is this offensive to Arab-Americans?

[fivedollarbill]

My fiancee and I watched this video this weekend --

http://www.nationallampoon.com/index.php/72-virgins

I thought it was stupid, sure, but I laughed during it, pretty hard actually. She did not think it was funny at all, quite the opposite. She seems to think this type of material is causing racism in America and creating a larger divide in our country. I think she's crazy and I'm marrying the woman. What do you think?

[Sadistic Savior]

The 72 virgins thing is about Muslims, not Arabs. They are not the same thing, just as Caucasians and christianity are not the same thing.

Is she a Muslim?

[USMC the Almighty]

is this offensive to Arab-Americans?

Who the hell cares?

[SW85]

Hm. Reminds me of the time I made a post highly critical of Islam on another board and was accused of racism. I pointed out that Islam is a religion, not a race, to which the response was that most Muslims are Arabs. When I pointed out that that is precisely the logic used by supporters of racial profiling, I didn't get a response.

[Castle]

If I was a Muslim I'm sure I wouldn't be offended.....because it's a GAG people! sheeesh.

-Castle

[Justinian]

Since when did Americans care to not offend those Muslim "Hyphenated Americans" let alone invite them to settle here? You're out of your mind.

[Coyote]

Since when did Americans care to not offend those Muslim "Hyphenated Americans" let alone invite them to settle here? You're out of your mind.

And who invited you to settle here?

[9sublime]

Also, who wants you to stay in this country you unproductive cretin.

[lipmonkey]

fivedollarbill is posting this same post all over the political boards and hasn't responded to any of them that I'm aware of.

[9sublime]

Thanks for that lipmonkey.

[SW85]

He probably just wants to know whether or not he should marry the woman. ;)

[Segep]

fivedollarbill is posting this same post all over the political boards and hasn't responded to any of them that I'm aware of.

This is at least the third identical post that I'm aware of.

[OPGhostdog]

Its a shame that a person have to go from board to board with
the same old mess. However I am sure that he received many
replies, and believe it or not some people is willing to bug the
hell out of others with the same old tired mess.

Lipmonkey, I see you are up on the game, and good looking out.

We must not forget that everyone who signs onto these boards
is functioning with a full deck upstairs, and the ones who don't
have a full deck...one can tell by their actions through their posts.

[lipmonkey]

I bounce around on a lot of boards. These copy and paste spammers waste my time.:)

[Sadistic Savior]

I smell spam.

[9sublime]

I don't understand why people do this... what do they have to gain? He could work for whoever made the film, trying to spread it round.

[JavaBlack]

to which the response was that most Muslims are Arabs.
Actually that is not true. Iran and Turkey contain large Persian population. Africa has a lot of Muslims that are not Arabic. And even if this leaves Arabs as the mode... the place with the most Muslims on the planet is the Indian subcontinent. The people living in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh are not Arabs.

[Sadistic Savior]

Isnt Indonesia mostly Muslim too?

[Justinian]

And who invited you to settle here?


Western [moreover American] and Christian advocates. Anyhow, I'm partly British anyway and certainly the practicer of the Anglican lifestyle. It is appalling how you would even attempt to defend the reality of Muslims in America. Such a radically dangerous liberal position is beyond wreckless stupidity and it's certainly not American.

[9sublime]

Don't associate yourself with Britain, you're not British in all honesty, and you certainly don't lead an Anglican lifestyle. British people in general don't endorse racism, homophobia and various other resentments based on peoples beliefs, creeds and places of origin. I don't think you would be an appreciate nextdoor neighbour to most people living in the Western world.

Muslims in America are dangerous? All of them?

[SW85]

Actually that is not true.

I'm aware, but (a) I'm not the one who said they were, and (b) correcting the opposition's faulty points was not my goal, correcting their faulty logic was.

Isnt Indonesia mostly Muslim too?

Last I heard, it is the single largest Muslim nation (population-wise) in the world.

Muslims in America are dangerous? All of them?

If recent polls are any indication, fully a third or so of them are. :lol:

[vyo476]

If recent polls are any indication, fully a third or so of them are. :lol:

Those polls you're referencing would be the study done on whether or not American Muslims believe suicide attacks can be justified, right? Tell me, in your world does expressing an opinion in words to a poll make one dangerous?

[SW85]

Those polls you're referencing would be the study done on whether or not American Muslims believe suicide attacks can be justified, right? Tell me, in your world does expressing an opinion in words to a poll make one dangerous?

Would you feel comfortable and safe around a man who thinks that, from time to time, it is not only morally justifiable but imperative to kill children?

At any rate, why bother me? I'm not the one saying all Muslims are dangerous, just the obviously cretinous ones.

[vyo476]

Would you feel comfortable and safe around a man who thinks that, from time to time, it is not only morally justifiable but imperative to kill children?

Comfortable? No. Safe? As much as ever. People are allowed their opinions. I know plenty of people who believe the American usage of atomic weaponry in WWII was perfectly justified and I feel no less safe around them. How many children died when we dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? For that matter, how many children died in our firebombing raids on Dresden and Tokyo?

And by the way, the statistic was that 1 out of 4 Muslim-American youths believe that suicide attacks are at least sometimes justified. Take a look at the wording. We don't know how many of those 1 out of 4 believe that suicide attacks that kill children are imperative because that question wasn't asked.

[SW85]

Comfortable? No. Safe? As much as ever. People are allowed their opinions.

And you're allowed to feel unsafe. What's yer point?

I know plenty of people who believe the American usage of atomic weaponry in WWII was perfectly justified and I feel no less safe around them.

Difference is, they don't own and probably can't get their hands on nuclear weapons.

And by the way, the statistic was that 1 out of 4 Muslim-American youths believe that suicide attacks are at least sometimes justified. Take a look at the wording. We don't know how many of those 1 out of 4 believe that suicide attacks that kill children are imperative because that question wasn't asked.

That's now how I represented the poll. I asked if you would feel safe around a man who thinks it's OK to kill kids from time to time. Maybe I should've substituted "kill kids" with "rape women" to make obvious that I was not drawing directly on the results of the poll, but that's just nitpicking, isn't it?

[vyo476]

And you're allowed to feel unsafe. What's yer point?
Nice twist. When I said people are allowed to have their opinions I meant that a simple spoken opinion doesn't make someone dangerous. Potentially dangerous, perhaps, but not actually dangerous.


Difference is, they don't own and probably can't get their hands on nuclear weapons.


The sentiment remains the same. We killed children with cutting edge technology and they kill children with homemade bombs. The point is still that both groups believe that it is (or was) justifiable to kill children. Remember, that was your question to me - would I feel safe around someone who thinks it is not only morally permissible but imperative to kill children from time to time. At the time, you didn't specify the means - and really, when it comes to something like killing children, the means really don't matter all that much.

That's now how I represented the poll. I asked if you would feel safe around a man who thinks it's OK to kill kids from time to time. Maybe I should've substituted "kill kids" with "rape women" to make obvious that I was not drawing directly on the results of the poll, but that's just nitpicking, isn't it?

I meant only to correct the statement you made a few posts back about how it's a "third" of them.

[bokile]

Who the hell cares?

I do:D and you should too, there are part of this society:p :D

[USMC the Almighty]

I do:D and you should too, there are part of this society:p :D

You sound like a Frenchman. I honestly don't care if a particular movie offends Muslims. They don't have to go see it.

You've got to love this irony though. Libs go nuts when anyone suggests limiting the free speech of terrorist recruiting websites but if there's a movie that might offend someone, then hell no the 1st Amendment does not apply.

[Lawless168]

I hope they make that movie, I would watch it, its funny.

[rmbarron]

You sound like a Frenchman. I honestly don't care if a particular movie offends Muslims. They don't have to go see it.

You've got to love this irony though. Libs go nuts when anyone suggests limiting the free speech of terrorist recruiting websites but if there's a movie that might offend someone, then hell no the 1st Amendment does not apply.

What is it with you and the French?! Everytime I read a thread there's a least one post where you make some derogatory stab at the French. The French would love this movie! There at least as racist as we are and half as afraid to addmit it! At any rate, I wish all you "Cons" would stop with this "Libs" b/s, as if Liberalism is some kind of whacky fringe movement. This may be a bit much for you to digest, but all - not some, but all of the Founding Fathers were self described liberals. Liberalism is what founded this country. Conservativism is what they fought a revolution against. And for the record, the only reason I don't think they should make this movie is because trying to stretch that premise into a two hour film would be pointless. It makes for a damned funny short. I can laugh at Muslims. I'm a white guy. Maybe they ought to try laughing at us once in while. We are pretty ridiculous.

[USMC the Almighty]

What is it with you and the French?! Everytime I read a thread there's a least one post where you make some derogatory stab at the French. The French would love this movie! There at least as racist as we are and half as afraid to addmit it!

First of all, I only recall making two jokes about the French so I don't have some infatuation with them as you suggest. And there a countless reasons for my disdain of the French, but having spent some time there when I was in high school, I remember hating everything about the country and its people.

At any rate, I wish all you "Cons" would stop with this "Libs" b/s, as if Liberalism is some kind of whacky fringe movement. This may be a bit much for you to digest, but all - not some, but all of the Founding Fathers were self described liberals. Liberalism is what founded this country. Conservativism is what they fought a revolution against.

You obviously are lacking in historical knowledge so I'll try to educate you. The Founders were Classical Liberals as in fighting for liberty and a smaller, decentralized government that allowed people to assume responsibility of their own lives. They believed that people are "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable right", they are not endowed by the government.

As Jefferson (or Thomas Paine, depending on who you ask) famously remarked, "that government which governs least governs best". This line is the bedrock of conservatism (at least historically -- pre 2000) and is the exact opposite of what today's "liberals" believe.

The Founders didn't fight against "conservatism" -- they fought against high taxes and big government. Ironically, those two things are at the top of the Democratic Party's platform.

[rmbarron]

I was going to go point by point through your argument, however there were too many flawed points and we're way off topic. I will, however, say this; First, living in France does not give carte blanche justification to hate a "country and its people." Secondly, there is no historical precedent for a conservative philosophy of small government. This was never part of the conservative platform until Goldwater. Prior to that, the Grand Old Party (which by the way, is only as old as Lincoln) was the party of the northern industrialists dedicated to the expansion of federal power as a means to promote corperate interests. In this capacity, the Republican party has never waivered, no matter what dressing Reagan hung on the windows. Thirdly, it is a mistake to associate Democrats with Liberalism. Democrats at best are watered down socialists. Very watered down. At worst they're Republicans lite. As usual you make an interesting argument, but it's nothing I haven't heard before. Thanks for the history lesson though. ;)

[SW85]

Oy. I groan audibly when people say the Founders were liberals or the Constitution was radical. (Even if they were "self-described liberals," it was only true using the value judgments of the time, which differ vastly from those of today).

The Constitution is a profoundly conservative document -- it does not adhere to some worthless philosophical abstraction but instead cherry-picked from Greco-Roman, Christian, Lockean, Montesquieuian, and other philosophies, and even then modified and compromised them and loosed them on the world in the form of real political institutions; it recognized, among other things, the value of nationhood and quality of life in addition to freedom. The Articles failed precisely because they were so liberal, because they did not concede ground to any other values (i.e., because they were ideologically extreme, much like the liberal French revolutionaries who wrecked their country).

And it's worth pointing out that Edmund Burke, the father of political conservatism, regarded the French revolution, in all its bloodiness, as a particularly futile jerking around by people with no conservative discipline, and that many of the Founders agreed with him here. (Some of the Founders actually were liberal by the standards of the time, which is why some of them, like Paine, backed the French and told Burke to shove it. Only history has shown who was right in that regard).

Again, because there was no coherent left-right divide in the country at the time, I use the word "conservative" in its literal sense, as well as "liberal."

[rmbarron]

As much as I want to keep this going, I feel that, since I started it, I should be the one to point out that we've drifted too far off the topic to continue. I'm still just a "junior" member (whatever that means) and don't want to be accused of rampant rule breaking. Ergo, let's put on the brakes. By the way, nice use of the word "Oy."

[USMC the Almighty]

I was going to go point by point through your argument, however there were too many flawed points and we're way off topic.

This board has a laissez faire approach. As long as your not rabidly attacking other members, anything goes. We do tend to get off topic but often the discussion is very good. So long that it is, it's not a problem.

First, living in France does not give carte blanche justification to hate a "country and its people."

I never lived in France -- I just spent a couple months there on what I refer to as an "extended vaction". Anyhow, I know that technically I don't have any justification for my passionate dislike of everything French, but my experience with the country and its people has been very unpleasant.

Secondly, there is no historical precedent for a conservative philosophy of small government. This was never part of the conservative platform until Goldwater.

What are you talking about? Jefferson created his own party focused around a conservative philosophy. He was elected in the "Revolution of 1800". That was 207 years ago. Even if you don't accept Thomas "government which governs least governs best" Jefferson as being a core conservative, then I would point to the emergence of conservatism in the 1920s with Andrew Mellon and Calvin Coolidge. That's the first time we see the fiscal philosophy of low taxes, low spending, trickle-down/supply-side, multiplier effect, etc.

Prior to that, the Grand Old Party (which by the way, is only as old as Lincoln) was the party of the northern industrialists dedicated to the expansion of federal power as a means to promote corperate interests. In this capacity, the Republican party has never waivered, no matter what dressing Reagan hung on the windows.

Actually, I'm pretty sure the first Republican (an extension of the Free Soil Party) candidate was John C. Fremont in 1856, not Lincoln in 1860. More importantly, however, I'm not talking about Republicanism -- I'm talking about conservatism which means strong military/national defense, low taxes, secure border, strict constructionism, and minimal government interference everywhere else.

The Republican philosophy has shifted countless times from Lincoln through the Gilded Age into the Progressive Era, through the Roaring 20s, Cold War, Republican Revolution of '94.... but the true conservative philosophy has never wavered.

[rmbarron]

What are you talking about? Jefferson created his own party focused around a conservative philosophy. He was elected in the "Revolution of 1800". That was 207 years ago. Even if you don't accept Thomas "government which governs least governs best" Jefferson as being a core conservative, then I would point to the emergence of conservatism in the 1920s with Andrew Mellon and Calvin Coolidge. That's the first time we see the fiscal philosophy of low taxes, low spending, trickle-down/supply-side, multiplier effect, etc.

1) I think your point about Jefferson illustrates why people such as you and I find ourselves at loggerheads. Jefferson's party has been labeled (increasingly I should think) as conservative liberalism (or liberal conservativsim). This label is highly debatable. The conservativism of the day was autocratic and pro-monarchy (or at least pro ruling class). Now, a distinction could perhaps be made between radical and conservative branches of liberalism, but they would still be liberalism. The conservative leanings of men like Burke would not have been considered conservativism in their historical context. Was it as liberal as the Jacobins? No. But labeling Thomas Jefferson a conservative is going far too far. After all, he was often accused of being a Jacobin himself.

2) As for Calvin Coolidge, it is highly questionable if you can truly equate laissez-faire with Reaganonmics. I will however admit that Mellon seems more in the model of a modern conservative, however I don't know enough about him to speak on it.

That being said, I guess my real point was that this whole Liberal/conservative divide is something of a smoke-screen. It truly doesn't exist. Conservatives are merely conservative-liberals, rather than anti-liberal as many in this country like to think. Conservatives certainly don't seem to hold the kind of autocratic bent of their lineage. However, there is a strain of nationalism that seems to be running through modern conservatives that threatens to change that.

[USMC the Almighty]

Fair enough.