That's when you nuke the building and salt the earth just to make certain it's cleansed. Because you never know if something like this hasn't permanently tainted the area.
Cause violence usually convinces people to give up their beliefs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cause violence usually convinces people to give up their beliefs.
Who said anything about asking them to give up their beliefs? I was talking about cleansing the land itself.
Cause violence usually convinces people to give up their beliefs.
If you use enough of it, the ideas stop spreading.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We don't need no education...
Cause violence usually convinces people to give up their beliefs.If you use enough of it, the ideas stop spreading.
I can't think of many examples of this being successful, most of them are fairly old though and lacked access to the printing press.
1. The Roman Empire when it started to take control of Christianity destroyed a lot of sects that held alternate beliefs.
2. When Europeans came to North/South America, a lot of people (and their ideas) died.
Since the Industrial Revolution it hasn't been particularly successful though. Nazi's still exist. In North Korea, one of the places where violence is used most systematically, ideas the government is trying to suppress still exist.
Then you look at those two examples of "success" and we're still finding traces of information on both of them. Obviously the concept is biased, because we can't prove that violence wiped out an idea, because if it did, there would be no proof of the idea, making proving it's destruction difficult. Even still, history is rife with examples of people trying to crush ideas through violence and failing.
There's plenty of evidence that using violence actually entrenches the idea. When people suffer for a thing, they tend to increase the value they attach to it. You can hear it in our language:
"I worked so hard, I can't stop now"
It's a common phrase and phenomenon. Things that "cost" more are valued more, because of their cost. Suffering violence is just one form of cost. Suffering violence specifically for something means value is attacked to it directly because of the violence, meaning people will try harder to preserve and pass it on.
Think about 9/11. Think about how the country reacted. Was there a ground swell of people saying we should retreat from the world, rethink our ideas about Christianity, capitalism or democracy? Were their massive calls for Bush to implement Sharia law in the US to avoid having them attack us again?
No, people dug in their heels, they used the event to reinforce their beliefs and ideals about the system they lived in. In the initial days, it was almost a hysterical level of adherence to those concepts of patriotism and religion.
You're right, in theory if you kill everyone who holds a belief, you kill it. Doing that though is difficult, if not nearly impossible and the act of attempting it and failing will have the opposite effect.
What people don't do today is: Kill everyone who's been seen at, say, a commie rally, plus their families. Kill anyone who's had contact with such propaganda. No trials. Yeah, after a few millions dead, it would be pretty much a dead concept in the countries where this was done. Of course, the reason they don't do that is because the cost to a society of doing so is pretty macabre.
Cause violence usually convinces people to give up their beliefs.Where laws preventing the religious indoctrination of children would have covered all religious beliefs...and been unacceptable to a state whose unelected tyrant is also head of the church.
Sorry Dingo, but the Queen is no longer head of the Church. She abdicated that role in favor of Prince Chuck.
Sorry Dingo, but the Queen is no longer head of the Church. She abdicated that role in favor of Prince Chuck.
When was this? According to the Church of England as of 3 June 2014, she is/was still head of the Church.
When was this? According to the Church of England as of 3 June 2014, she is/was still head of the Church.
Sorry Dingo, but the Queen is no longer head of the Church. She abdicated that role in favor of Prince Chuck.
Indeed, not that Orf and I haven't butted heads no few times, but so far as I know, head of the Church is a lifetime position, held by the Monarch. Her uncle abdicated to give her father the title (as dramatized in The King's Speech) but that's the only abdication I can think of in the entire history of the Monarchy.
Well, to be fair, abdicating from the throne of England (&c) and abdicating from the Supreme Governorship of the Church of England are two different things. I do know that Charles has been taking over more and more of the official duties for his mother, but I thought that was more on a case-by-case basis.
it would also be possible for Queenie to abdicate from the Crown of St. Lucia (for example), presumptively in Chuck's favor. She might even have already done so,....
... which would merely indicate that I missed a memo somewhere. Not being a protocol officer for HMG, it's not like anyone would make a point of telling me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not like anyone would make a point of telling you? Dude, I'm an American, I just watch Downton Abbey a lot. :P
Hey, let's be fair. A lot of Americans don't even know who the Vice President is. (It's Clinton, right?)
Wait, which Clinton? So confusing!
|
What people don't do today is: Kill everyone who's been seen at, say, a commie rally, plus their families. Kill anyone who's had contact with such propaganda. No trials. Yeah, after a few millions dead, it would be pretty much a dead concept in the countries where this was done. Of course, the reason they don't do that is because the cost to a society of doing so is pretty macabre.
Yep. It's a Machiavellian thing, really - “If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.” Or in this particular case, you can certainly kill a faith or belief... but not if you have any sort of moral restraint. Luckily for all of us, the last few decades were very peaceful ones in the western world. But in more savage times, ideas, faiths and entire societies can be wiped out. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's what the Nazis were trying to do, in their morbidly organized manner.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I Nazi's still exist.
People calling themselves nazi's still exist. Very few have any relationship to the real thing.
Even still, history is rife with examples of people trying to crush ideas through violence and failing.
Whens the last time you ran into a cathar?
You don't have to achieve total success. "Close enough for state work" is fine for stopping a movement.
There's plenty of evidence that using violence actually entrenches the idea. When people suffer for a thing, they tend to increase the value they attach to it. You can hear it in our language:
And when they're dead they don't value anything.
Think about 9/11.
Two planes vs. a giant country is not nearly the kind of force I'm talking about.
You're right, in theory if you kill everyone who holds a belief, you kill it. Doing that though is difficult, if not nearly impossible and the act of attempting it and failing will have the opposite effect.
Its also stopped ideas from spreading. The reason France isn't a Muslim nation is the Muslim invasion got turned back by people with sharp pointy objects.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no need for an apostrophe in "Nazis" unless the sentence is something like "I punched the Nazi's face."
Its also stopped ideas from spreading. The reason France isn't a Muslim nation is the Muslim invasion got turned back by people with sharp pointy objects.
Were they successful in preventing any Muslims from existing in France for all time?
There is no need for an apostrophe in "Nazis" unless the sentence is something like "I punched the Nazi's face."
Such a bourgeoisie thing to do, correct someone's grammar.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no need for an apostrophe in "Nazis" unless the sentence is something like "I punched the Nazi's face."Such a bourgeoisie thing to do, correct someone's grammar.
"Bourgeoisie" is a noun.
Were they successful in preventing any Muslims from existing in France for all time?
Its also stopped ideas from spreading. The reason France isn't a Muslim nation is the Muslim invasion got turned back by people with sharp pointy objects.
Didn't say that, didn't claim that, explicitly said something already to point out the absurdity of this line of thinking.
That's fine, you decided to focus on superficial aspects of my post, instead of addressing the central point.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry about all that stuffy grammarianism, which, I agree, is akin to National Socialism.
Anyway, my original instinct after clicking on Comrade Dingo's link was to post "Where the white women at?"
Also, alas, when I do click on Comrade Dingo's link, I only get to see up to "A series of criticism blah blah blah" and then it suggests that if I want to continue reading the London Times (I think--that's pretty cool, though, they get to be just THE TIMES f$&~ all the rest of you Times) I should register blah blah blah which I don't. What's going on? Islamic charter schools in Birmingham?
Guys, I'm sorry for starting this argument with what was intended as a joke. Please stop?
What's going on? Islamic charter schools in Birmingham?
Infighting among the conservative party. Plus some allegations of questionable veracity, which dingo of course believes without hesitation or reservation.
Hey, let's be fair. A lot of Americans don't even know who the Vice President is. (It's Clinton, right?)
It's Bozo the f%*&ing Clown, for all intensive porpoises.
"I punched the Nazi's face."
A sentence that can never be said enough. Ever.
I think the saddest part of the neonazi ideology is that those guys never understood the nazi concept. The SA guys they are trying to emulate were actually killed off by the SS because they weren't needed or wanted anymore. First against the wall, eh?
Hey, we suppress the truth in the good ole USA, just look at the Obama Administration.
When was this? According to the Church of England as of 3 June 2014, she is/was still head of the Church.
Sorry Dingo, but the Queen is no longer head of the Church. She abdicated that role in favor of Prince Chuck.
That is very bizarre, a couple years ago friends were having a discussion about the line of succession of the British Monarchy (one wanted to know how many people had to die to make Mr. Arthur Chatto King) and I came across a reference to Queen Elizabeth having passed control of the Church of England to Charles. I have no idea where that was.
"I punched the Nazi's face."A sentence that can never be said enough. Ever.
Or, "I kicked in the Nazi's teeth."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or, "I kicked in the Nazi's teeth.""I punched the Nazi's face."A sentence that can never be said enough. Ever.
Wait, which Clinton? So confusing!
George Clinton. P-Funk for the win!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry about all that stuffy grammarianism, which, I agree, is akin to National Socialism.
I protest!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, we suppress the truth in the good ole USA, just look at the Obama Administration.
You mean the entire history of the executive branch. Or any branch really. Pretending this is about Obama and that it willbe different with the next guy is the real obfuscation.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pretending this is about Obama and that it willbe different with the next guy is the real obfuscation.
Yes, but that's what we do. If your guy isn't in office, then everything is the fault of the guy who is (who, BTW, is about to destroy America. Any minute now.) If he is in office, well then Congress did (or failed to do) it.
Hey, we suppress the truth in the good ole USA, just look at the Obama Administration.You mean the entire history of the executive branch. Or any branch really. Pretending this is about Obama and that it willbe different with the next guy is the real obfuscation.
The Harrison Administration probably didn't suppress much truth.
Cause this totally doesn't sound like hysterical exaggeration from a media desperate for attention.
Sorry about all that stuffy grammarianism, which, I agree, is akin to National Socialism.I protest!
[Punches Stuffy Grammarian's face]
Cause this totally doesn't sound like hysterical exaggeration from a media desperate for attention.
Which is why we should nuke the building and then salt the earth ;)
[Punches Stuffy Grammarian's face]Sorry about all that stuffy grammarianism, which, I agree, is akin to National Socialism.I protest!
One of my favorite new cards from Cards Against Humanity:
Grammar Nazis who are also actual Nazis.
[Punches Stuffy Grammarian's face]Sorry about all that stuffy grammarianism, which, I agree, is akin to National Socialism.I protest!One of my favorite new cards from Cards Against Humanity:
Grammar Nazis who are also actual Nazis.
Ve haf vays ov making you punctuate!
Ve haf vays ov making you punctuate![Punches Stuffy Grammarian's face]Sorry about all that stuffy grammarianism, which, I agree, is akin to National Socialism.I protest!One of my favorite new cards from Cards Against Humanity:
Grammar Nazis who are also actual Nazis.
no you dont
|
So, this story is about some schools in areas of Birmingham (Britain's second largest city) with a largely Muslim intake.
Those schools are not faith schools, and so are expected to respects all faiths and none.
There appears to have been some cases of nepotism paching school governor boards with quite hard-line muslims. Also some cases of a school environment in which students were pressured to conform to certain 'norms' (most notably, limited gender association: boys actually complaining that they weren't allowed to have girlfriends. Not that it was officially banned, just frowned on and made difficult by social pressures reinforced by staff. Reminded me of the chocolate war.
Of course, private schools can be as fundamentalist as they want as long as they meet certain curriculum standards.
Schools with state funding are more tightly controlled.
This article by the BBC gives a decent run-down of the whole thing.
no you dontVe haf vays ov making you punctuate![Punches Stuffy Grammarian's face]Sorry about all that stuffy grammarianism, which, I agree, is akin to National Socialism.I protest!One of my favorite new cards from Cards Against Humanity:
Grammar Nazis who are also actual Nazis.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Harrison Administration probably didn't suppress much truth.Hey, we suppress the truth in the good ole USA, just look at the Obama Administration.You mean the entire history of the executive branch. Or any branch really. Pretending this is about Obama and that it willbe different with the next guy is the real obfuscation.
Sure they did. You don't really think he died of the flu do you?