Re: Tzeentch's Thread of Everchanging Topics

[Antistia]

Come on, wearing hotpants and shortsleeved shirt is being uncivilized? Im not going to wear a jacket and a thick pair of jeans just 'cause people think it's uncivilzed, if it's warm I'll wear what I feel best in. Im not going to suffocate in my winter clothes under the searing sun just 'cause of some strange unwritten social rule, fuck that. If the people arn't going to accept that people from other countries are diffrent, why do you think those people would accept the other countries social rules? By force? Someone walking up to them, yelling in broken english that it's improper? I think they need to get with the times.

There is such a thing as being a good guest when visiting a different country.
It starts with wanting to wear the same things as back where you come from, then not taking time to learn (or stopping family members from learning) the language and ends with introducing the sharia

Just the other day I read that apparently dutch judges already apply sharia when both sides accept it and there is no dutch law that can be applied.

Please, please, please source this. This sounds something like our 'good friend' Wilders would say. I highly doubt this happens.

[Xen-tau]

I cannot find a source, however... indeed Wilders has stated such a number of times...

[Thelos]

Please, please, please source this. This sounds something like our 'good friend' Wilders would say. I highly doubt this happens.

It was in the Metro last week, I believe.

[Amaryl]

Come on, wearing hotpants and shortsleeved shirt is being uncivilized? Im not going to wear a jacket and a thick pair of jeans just 'cause people think it's uncivilzed, if it's warm I'll wear what I feel best in. Im not going to suffocate in my winter clothes under the searing sun just 'cause of some strange unwritten social rule, fuck that. If the people arn't going to accept that people from other countries are diffrent, why do you think those people would accept the other countries social rules? By force? Someone walking up to them, yelling in broken english that it's improper? I think they need to get with the times.

There is such a thing as being a good guest when visiting a different country.
It starts with wanting to wear the same things as back where you come from, then not taking time to learn (or stopping family members from learning) the language and ends with introducing the sharia

Just the other day I read that apparently dutch judges already apply sharia when both sides accept it and there is no dutch law that can be applied.

Please, please, please source this. This sounds something like our 'good friend' Wilders would say. I highly doubt this happens.

Dude, do i have to bring up Trix and the Veil, to show Wilder's hypocrisy in this matter?

[Kristeas Sunbinder]

Come on, wearing hotpants and shortsleeved shirt is being uncivilized? Im not going to wear a jacket and a thick pair of jeans just 'cause people think it's uncivilzed, if it's warm I'll wear what I feel best in. Im not going to suffocate in my winter clothes under the searing sun just 'cause of some strange unwritten social rule, fuck that. If the people arn't going to accept that people from other countries are diffrent, why do you think those people would accept the other countries social rules? By force? Someone walking up to them, yelling in broken english that it's improper? I think they need to get with the times.

There is such a thing as being a good guest when visiting a different country.
It starts with wanting to wear the same things as back where you come from, then not taking time to learn (or stopping family members from learning) the language and ends with introducing the sharia

Just the other day I read that apparently dutch judges already apply sharia when both sides accept it and there is no dutch law that can be applied.

Please, please, please source this. This sounds something like our 'good friend' Wilders would say. I highly doubt this happens.

Two sources, but I think I myself read in the Metro.
http://www.depers.nl/binnenland/622633/Shariales-voor-rechters.html
http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/1012/Binnenland/article/detail/3114004/2012/01/10/Shariales-voor-Nederlandse-rechters.dhtml

The named example is so that the courts decision is accepted in other countries.

[Xen-tau]

Dat zegt hoogleraar recht en cultuur in islamitische samenlevingen Léon Buskens in Rechtstreeks, het wetenschappelijk tijdschrift van de Raad voor de rechtspraak.

Translated:

Which is the view of the Professor Law and Culture in islamic societies Léon Buskens in Rechtstreeks, the scientific magazine from the Council for Court Proceedings

It is advisable, but it has not been given yet..

[Antistia]

That particular moment of his (ranting against the queen) just showed me what I already thought. Wilders utilizes Dutch culture, history and thus identity but it is not his goal to protect it. His goal is simply to oppose islam. He is an anti-Islamist wrapped in the Dutch flag and would wrap himself in any other flag or garment if it suited his needs. It's not about defending Dutch culture, it is not about being 'pro-Dutch', it is about being anti-Islam.

Or in short: Wilders is against Islam, his alleged protection of Dutch culture and identity is simply a ruse, a means to an end. He's anti-Islam, that's it. There's nothing more to it, no 'noble' protection of 'our identity'. Just opposition to Islam.


And the only way for Sharia to be applied in the Netherlands would be through private international law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_laws). That's an accepted way of doing things. I think it could bring Swiss law into play if two Swiss people were trying to divorce in the Netherlands (and had been wedded in Switzerland). One can exchange "Swiss" for "Saudi" if one so pleases. However I doubt that it goes beyond the workings of private international law, I truly very much doubt that. The Dutch codification has an exclusivity clause if I am not mistaken, so yeah.

[Antistia]

On a sidenote, if it interests anyone:

http://www.geenstijl.nl/archives/images/henkiespermatankie.pdf

That is the bachelor thesis that calls the PVV a fascist party. It received a straight 10 at the University of Tilburg.

[Amaryl]

Well firstly,There's a vast difference between semantical and emotional.

This is what I chiefly used. By seperating emotional connotations one might have with a word from its semantics it seemed to me you were implying you were using a narrow sense of the word also.

Then you missed the context of this quote, it was a retort, to Emrys thinking I though her argument Emotional BS. I don't. I think its semantical BS. Being Emotional about a certain connotation of a word, Is your right, and I won't denounce it as BS, which I didn't do, I denounced it as Semantical Nonsense, since the emotional attachment to towards Nithel's wording, has nothing to do with the fact that her Statement was a clear representation of what it was supposed to mean. Especially considering Emrys fully understood what Nithel meant. And if you know what it means in the correct context, and then start arguing about the clarity of the expression, if that's not semantical BS well...

And;

Which brings me back to the fact that you advocated the use of a "Softer" Term of equality with the exact same meaning as Nithel used. Which is completely redundant, and thus I qualify it as Semantical BS.

This is a denial of the signifiance of the difference between "Softer" and "Harder" tems; you might perhaps argue that both words used had the same semantical content, but by one person requesting a nuance, it is pretty obvious the words have a different meaning. Whether this meaning was intended by the person who first used the word is completely irrelevant to this. The different connotations a "Harder" word has can radically alter its meaning (or receptance if you prefer), even if one might argue the semantical content (or the phenomenon the word is supposed to denote) is exactly identical, so a call for nuance is in my opinion completely warranted. Calling it "Semantical BS" is a bit insensetive to the vastly different impact the two words used can have on the flow of a conversation.

It is Redundant because the discussion was not about cultural sensitivity towards the subject, but towards the Clarity of the Purpose of Nithel's Statement.

Which brings me back to the fact that you advocated the use of a "Softer" Term of equality with the exact same meaning as Nithel used. Which is completely redundant, and thus I qualify it as Semantical BS.

Its not redundant since it is pretty obvious that "Are different" is preferable in this context to "Are not equals" would be the better choice to express that which both authors wanted to express. One expression means something different from the other because of the connotations, regardless of any author intention, so a call for nuance and adopting a different word is completely warranted, since both phrases mean something different even though their denotation may be identical. That's totally a linguistic thing, or a semantical thing if you prefer.

Why is it "pretty Obvious" that "Are different" is preferable in this context? You haven't shown that anywhere.

Since The Average Man is Physically Stronger then a the Average Woman. Since the Average man is physically Faster then the Average Woman. Or Inherently stronger or faster if you prefer. It does denote that Men are Superior then woman in some respects, and Women are superior then Men in some respects. But that, regardless of that Inequality, they should each have Equal rights.

[Kristeas Sunbinder]

On a sidenote, if it interests anyone:

http://www.geenstijl.nl/archives/images/henkiespermatankie.pdf

That is the bachelor thesis that calls the PVV a fascist party. It received a straight 10 at the University of Tilburg.

That name >.>

[Antistia]

On a sidenote, if it interests anyone:

http://www.geenstijl.nl/archives/images/henkiespermatankie.pdf

That is the bachelor thesis that calls the PVV a fascist party. It received a straight 10 at the University of Tilburg.

That name >.>

Yeah I know. Chapter 3 is what should be read by the way.

[Nithel]

I've never seen my name pop up this many times after I said something. I merely used equal as a word to describe the math symbol '='. Women ≠ Men. I still stand by my choice of words hence I didn't edit the post. As Amaryl said, my addendum was there to avoid confusion and clarify myself.

I am speaking from a juridical (law-rights) point of view. Not ever in the law will you find: "Man is equal to woman." Or will you find: "Everyone is equal". If everyone would be equal, we'd go through a lot of bullshit. A handicapped man trying to get a special parking card? Bad luck, everyone is equal. If average joe ain't getting it, you ain't getting it.

The point is being treated equally in the same situation. The handicapped man isn't equal to the average joe. His situation isn't. Hence he is entitled to specific rights, specific to his situation. However in situations where it's exactly the same as average joe (Marriage, death, ... etc.) he should be entitled to equal rights because it's an identical situation.


ps:
Amaryl! To the batmobile! We have philosophy students to fight!

nananananananananna

[Amaryl]

I know you can defend yourself well enough, but... I just like arguing

Last week a philo student used the spagetti monster as an argument for religion... he didn't really got the point...

[Nithel]

I know you can defend yourself well enough, but... I just like arguing

Last week a philo student used the spagetti monster as an argument for religion... he didn't really got the point...

I find the war against semantics, a just cause to argue. So don't worry about it.

Those philo students, they'll never learn. Love the freshmen philos, they're always the ones who are most eager to act all smug about what they learnt and feel they understand the world :')

Disclaimer: The philostudent joke isn't aimed at anyone so don't take it personal. It's a running gag between Amaryl and I.

[Emrys]

I think Thelos explained it better than I ever could

And there was no need to 'defend', I never verbally attacked anyone, merely stated I would have put it otherwise for the reasons that were already mentioned.

Nophilostudent.

[Amaryl]

I think Thelos explained it better than I ever could

And there was no need to 'defend', I never verbally attacked anyone, merely stated I would have put it otherwise for the reasons that were already mentioned.

Nophilostudent.

No worries , i'm not taking offense at anyone... its just keeping me busy while i'm doing my measurements.

-------

http://www.defiasrp.com/viewtopic.forum?t=4380

[Sponsored content]