'I go to bed at night... by chrisisall

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

'I go to bed at night...

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Saturday, September 25, 2010 09:49
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 8774
PAGE 3 of 3

Saturday, September 25, 2010 2:16 AM

KLESST

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Is Klesst new? Cool, another chew toy.

Funny, I might have suggested that you bite me if you had'nt beat me to it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 25, 2010 4:33 AM

KANEMAN

Niki2's summation: Terrorists are muslim
Joe is muslim
joe is terrorists
Is retarded.

It would be illogical to fear all muslims in America as being terrorists, however it would be perfectly logical to choose not to board a bus in Tel Aviv that was just boarded by a muslim with a big belly and skinny legs.

I see it more as a gambling situation. The further you get away from sand-niggerdome the less chance you have of being blown up by islamic terrorists(attempts). At the same time the closer you get your chances increase exponentially. Then it becomes completely illogical to not accept the danger....and would be a bad bet...if your life depended on it

At the same time. I wouldn't think twice about the Muslim serving me at 7 eleven, except that he will most likely try to cheat me out of my change(Browned skinned people seem to enjoy stealing).

****Note****(I am well aware that most of the Muslims in my example are most likely Indian and not Islamic at all, however I choose to ignore the propaganda that there is a difference and clump all rattled tongue speaking sand dwellers together....for the sake of arguement ...You know, If it looks like a duck...)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 25, 2010 6:10 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
...the Muslims in my example are most likely Indian and not Islamic at all...

Oh man. Kwicko, I think I've found your new signature quote.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 25, 2010 6:15 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

KPO, I agree with much of what you said. However, all religious texts can be misconstrued, in my opinion, for the reasons you stated...AND because whoever translated them from ancient languages might not have gotten it completely right. It's the problem with translating from ancient Arabic that I was discussing, and yes, the Bible has MANY different translations meaning much the same thing, but not exactly. So it is with the Qu'ran, and if you haven't heard how Jewish scholars debate for HOURS over a passage of the Torah in their schules, you've missed my point. Go to http://bible.cc/ezekiel/23-48.htm to see all the myriad translations from the different "versions"...there are many for every subject.

Obviously nothing leaves anyone “completely baffled”, but interpretation can be pretty different from version to version. I think the Qu’ran would be even more difficult to translate into any Western tongue, and even for Muslims themselves, there is a lot of controversy and of course, just like the Bible, contradictory passages.

I wholeheartedly agree with both you and Mike about the relevance beyond the specific time period.

But I disagree about “strict constructionist” when it comes to the Constitution. IT gets “interpreted” by judges subjectively, as has been evident all too often, and the cry of “activist judges” as being exclusively “liberal” justices is just a political ploy; both sides have been activist in their own way. It’s a misnomer just like so many of the things we hear on this forum and in politics; convenient buzz word for the masses, nothing more.

The only thing worth responding to in Kane’s rant is that my syllogism was about how people THINK, not that it’s accurate, and that the point some of us have been making is that those of us living HERE have no logical reason to run around being terrified of a terrorist attack affecting us; that, too, is just a political ploy to keep fear alive in order to control people.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 25, 2010 6:58 AM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
...the Muslims in my example are most likely Indian and not Islamic at all...
Oh man. Kwicko, I think I've found your new signature quote.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

That would be theft..

****Note****I am well aware that most of the Muslims in my example are most likely Indian and not Islamic at all, however I choose to ignore the propaganda that there is a difference and clump all rattled tongue speaking sand dwellers together....for the sake of arguement ...You know, If it looks like a duck...*****end note***

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 25, 2010 9:49 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
I'm inclined to argue that the "original" meaning of any text, let alone one that was written almost a millenia and a half ago, is impossible to reconstruct and actually meaningless. What matters is practice--they way people related to and use the text. Of course, when the text in question is presented as the infallible word of god and the end of history, original meaning becomes extra problematic. Note that this is why I loathe strict constructionists of the US constitution.

Bzzzt! Wrong Answer.

You see, the folks who wrote it were very damn well aware of that problem, and made sure to express down to the tiniest nitpick of a fuckin detail exactly what every ounce of it meant.

You can find that in the Federalist Papers, Antifederalist Papers, and a hefty number of speeches at the time because they were dead set that there BE no ambiguity, that their MEANING would be known beyond a doubt to anyone who was literate whatever, just to counter that very problem, and as a check against deliberate misinterpretation of the kind the Supreme Court under Jay almost immediately indulged in, cause for the most part the Federalists (Hamilton in particular) were lying about those intentions and wanted a new aristocracy any way they could contrive it...

But when it comes to what the Constitution MEANS, what it was intended to, chapter and freakin verse, that's not in *ANY* doubt whatever, and never will be as long as language exists - the problem isn't with what it means, oh no...

The PROBLEM is that a lot of people don't LIKE what it means, and set about using the ignorance of others to subvert those intentions.

Go read the Federalist papers.
Go read the Antifederalist papers.
Go read the collected speeches.

Then come back and try to tell me there's even an ounce of ambiguity, I defy you to try.

Politicians do not ignore it cause they don't understand it - they ignore it cause they don't like what it SAYS, and assume the ignorance of most people will prevent them from being called to heel for it.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE