderation, obedience, obeisance, observance, open-mindedness, pact, peaceableness, permission, permissiveness, pledge, promise, quietness, ratification, rejection, relinquishment, renouncement, resignation, respect, retirement, sanction, servility, settlement, softness, stipulation, submission, submissiveness, surrender, sweetness, tenderness, termination, tolerance, treaty, unanimity, understanding, underwriting, willingness, withdrawal.

Nobiles Barbariæ Posts : 7223 Join date : 2011-12-25

Your previous usage does not "qualify"? That is something only can decide. It is precisely due to the fact that its context is imprecise and sends one to check synonyms that prompts me to request a clarification. I could not even begin to suggest an alternative word until I know what you intended to mean by the first.

For example is the permissiveness you speak of one enshrined in law or one that flaunts the law of the society you speak of? Does it extend to sexual morality (the context in which it is most often used)? Does it infer a permission assumed or a permission awarded, and in either case is this a permission advantageously exercised by an influential minority or disadvantageously foisted on a disenfranchised majority, both of which concepts are used in sociological depictions of modern US society where "permissions", "rights" and "freedoms" are often actually synonyms themselves for something quite opposite?

You see, unless you actually explain what you meant when using this term void of context or at least outside of its normal context others are simply left guessing what you meant at all. It might be perfectly clear in your own head, but it hasn't been communicated effectively.

You could also explain while you're at it why Ms Rourke's undergrad essay is one worth quoting. But thanks for helping me find that site - I am impressed by some of the undergrad work there immensely.

Aediles Posts : 80 Join date : 2014-12-12

Obama "flaunts the law" regarding immigration across our southern border simply by allowing it. Anything for a vote...or a future vote. This is a form of permissiveness.

"Influential minorities" certainly have pushed through the change in immigration laws that has allowed predominantly non-Europeans to come in large numbers to the US. This has led to a "rainbow" type coalition vote which brought in Potus Obama. Imagine an unknown senator who only cast one vote while in the senate for four years, jumping to the presidency...and twice!?
Gay rights and marriage is another form or permissiveness for votes.
Legalization of marijuana.
My view of permissiveness is simply that if you allow something to happen that you can stop, you are being permissive. Is that explanation enough?

Nobiles Barbariæ Posts : 7223 Join date : 2011-12-25

I had a feeling this is what you meant but was afraid to guess it in case I was unfairly labelling you a bigot.

So permissiveness is permitting anything you don't approve of? And the politician who facilitates this is simply doing it to garner votes.

You can see the problem with this reasoning, can't you? Garnering votes, even hypocritically, is basically pandering to populism, in other words allowing by legislating for that which is popularly wished for. Believe it or not this is actually a fundamental principle of democracy. Stop this from happening just because it offends you and you are already interfering with the democratic process in a very dangerous way.

Take another example of "permissiveness" according to your definition - permitting almost everyone to own firearms with a minimum of control in place. This is also perpetuated by politicians for largely populist reasons, even in the face of so much evidence against its wisdom. In your interference with the democratic process to prevent, say, gay marriage would you also tighten up gun control?

If you choose not to then on what "inalienable" precept has this decision been taken? You know, one that is "self-evident" so that others can use it too?

You keep saying "if you allow this" or "when you allow that", but even in a permissive society the democratic mandate rules. Nothing can be "allowed" except legally. Or don't you want a democracy anymore?

Aediles Posts : 80 Join date : 2014-12-12

I knew it was what you meant, I was just trying to get you to say it and clear the air.
What do politicians want more than to stay in office forever? They will do anything to achieve this end.
Yes, allowing firearms, with a minimum control, is one of our most important freedoms. The majority of Americans feel this way. Obama say's he is going to ban guns by "executive order" soon. I would like to see him try it. What evidence do YOU refer to against the wisdom of owning guns? Let's see it.
Nope, I would never tighten up gun control. It's more than adequate now. Doing away with guns would put us all in danger of an abusive government, something we got rid of over two hundred years ago by having guns.
The "inalienable" right of every American citizen to own a gun". The second amendment.
Sure, I want a democracy but I want to be able to defend it from within as well as without. I don't want some socialized "Soylent Green" existence where there are no "haves" and "have not's". How dull and boring the thought is. I suppose you would consider that utopian?
Tell me that allowing gay marriage isn't for votes...or allowing the illegal crossing of our border isn't for votes...even though some dangerous Muslim types are certainly walking across our border right now, perhaps to becomes moles for future attacks within the country.
Tell me that with our current racial division, exacerbated and mostly brought on by Potus, that we would be safe in our homes. Tell me that an elderly man can protect himself and his wife without a weapon, (used only in absolute necessity) to protect himself against things like "knock-out" punches or just any people that would do them harm. Bring it.

Censura Posts : 2772 Join date : 2012-01-16

I could not live in the same house as where a gun was kept, Pax. And I have lived a lifetime abroad in very very volatile areas and conditions that make your states seem like a heavenly toy town. When caught up in it sometimes - and alone - I probably only survived because I was unarmed. But when it became necessary to have an armed guard at the gate - about as useful as a rabbit in the headlights, in truth, I thought it time to leave. This is my personal opinion on owning weapons, as the opposite is yours. In truth also, I don't know why they are so different. I just love my freedom without; and if die because of it, I shall have no regrets.

Nobiles Barbariæ Posts : 7223 Join date : 2011-12-25

So, Parallax. You approve of gay weddings as long they're shotgun weddings. Cute.

If "gay marriage" support by politicians is "just to get votes" then you are admitting that this issue carries broad democratic appeal. Otherwise no one would vote for the supporter, would they?

So what I said earlier still applies. Nonsense about "utopias" aside, do you want to live in a society built on democratic values or do you want to impose undemocratic restrictions on activities that you do not condone? It's a simple question, but if I were you I would be rather more careful how I answered this than in your previous attempts which are coming dangerously close to revealing that you see democracy as the biggest threat of all to your welfare.

Your argument that a tightening of gun control makes you more vulnerable to being the victim of an abusive government is a strange, and rather revealing, admission of what you believe. Besides that this also rather confirms the view that you have no faith therefore in the democratic process in your country (though your definition of "abuse" by government and how you and your gun would prevent this would be most welcome), it also raises the rather sad prospect of just how simplistic and narrow a perspective you actually have on society as a whole. Personally, given the figures involved, I would welcome an actuary's assessment of the likelihood of personal injury or worse for the average individual from a "muslim type" (what is that by the way?) who has crossed the border illegally and is now operating as a mole, as you suggest these "types" are up to, versus being shot and ending up as a fatal statistic amongst, for example, the 11,085 homicides by firearm conducted by beneficiaries of the second amendment in 2010 alone, the last year for which I have a reliable figure.

You might like to live in a society where toddlers "offing" themselves or their moms can be discounted as collateral damage endured for the greater good, but personally I have to wonder just how great that good really is on that basis and what might serve it better?

I lived in the States, in an area which at the time was rather infamous for its racial tensions and flare-ups (and not just the "black" versus "white" version either). During that time I witnessed and experienced several ugly incidents related ultimately to this cause, but it was obvious that outside this district no one really cared to analyse the situation much beyond these stereotypical racial models. This was despite the fact that when it came to firearm related homicides the blacks figured much more as victims than perpetrators and within the so-called white communities internecine aggravation led to even higher numbers of deaths, attributed nevertheless by a lot of the popular media however to "black tensions". It was bad analysis and yet only the people on the ground seemed to know or care about this.

So I don't express surprise at your views, which if they were based on actual information would be remarkable indeed for your failure to actually conclude anything intelligently from the data provided. You live however in a society where lazy analysis and ignorance are par for the course and one has to make a considerably wilful effort to correct the detrimental effect of this personally. The vast majority of Americans don't do this, as far as I could see when living there and nothing in the interim has caused me to change that assessment.

I don't recommend you take time out to broaden your horizons by getting yourself gay-married to a "muslim type" mole, shotgun or no shotgun. Anyway marriage to members of the Talpidæ family could be construed as bestiality in some states, I imagine. But a few baby steps (mind if he's toting a handgun) in the direction of education wouldn't be a bad start.

Why did you refer me to undergrad Rourke's rather ill-thought essay by the way? You never answered me that. Is she your gal?

Censura Posts : 1522 Join date : 2012-01-09

This has got a little way from a historical discussion, and I will add to that. I haven't lived in a volatile place at all, but like Priscilla the thought of living with a gun in the house is anathema to me. I have lived in safe places, but so do lots of Americans, I presume. Many years ago we locked outselves out the house, and eventually my husband just broke the door off its hinges and in we went. He was quite a slight man, and I decided then that there was no point in worrying about home invasions and burglaries - anyone could get in the house. People say I have little sense of security but, like P, I have decided to live without much fear and if that turns to custard so be it; it seems better than barricading myself up in terror and being totally safe. (Anyway the plane might crash/I might fall and hit my head/someone might crash into our car/etc.)

But on a more historical note, why have Americans not adopted the attitudes of the rest of the western world in respect of the liberal tradition? They seem to have in general a different way of looking at the world from Europeans, Canadians, Australians, NZers, Indians, etc. I think the most right-wing person in NZ would be considered left-wing in the USA. And Americans seem more religious than these other nations (perhaps not Indians), more conservative in some respects. It's a long time since they broke away from Britain, so it's surely not just a reaction to that. I suppose there is an element of pride, wanting to do it their way, but that hardly seems the full answer either. Does anyone have valid theories about this?

Nobiles Barbariæ Posts : 7223 Join date : 2011-12-25

There is a theory much discussed in political science courses about the true effect of having a constitution, especially when given the statistics for the frequency with which constitutions are challenged. The theory runs along the lines that the more successfully worded and watertight a constitution the more challenges (rather than less challenges) it generates. This is counter intuitive but easily measurable and verified as fact.

The US constitution incorporating the Bill of Rights, one of the cleverest documents ever drafted even with some of the more dubious amendments attached, has proven itself to be a bulwark against the monopolisation of political power within the system devised by the founding fathers by any non-representative group, at least for any considerable time. In modern times its effectiveness against the same coming from sources not envisaged by these Enlightenment men has been a bit more shaky but overall it has still done an admirable job in defining and preserving basic civil liberties and the original definition of representation upon which its democracy rests. Its core strength is that while it can be contradicted legally it has withstood being supplanted as yet, the latest issue in this regard being the increasing momentum to dismantle the so-called Patriot Act on grounds of its unconstitutionality although the Act itself was considered a rather sturdy piece of legislation by its originators.

However having a sturdy constitution, and by definition therefore also a long-lived constitution, simply galvanizes attempts to dislodge or invalidate it, and some of these attempts in US political history have themselves now a long history of their own, with even a few successes along the way. The unconstitutional takeover of the state's function to issue currency by a select group of financiers in the form of the Federal Reserve, for example, has survived more or less unchallenged for a century or more, mainly because a successful constitutional alternative seems beyond the public imagination. The constitutional safeguarding of the distinction between state versus federal legislature is also often exploited by interest groups - the religious right being currently a frequent offender - to effectively shield unconstitutional activity from constitutional scrutiny and groups like these can get away with this strategy for quite a while, long enough in the religious right's case to make them appear to some individuals as old enough to be representative of the country's founding values when in fact quite the opposite was the case as the constitutional separation of state and religion underlines.

So my own answer, Caro, as to why "liberalism" has become a naughty word in the US is simply that unlike other countries the USA actually managed to enshrine its most liberal principles into its core document. The most vociferous and active political agitation has always been that designed to tamper with this document. Historically it has become inevitable that a rather straitened political and social set of mores and principles, forged in this activity over two hundred and forty years or so, has found itself to be the default political and social expression for all those who assume a political position.

In other countries it took the embracing of broadly socialist principles and a process to then implement them as policy, often through real sacrifice, hardship and long complicated political processes endured by the electorate, to achieve constitutionally anything even resembling the enlightenment principles embodied from the start in the US constitution. Socialism, another dirty word in the US, in fact has often outstripped the US in terms of welfare and civil liberty entitlements it has facilitated in other countries, proof that a constitution alone is no safeguard of securing in real terms the aspirations it embodies.

All this can be utilised by the extreme right as indicative of the potential worthlessness of a constitution, or parts thereof. In other countries constitutions have been overturned, shredded, ignored or revised by the political right using this self-serving and ultimately flawed analysis in doing so. In the US the effort to do this has not at least as yet succeeded but its by now long history in attempting to achieve this end gives it the sheen of a more respectable activity than really it is.

They will of course enjoy some measure of seeming success as long as Parallax and others identify democracy itself as their most potent enemy. We all know where such thinking has led others before.

Subject: Re: Je suis Charlie Mon 26 Jan 2015, 10:55

Parallax, may I ask an odd question? What draws you to this site? Why did you get "a nice feeling" when we showed we were anxious to exchange views with you? What made you return? We may not all be the "left-wing academics" you at first judged us to be, but clearly most of us hold opinions that you would dismiss as liberal nonsense. Yet you seem to feel that dialogue is still worthwhile. At least I think you do - and I hope you do.

Can we deduce anything useful from that thought?

Subject: Re: Je suis Charlie Mon 26 Jan 2015, 12:39

PS And could I ask you to consider what Gil posted a bit back?

Gilgamesh of Uruk wrote:: I'm not sure that "permissiveness" is any more ruinous than repression.

Do you think he might have a point?

Aediles Posts : 80 Join date : 2014-12-12

Priscilla wrote:: I could not live in the same house as where a gun was kept, Pax. And I have lived a lifetime abroad in very very volatile areas and conditions that make your states seem like a heavenly toy town. When caught up in it sometimes - and alone - I probably only survived because I was unarmed. But when it became necessary to have an armed guard at the gate - about as useful as a rabbit in the headlights, in truth, I thought it time to leave. This is my personal opinion on owning weapons, as the opposite is yours. In truth also, I don't know why they are so different. I just love my freedom without; and if die because of it, I shall have no regrets.

It has been said many times already that a gun is nothing more than a tool. Some people have an undue fear of guns. A gun is just a means of protecting yourself, all the more so if you are female.
The survival you mentioned may have been more that you are female rather than unarmed. How would anyone know if a lady is unarmed...they usually carry a weapon in their purse.
I respect your opinion Priscilla and your love of freedom and I certainly hope nothing bad happens to you.
Bear in mind that guns have also saved lives...and could have saved more if they had been at the scene of some of our worst murders, such as the school killings. Those incidents were not caused by a weapon but by demented users, which is usually the case. Demented types can murder people with anything from 2" x 4's" to screwdrivers to broken glass. A nut is a nut.

Censura Posts : 2602 Join date : 2011-12-27

Oh come on Parallax, not that old one, "It's the person, not the gun, that does the killing". At least if the demented one had a knife rather than a gun, wouldn't the body count be somewhat less? But it's not just the availability of the gun but the social acceptance of such that positively encourages its use as a means of resolving a whole range of difficulties: psychological, financial and emotional.

Indeed you are correct in saying that there is something amiss in any society where apparently rational people feel so threatened by violence that a firearm becomes a normal part of household equipment but suggesting that guns are the answer is as sensible as suggesting that burning down the hall would stop a conflagration in the living room spreading to the bedroom.

As far as you are concerned, you seem to believe that everything would be hunky-dory if it wasn't for 'non-european immigrants', the black community, lack of support from the armed forces (there's a difference between supporting the troops and supporting the causes that the poor buggers are sent to fight for), gay marriage and 'permissive' parents, well, that's the way it is and since we here appear to have all of those but I, as a doddery old bat who regularly forgets to lock or even close her back door, manages to survive without a gun, it seems to me that there's something terribly wrong with the US that can't just be blamed on your chosen scape goats.

Subject: Re: Je suis Charlie Mon 26 Jan 2015, 20:32

Parallax,

I don't join the rest, as my reply was already planned yesterday, before the others interfered, belated because yesterday I made an elaborated message for the French Passion Histoire about the liberal period in Japan before WWII and about the Japanese "so-called Fascism"...

When I read all what you write, I recall another American of the former BBC history messageboard; a certain Alexander Crawford, the oldies overhere will remember him.
I was perhaps one of the few, who responded to his messages and had some healthy discussions with him. And yes a bit the same about the weapon thingy and I still remember a discussion (btw learned from him about "libertanians") about the Europeans all placing their rights and their protection in the hands of the State, while in the US they come more up for their individual rights as giving education solely in the family and not at school, and protecting themselves against malevolent intrusions.

That's perhaps a difference between Europe (perhaps including Australia, New Zealand and Canada) and the US? Although I am not sure about the percentage in the US. Many times it is the vociferous minority, which sets the "tone"?
But yes, after the foiled terrorist attacks in Belgium from 2 weeks ago, the public looks to the government and the police for the protection. Nobody, speaks to take the right in their own hands. Just a tightened armed control.
And yes perhaps not that great difference as in the US after 9/11?

PS: And Alexander Crawford left the BBC messageboard, perhaps because the general public on the messageboard was too British? With most pondering on the British way of attitudes in society rather than those "from over the pond" (as I seem to remember the expression from Tas Khan in the time)?

Kind regards, Paul.

Subject: Re: Je suis Charlie Mon 26 Jan 2015, 20:47

Absolutely, ferval. Screwdriver or Kalashnikov - not much in it, I suppose. Suspect

As long as folk don't scare the 'orses, it's live and let live as far as I am concerned.

Guns going off all over the place scares the 'orses something terrible.

PS Parallax - as you are a furriner you will not understand what I'm on about. I refer to the saying attributed to Mrs Patrick Campbell:

Does it really matter what these affectionate people do - so long as they don't do it in the streets and frighten the horses? - attributed to Beatrice Stella Tanner (Mrs. Patrick Campbell), English actress (1865-1940). It was supposedly a rebuke to a young actress's complaint that an older actor in the company was overly fond of the young leading actor.

The saying was also noted in the Oakland Tribune 13 Feb. 1910: There is a saying in Leicestershire, "We do not care what you do as long as you don't frighten the horses."

Can be applied to a lot of things.

PPS nordmann - re my use elsewhere of the adjective "poor" - you were right and I was wrong.

Censura Posts : 1560 Join date : 2011-12-27

Paul : Don't underestimate the numbers who educate their children at home in the UK. Last time I checked, the figures were not that much less than the numbers in "public" (i.e. private) schools.

I've a rather different take from either of those expressed here on firearms. Most of my life I have lived in or spent a fair proportion of my time in households that had guns - I doubt if you would have found many farming households that didn't at least have a shotgun, and either an air rifle so powerful that it nowadays would be subject to the "firearms" legislation, or a .22 rifle for vermin control. Where I live now, either would be about as useful as a chocolate fire guard, but I can't regard either as particularly more dangerous than the four-wheeled killing machine I regularly drive.

It seems to me there is a common misconception in the US that "Brits can't own guns". We can, and we do, if we have sufficient reason (such as being a member in good standing of a suitable club), own rifles, though not semi-automatic ones, though only muzzle-loading pistols (that includes quite a few types of revolver) For shotguns the rules are as follows :-

In order to issue a shotgun certificate, the police need to be satisfied that the applicant can possess a shotgun without danger to the public safety or the peace. Part of this involves checking if the applicant has any previous convictions.The new shotgun licence form contains specific health questions that you must answer. You must declare any physical or mental health condition that may affect your ability to possess and use a firearm or shotgun safely. These include epilepsy, stroke, stress-related illness, depression, alcoholism, heart disease, cancer.

Je suis Charlie

Synonyms:

Quotes for Permissiveness:

Acceptance

Je suis Charlie