The Swiss Citizenship of Two Muslim Boys is At Risk After Handshake Controversy

by Guest Sun Apr 24, 2016 9:24 am

First topic message reminder :

Earlier this month, I posted about how two Muslim boys in Switzerland were at the center of controversy because they refused to shake their female teacher’s hand before and after class. They didn’t want to follow the longtime Swiss tradition because their religion, they claim, won’t allow them to touch women who aren’t family members.

The Swiss Citizenship of Two Muslim Boys is At Risk After Handshake Controversy - Page 4 Shutterstock_377118703

Administrators at the school compromised by saying the boys didn’t have to shake the hands of any of their teachers male or female, which only angered the public even more.
And now it may be getting even worse for the boys:

The family of the two teenagers, who refused to shake their female teachers’ hands for religious reasons, have had their application for citizenship suspended. A spokesperson for the local security authorities said that the office for migration in canton Basel Country would be speaking to family members individually, and that it was not unusual for an application to be suspended while additional information was gathered.

I want to believe this is normal behavior, but who knows. If it’s tied in any way to the boys’ actions, I would find it a gross overreaction. As I said before, students shouldn’t be forced to participate in traditions that go against their beliefs, no matter what their reasons are. I’m certainly not defending the students’ faith-based sexism; I just don’t find this tradition worth all the fuss. It doesn’t matter if you’re not standing for the Pledge or not shaking a female teacher’s hand. None of it has any bearing on your education.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/04/22/the-swiss-citizenship-of-two-Muslim-boys-is-at-risk-after-handshake-controversy/

by Ben Reilly Mon Apr 25, 2016 3:33 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:so in return...YOU think you should be able to wander the world doing only as YOU please....without regard to local custom and manners

spoken like a true left wing lout......

Yeah, I believe we should all be able to roam the world and live in peace. Tell me why we shouldn't.

moreover ben...we have a number of THAT sort over here.....we call em "pikeys"

they turn up, smash the locks of the gate into your property, park their caravans on your land, with no intenet of paying any sort of site fees....

the shit evertwhere (literally) and chuck rubbish (plastic bits of metal around,) light fires and contaminate the ground with fuel....

they churn it all up, and then when its ruined and you eventually get an order to get them off the land (which costs a fortune) them go and do it to somebody else...

this of course is the true mentality of the "i can wander anywhere, do what I like and demand to be left in peace" left wing type....

you SHOULD of course be able to go with a witness, give them 3 warnings then set light to their caravans or if you feel nice merely tow em out with a tractor, with no regard to the integrity of them.....

Obviously, none of that is actually living peacefully -- in other words, not even remotely close to what I meant.

I wouldn't talk about "random neuron firings" until you can at least come up with an "example" that isn't actually the complete opposite of the idea I presented.

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 25, 2016 3:42 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:

moreover ben...we have a number of THAT sort over here.....we call em "pikeys"

they turn up, smash the locks of the gate into your property, park their caravans on your land, with no intenet of paying any sort of site fees....

the shit evertwhere (literally) and chuck rubbish (plastic bits of metal around,) light fires and contaminate the ground with fuel....

they churn it all up, and then when its ruined and you eventually get an order to get them off the land (which costs a fortune) them go and do it to somebody else...

this of course is the true mentality of the "i can wander anywhere, do what I like and demand to be left in peace" left wing type....

you SHOULD of course be able to go with a witness, give them 3 warnings then set light to their caravans or if you feel nice merely tow em out with a tractor, with no regard to the integrity of them.....

Obviously, none of that is actually living peacefully -- in other words, not even remotely close to what I meant.

I wouldn't talk about "random neuron firings" until you can at least come up with an "example" that isn't actually the complete opposite of the idea I presented.

The trouble is that different countries and tribes develop their own customs, and if someone comes along who thinks those customs are offensive, it's not going to make for a very peaceful co-existence. The only way that people can roam around without a load of trouble is if they don't have any culture or customs of their own.

by Ben Reilly Mon Apr 25, 2016 3:43 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:

moreover ben...we have a number of THAT sort over here.....we call em "pikeys"

they turn up, smash the locks of the gate into your property, park their caravans on your land, with no intenet of paying any sort of site fees....

the shit evertwhere (literally) and chuck rubbish (plastic bits of metal around,) light fires and contaminate the ground with fuel....

they churn it all up, and then when its ruined and you eventually get an order to get them off the land (which costs a fortune) them go and do it to somebody else...

this of course is the true mentality of the "i can wander anywhere, do what I like and demand to be left in peace" left wing type....

you SHOULD of course be able to go with a witness, give them 3 warnings then set light to their caravans or if you feel nice merely tow em out with a tractor, with no regard to the integrity of them.....

Obviously, none of that is actually living peacefully -- in other words, not even remotely close to what I meant.

I wouldn't talk about "random neuron firings" until you can at least come up with an "example" that isn't actually the complete opposite of the idea I presented.

The trouble is that different countries and tribes develop their own customs, and if someone comes along who thinks those customs are offensive, it's not going to make for a very peaceful co-existence. The only way that people can roam around without a load of trouble is if they don't have any culture or customs of their own.

That's not the only way. People can also learn to tolerate customs that are different from the ones they grew up with. It happens daily across most of the world, actually.

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 25, 2016 3:45 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

The trouble is that different countries and tribes develop their own customs, and if someone comes along who thinks those customs are offensive, it's not going to make for a very peaceful co-existence. The only way that people can roam around without a load of trouble is if they don't have any culture or customs of their own.

That's not the only way. People can also learn to tolerate customs that are different from the ones they grew up with. It happens daily across most of the world, actually.

That would depend on the reasoning behind the custom, would it not? Not shaking hands might seem like a trivial thing, but the reasoning behind it is not.

by Ben Reilly Mon Apr 25, 2016 4:00 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

The trouble is that different countries and tribes develop their own customs, and if someone comes along who thinks those customs are offensive, it's not going to make for a very peaceful co-existence. The only way that people can roam around without a load of trouble is if they don't have any culture or customs of their own.

That's not the only way. People can also learn to tolerate customs that are different from the ones they grew up with. It happens daily across most of the world, actually.

That would depend on the reasoning behind the custom, would it not? Not shaking hands might seem like a trivial thing, but the reasoning behind it is not.

The reasoning doesn't really matter in the long run. In this case, it's done in order to not offend their god, but what if it was done because they felt themselves superior to their teacher? What difference would that actually make?

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 25, 2016 4:05 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

That would depend on the reasoning behind the custom, would it not? Not shaking hands might seem like a trivial thing, but the reasoning behind it is not.

The reasoning doesn't really matter in the long run. In this case, it's done in order to not offend their god, but what if it was done because they felt themselves superior to their teacher? What difference would that actually make?

In this case, according to you, they refuse to shake hands because to do so would mean they were touching her in a sexual manner. Do you not find that kind of offensive and/or very silly?

Why are you suddenly so protective of customs whereby people don't want to "offend their god"? You're usually very critical of that kind of thing. It's strange really because it's usually me who's pretty tolerant of these religious customs, but I find this situation ridiculous whereas you seem to think it's perfectly reasonable.

by Ben Reilly Mon Apr 25, 2016 4:19 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

That would depend on the reasoning behind the custom, would it not? Not shaking hands might seem like a trivial thing, but the reasoning behind it is not.

The reasoning doesn't really matter in the long run. In this case, it's done in order to not offend their god, but what if it was done because they felt themselves superior to their teacher? What difference would that actually make?

In this case, according to you, they refuse to shake hands because to do so would mean they were touching her in a sexual manner. Do you not find that kind of offensive and/or very silly?

Why are you suddenly so protective of customs whereby people don't want to "offend their god"? You're usually very critical of that kind of thing. It's strange really because it's usually me who's pretty tolerant of these religious customs, but I find this situation ridiculous whereas you seem to think it's perfectly reasonable.

I do think such customs are silly, but I have been coming to the conclusion that aggressive criticism of them doesn't change people's minds, but instead makes them more entrenched in their beliefs.

And, I've always felt that religious belief isn't harmful in most respects. There are a few examples of religion being used to justify violence, of course, but I don't think it's anything more than an excuse in most cases -- otherwise, you'd expect to see every Muslim and Christian advocating killing gay people, for example.

Remember, nearly everyone I love in my life has religious beliefs. I can't demonize them the way some people can.

by Ben Reilly Mon Apr 25, 2016 4:20 pm

And I'd add as well, I'm not really protective of the custom itself in this case -- I'm considering the fact that these are kids who could lose their citizenship over shaking their teacher's hand. That's patently ridiculous.

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 25, 2016 4:25 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:And I'd add as well, I'm not really protective of the custom itself in this case -- I'm considering the fact that these are kids who could lose their citizenship over shaking their teacher's hand. That's patently ridiculous.

Is it though? Such extreme ideas suggests that they have other extreme ideas too. They've got it from their parents, so what other ideas do those parents have? I don't think the refusal to shake hands is as trivial as it appears because it represents very sexist and offensive ideas.

In France, a woman who wore a burka was refused citizenship, not on the grounds of what she wore but because it what it represented - subservience to men and therefore not in keeping with the customs of the country.

by Ben Reilly Mon Apr 25, 2016 4:34 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:And I'd add as well, I'm not really protective of the custom itself in this case -- I'm considering the fact that these are kids who could lose their citizenship over shaking their teacher's hand. That's patently ridiculous.

Is it though? Such extreme ideas suggests that they have other extreme ideas too. They've got it from their parents, so what other ideas do those parents have? I don't think the refusal to shake hands is as trivial as it appears because it represents very sexist and offensive ideas.

In France, a woman who wore a burka was refused citizenship, not on the grounds of what she wore but because it what it represented - subservience to men and therefore not in keeping with the customs of the country.

I think it's fallacious to read too much into what another culture's customs may or may not mean to an individual. How many of our culture's customs do we observe without giving any thought to them? When I shake hands with someone, I very rarely think beforehand, "This will show him that I'm not carrying a sword, and thus make him more likely to trade his grain for my succulent pigs." (In this scenario, I'm a medieval pig farmer)

As far as the burqa goes, you already know how I feel about one person's right to tell another person what to wear Smile

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 25, 2016 4:46 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Is it though? Such extreme ideas suggests that they have other extreme ideas too. They've got it from their parents, so what other ideas do those parents have? I don't think the refusal to shake hands is as trivial as it appears because it represents very sexist and offensive ideas.

In France, a woman who wore a burka was refused citizenship, not on the grounds of what she wore but because it what it represented - subservience to men and therefore not in keeping with the customs of the country.

I think it's fallacious to read too much into what another culture's customs may or may not mean to an individual. How many of our culture's customs do we observe without giving any thought to them? When I shake hands with someone, I very rarely think beforehand, "This will show him that I'm not carrying a sword, and thus make him more likely to trade his grain for my succulent pigs." (In this scenario, I'm a medieval pig farmer)

As far as the burqa goes, you already know how I feel about one person's right to tell another person what to wear

I just explained to you that it wasn't the burka per se which was the problem, it was the reason she wore it.

by Ben Reilly Mon Apr 25, 2016 4:56 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Is it though? Such extreme ideas suggests that they have other extreme ideas too. They've got it from their parents, so what other ideas do those parents have? I don't think the refusal to shake hands is as trivial as it appears because it represents very sexist and offensive ideas.

In France, a woman who wore a burka was refused citizenship, not on the grounds of what she wore but because it what it represented - subservience to men and therefore not in keeping with the customs of the country.

I think it's fallacious to read too much into what another culture's customs may or may not mean to an individual. How many of our culture's customs do we observe without giving any thought to them? When I shake hands with someone, I very rarely think beforehand, "This will show him that I'm not carrying a sword, and thus make him more likely to trade his grain for my succulent pigs." (In this scenario, I'm a medieval pig farmer)

As far as the burqa goes, you already know how I feel about one person's right to tell another person what to wear

I just explained to you that it wasn't the burka per se which was the problem, it was the reason she wore it.

OK -- you already know how I feel about people telling others what their reasons for doing things are.

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 25, 2016 4:58 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I just explained to you that it wasn't the burka per se which was the problem, it was the reason she wore it.

OK -- you already know how I feel about people telling others what their reasons for doing things are.

They didn't tell her the reason - she told them the reason.

by Guest Mon Apr 25, 2016 4:59 pm

I see Ben ducked out of answering my questions and points, yet again

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 25, 2016 5:00 pm

Oh and Ben, you didn't have a problem deciding why these boys won't shake hands with their teacher.

by Ben Reilly Mon Apr 25, 2016 5:03 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Oh and Ben, you didn't have a problem deciding why these boys won't shake hands with their teacher.

Actually, in my first comment I said I don't know what's in their minds, and when I posted about what other Muslims do, that was about other Muslims, since they're not all the same, right?

I'm just saying these are children and human beings and perhaps they should be given the benefit of the doubt, rather than having people leap to the assumption that they don't respect their teacher, they think she's unclean, that they're better than the Swiss or that their families are teaching them to be jihadis Rolling Eyes

by Ben Reilly Mon Apr 25, 2016 5:05 pm

didge wrote:I see Ben ducked out of answering my questions and points, yet again

Could you please repost them? I'll address them to the best of my ability.

by Guest Mon Apr 25, 2016 5:07 pm

didge wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:Seriously, you're flipping out over a non-issue and getting all paranoid/conspiratorial again.

Such a non-issue, to the very fact young Muslim couples, cannot express their love walking hand in hand together, where they face the threat of being arrested, simply for expressing love towards each other in Muslim majority countries. Again its a belief, just like racism is a belief, but you would not tolerate a belief that is negative based on hate. There is nothing different here, its negative, hating love being expressed.
Again you render the suffering of countless people to being that of a non-issue.
Like I say, if this had been two white supremacist kids refusing to shake the hand of a Black teacher, your views would have been dramatically different, and yet its a belief that stops both from shaking hands

by Guest Mon Apr 25, 2016 5:07 pm

didge wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

Are you kidding me, or has every Muslim I've ever met been apostate or lapsed? Around here they're quite friendly and talkative.

I seee as per usual we have had a long list of your excuses and inability to answer my points.
I mean have you though about any of this or are you going to continue to excuse bad beliefs from religions all the time if they are Islamic but happily condemn Christian, making your hypocrisy the worst?

And this is not just about gender … there are moments when even shaking the hand of someone of the same sex can pose a problem. For some traditional Shias any contact with any non-Muslims, male or female, makes the Muslim spiritually impure. After such contact a believer most go through ritual purification.
There are even some Sunni for whom all non-Muslims, regardless of gender, are impure. But Sunnis typically don’t require ritual purification after touching non-Muslims.
So its not only handshakes that is going to be an issue but then many sports as well, they will have to be excused from.
What about lifesaving treatment was well.
What if someone is choking?
I mean the Muslim stance here is if someone is drowning, well, they cannot touch them, so they would drown.
What about mouth to mouth with a heart attack?
Again many young Muslims get arrested for simply holding hands and this is all based around a belief on spiritually being unclean
Its not even in the Quran as well
Again if this was racism as the belief that stopped people hand shaking, you would have called for WW3.
Because its a religious and UnChristian belief, you bend over backwards to accommodate something that is going to be problematic in many areas.

When are people like you going to stop defending bad beliefs?

by Ben Reilly Mon Apr 25, 2016 5:17 pm

To address both of those posts with something I already said:

I do think such customs are silly, but I have been coming to the conclusion that aggressive criticism of them doesn't change people's minds, but instead makes them more entrenched in their beliefs.

by Syl Mon Apr 25, 2016 5:20 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
eddie wrote:Come on, pucker up......everyone!!

Bag of worms, can of cats:

I just saw this. Laughing

by Guest Mon Apr 25, 2016 5:20 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:To address both of those posts with something I already said:

I do think such customs are silly, but I have been coming to the conclusion that aggressive criticism of them doesn't change people's minds, but instead makes them more entrenched in their beliefs.

So just basically your only reply is bullshit and you cannot answer them

If you cannot answer then just say so
What a surprise

You do realise the same school of thought on this will be the same regarding sitting next to women as well.

Are you going to accommodate segregation as well for them?

by Major Mon Apr 25, 2016 5:20 pm

To all muzzzzzzi asslickuz, I hope they come and live next door to you so you can watch your own area become a ghetto, drug pushuz haven and watch your property devalued.

by eddie Mon Apr 25, 2016 5:21 pm

"This will show him that I'm not carrying a sword, and thus make him more likely to trade his grain for my succulent pigs."

That's what I've been doing wrong. I've been getting my sword out and therefore not getting any succulent pigs.
You learn a lot on this forum Cool

by Ben Reilly Mon Apr 25, 2016 5:22 pm

Stormee wrote:To all muzzzzzzi asslickuz, I hope they come and live next door to you so you can watch your own area become a ghetto, drug pushuz haven and watch your property devalued.

You are scum.

by Ben Reilly Mon Apr 25, 2016 5:23 pm

didge wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:To address both of those posts with something I already said:

I do think such customs are silly, but I have been coming to the conclusion that aggressive criticism of them doesn't change people's minds, but instead makes them more entrenched in their beliefs.

So just basically your only reply is bullshit and you cannot answer them

If you cannot answer then just say so
What a surprise

You do realise the same school of thought on this will be the same regarding sitting next to women as well.

Are you going to accommodate segregation as well for them?

I did address it -- I said I find those customs silly. What would you do about them? Hold classes in which you explain how superior you are to them?

by Guest Mon Apr 25, 2016 5:23 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Stormee wrote:To all muzzzzzzi asslickuz, I hope they come and live next door to you so you can watch your own area become a ghetto, drug pushuz haven and watch your property devalued.

You are scum.

Wow remember, debate the points not the poster.

by Ben Reilly Mon Apr 25, 2016 5:25 pm

didge wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Stormee wrote:To all muzzzzzzi asslickuz, I hope they come and live next door to you so you can watch your own area become a ghetto, drug pushuz haven and watch your property devalued.

You are scum.

Wow remember, debate the points not the poster.

The poster called people who aren't here to speak for themselves scum, so I responded on behalf of not only them, but all people of honor, kindness and decency (you're welcome).

by Guest Mon Apr 25, 2016 5:26 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
didge wrote:

So just basically your only reply is bullshit and you cannot answer them

If you cannot answer then just say so
What a surprise

You do realise the same school of thought on this will be the same regarding sitting next to women as well.

Are you going to accommodate segregation as well for them?

I did address it -- I said I find those customs silly. What would you do about them? Hold classes in which you explain how superior you are to them?

That is addressing one point, where you are still defending the practice.

Then we have an idiotic view about superiority?

Who made such a view?

You

Again do you want a world where women are forced to sit away from men and not allowed to shake the hands of people, as this is forced upon them

You again defend bad beliefs and then even worse make some view racially based on superiority

I would have to think what you would have been like when women were fighting for the most basic rights

No doubt they would still be shackled and at home, but hey maybe that is what you believe

by Guest Mon Apr 25, 2016 5:27 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
didge wrote:

Wow remember, debate the points not the poster.

The poster called people who aren't here to speak for themselves scum, so I responded on behalf of not only them, but all people of honor, kindness and decency (you're welcome).

So two wrongs makes a right in your book, thus justifying anyone to be nasty, if they deem it okay, based on a subjective point of view?

You made yourself just look as hateful and wrong

by eddie Mon Apr 25, 2016 5:28 pm

by Guest Mon Apr 25, 2016 5:31 pm

I would also question whether a decent Muslim would lower themselves to being as hateful as Ben was in kind to Stormee being hateful.
Is he then justifying and proclaiming they are hateful then?
I would like to think a proportion would easily rise above it.

by Ben Reilly Mon Apr 25, 2016 5:32 pm

didge wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
didge wrote:

So just basically your only reply is bullshit and you cannot answer them

If you cannot answer then just say so
What a surprise

You do realise the same school of thought on this will be the same regarding sitting next to women as well.

Are you going to accommodate segregation as well for them?

I did address it -- I said I find those customs silly. What would you do about them? Hold classes in which you explain how superior you are to them?

That is addressing one point, where you are still defending the practice.

Then we have an idiotic view about superiority?

Who made such a view?

You

Again do you want a world where women are forced to sit away from men and not allowed to shake the hands of people, as this is forced upon them

You again defend bad beliefs and then even worse make some view racially based on superiority

I would have to think what you would have been like when women were fighting for the most basic rights

No doubt they would still be shackled and at home, but hey maybe that is what you believe

I'm not "defending" anything, wordsmith. You know I don't support things like segregation, hand-shake rules (including Switzerland's moronic one) or being "shackled and at home."

I've clearly said that aggressive confrontation of deeply-held beliefs is not going to solve the problem, because I've seen people try that over and over again and it never works. So please, stop putting words in my mouth, stop trying to make me look bad, and control yourself.

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 25, 2016 5:33 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Oh and Ben, you didn't have a problem deciding why these boys won't shake hands with their teacher.

Actually, in my first comment I said I don't know what's in their minds, and when I posted about what other Muslims do, that was about other Muslims, since they're not all the same, right?

I'm just saying these are children and human beings and perhaps they should be given the benefit of the doubt, rather than having people leap to the assumption that they don't respect their teacher, they think she's unclean, that they're better than the Swiss or that their families are teaching them to be jihadis

So you don't actually know that it's not because they see women as unclean then.

by Guest Mon Apr 25, 2016 5:34 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
didge wrote:

That is addressing one point, where you are still defending the practice.

Then we have an idiotic view about superiority?

Who made such a view?

You

Again do you want a world where women are forced to sit away from men and not allowed to shake the hands of people, as this is forced upon them

You again defend bad beliefs and then even worse make some view racially based on superiority

I would have to think what you would have been like when women were fighting for the most basic rights

No doubt they would still be shackled and at home, but hey maybe that is what you believe

I'm not "defending" anything, wordsmith. You know I don't support things like segregation, hand-shake rules (including Switzerland's moronic one) or being "shackled and at home."

I've clearly said that aggressive confrontation of deeply-held beliefs is not going to solve the problem, because I've seen people try that over and over again and it never works. So please, stop putting words in my mouth, stop trying to make me look bad, and control yourself.

You are defending a bad belief.
One you cannot answer simple questions on the point and second you want to accommodate that belief
This belief comes from the same school of thought as segregation.
So are you only then going to draw the line when they demand segregation?
Or should you have drawn the line and stated there was nothing stopping them wearing gloves and taught and showed other Muslims scholars show there is no need to believe you cannot shake hands?

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 25, 2016 5:38 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
didge wrote:

That is addressing one point, where you are still defending the practice.

Then we have an idiotic view about superiority?

Who made such a view?

You

Again do you want a world where women are forced to sit away from men and not allowed to shake the hands of people, as this is forced upon them

You again defend bad beliefs and then even worse make some view racially based on superiority

I would have to think what you would have been like when women were fighting for the most basic rights

No doubt they would still be shackled and at home, but hey maybe that is what you believe

I'm not "defending" anything, wordsmith. You know I don't support things like segregation, hand-shake rules (including Switzerland's moronic one) or being "shackled and at home."

I've clearly said that aggressive confrontation of deeply-held beliefs is not going to solve the problem, because I've seen people try that over and over again and it never works. So please, stop putting words in my mouth, stop trying to make me look bad, and control yourself.

You were quite aggressive towards Stormee ...

by Ben Reilly Mon Apr 25, 2016 5:38 pm

didge wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
didge wrote:

That is addressing one point, where you are still defending the practice.

Then we have an idiotic view about superiority?

Who made such a view?

You

Again do you want a world where women are forced to sit away from men and not allowed to shake the hands of people, as this is forced upon them

You again defend bad beliefs and then even worse make some view racially based on superiority

I would have to think what you would have been like when women were fighting for the most basic rights

No doubt they would still be shackled and at home, but hey maybe that is what you believe

I'm not "defending" anything, wordsmith. You know I don't support things like segregation, hand-shake rules (including Switzerland's moronic one) or being "shackled and at home."

I've clearly said that aggressive confrontation of deeply-held beliefs is not going to solve the problem, because I've seen people try that over and over again and it never works. So please, stop putting words in my mouth, stop trying to make me look bad, and control yourself.

You are defending a bad belief.
One you cannot answer simple questions on the point and second you want to accommodate that belief
This belief comes from the same school of thought as segregation.
So are you only then going to draw the line when they demand segregation?
Or should you have drawn the line and stated there was nothing stopping them wearing gloves and taught and showed other Muslims scholars show there is no need to believe you cannot shake hands?

Yes, Didge, I usually defend things by calling them "silly." You're right. You win. OK? Are you happy now? Can I please leave this debate?

by Ben Reilly Mon Apr 25, 2016 5:40 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
didge wrote:

That is addressing one point, where you are still defending the practice.

Then we have an idiotic view about superiority?

Who made such a view?

You

Again do you want a world where women are forced to sit away from men and not allowed to shake the hands of people, as this is forced upon them

You again defend bad beliefs and then even worse make some view racially based on superiority

I would have to think what you would have been like when women were fighting for the most basic rights

No doubt they would still be shackled and at home, but hey maybe that is what you believe

I'm not "defending" anything, wordsmith. You know I don't support things like segregation, hand-shake rules (including Switzerland's moronic one) or being "shackled and at home."

I've clearly said that aggressive confrontation of deeply-held beliefs is not going to solve the problem, because I've seen people try that over and over again and it never works. So please, stop putting words in my mouth, stop trying to make me look bad, and control yourself.

You were quite aggressive towards Stormee ...

Yeah, I actually will get pretty aggressive toward berks whose beliefs paint entire religions and pretty much all non-white people as criminal scum.

by Guest Mon Apr 25, 2016 5:41 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
didge wrote:

You are defending a bad belief.
One you cannot answer simple questions on the point and second you want to accommodate that belief
This belief comes from the same school of thought as segregation.
So are you only then going to draw the line when they demand segregation?
Or should you have drawn the line and stated there was nothing stopping them wearing gloves and taught and showed other Muslims scholars show there is no need to believe you cannot shake hands?

Yes, Didge, I usually defend things by calling them "silly." You're right. You win. OK? Are you happy now? Can I please leave this debate?

Well you have defended this belief throughout.
If you finally recognize its wrong to do so and to actually teach that other scholars disagree?
Then thank goodness for that, you are learning.

by eddie Mon Apr 25, 2016 5:42 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
didge wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
didge wrote:

That is addressing one point, where you are still defending the practice.

Then we have an idiotic view about superiority?

Who made such a view?

You

Again do you want a world where women are forced to sit away from men and not allowed to shake the hands of people, as this is forced upon them

You again defend bad beliefs and then even worse make some view racially based on superiority

I would have to think what you would have been like when women were fighting for the most basic rights

No doubt they would still be shackled and at home, but hey maybe that is what you believe

I'm not "defending" anything, wordsmith. You know I don't support things like segregation, hand-shake rules (including Switzerland's moronic one) or being "shackled and at home."

I've clearly said that aggressive confrontation of deeply-held beliefs is not going to solve the problem, because I've seen people try that over and over again and it never works. So please, stop putting words in my mouth, stop trying to make me look bad, and control yourself.

You are defending a bad belief.
One you cannot answer simple questions on the point and second you want to accommodate that belief
This belief comes from the same school of thought as segregation.
So are you only then going to draw the line when they demand segregation?
Or should you have drawn the line and stated there was nothing stopping them wearing gloves and taught and showed other Muslims scholars show there is no need to believe you cannot shake hands?

Yes, Didge, I usually defend things by calling them "silly." You're right. You win. OK? Are you happy now? Can I please leave this debate?

Not till you've answered all the questions.
In rhyming slang. Cool

by Guest Mon Apr 25, 2016 5:42 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You were quite aggressive towards Stormee ...

Yeah, I actually will get pretty aggressive toward berks whose beliefs paint entire religions and pretty much all non-white people as criminal scum.

And where has that got me?

No where.

The more you are hateful towards people, the less inclined they will be in listening to you

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 25, 2016 5:46 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You were quite aggressive towards Stormee ...

Yeah, I actually will get pretty aggressive toward berks whose beliefs paint entire religions and pretty much all non-white people as criminal scum.

You don't usually say anything to anyone who says negative things about entire religions.

by Syl Mon Apr 25, 2016 5:52 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

Yeah, I actually will get pretty aggressive toward berks whose beliefs paint entire religions and pretty much all non-white people as criminal scum.

You don't usually say anything to anyone who says negative things about entire religions.

I was thinking that.
When one of the posters here (Fuzzy Jack) said he had danced at the time of the Brussels attacks where 32 people were murdered.....he was asked to clarify what he meant.
No response from him.

by Ben Reilly Mon Apr 25, 2016 5:53 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You were quite aggressive towards Stormee ...

Yeah, I actually will get pretty aggressive toward berks whose beliefs paint entire religions and pretty much all non-white people as criminal scum.

You don't usually say anything to anyone who says negative things about entire religions.

I certainly wouldn't stand for anybody saying, "I hope all you Chrizzie ass-lickers get a bunch of Chrizzies living around you so your neighborhood will turn into a ghetto."

by Syl Mon Apr 25, 2016 6:01 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You don't usually say anything to anyone who says negative things about entire religions.

I was thinking that.
When one of the posters here (Fuzzy Jack) said he had danced at the time of the Brussels attacks where 32 people were murdered.....he was asked to clarify what he meant.
No response from him.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t15513-belgian-minister-claims-many-Muslims-danced-after-attacks#295082
In case anyone missed it.

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 25, 2016 6:02 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You don't usually say anything to anyone who says negative things about entire religions.

I certainly wouldn't stand for anybody saying, "I hope all you Chrizzie ass-lickers get a bunch of Chrizzies living around you so your neighborhood will turn into a ghetto."

I doubt you would say one word. You'd probably say you hadn't seen such a post.

by Ben Reilly Mon Apr 25, 2016 6:28 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You don't usually say anything to anyone who says negative things about entire religions.

I certainly wouldn't stand for anybody saying, "I hope all you Chrizzie ass-lickers get a bunch of Chrizzies living around you so your neighborhood will turn into a ghetto."

I doubt you would say one word. You'd probably say you hadn't seen such a post.

You certainly have a tendency to tell people their own minds. Yet you hate it when it's done to you.

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 25, 2016 6:34 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I doubt you would say one word. You'd probably say you hadn't seen such a post.

You certainly have a tendency to tell people their own minds. Yet you hate it when it's done to you.

I'm not wrong though ... am I?

by Ben Reilly Mon Apr 25, 2016 6:46 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I doubt you would say one word. You'd probably say you hadn't seen such a post.

You certainly have a tendency to tell people their own minds. Yet you hate it when it's done to you.

I'm not wrong though ... am I?

No, you're not. When I said I wouldn't stand for people talking about other religious groups that way, I was lying. I only like atheists and Muslims.

by Ben Reilly Mon Apr 25, 2016 6:46 pm

Oh, and devil worshipers Twisted Evil

The Swiss Citizenship of Two Muslim Boys is At Risk After Handshake Controversy - Page 4 3852033631

by Sponsored content