Amiga.org
Coffee House => Coffee House Boards => CH / General => Topic started by: nicholas on September 25, 2007, 06:42:43 PM
-
The big debate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnmvToZjRIc)
-
"Those that don't know history are doomed to repeat it"....??
many americans are simply so uneducated you can get them to agree to anything, however dumb.
-
dear, oh dear....
-
I don't think my grandparents would believe this.
I have no words for this.
-
well cecelia would probably consider me to be "uneducated" as if educated people have no biases. but i think this is sick and wrong.
i have talked to numerous people about political views including Christians, Athiests, Agnostics, and several Muslim friends and noone i have talked to has views even close to these. i have seen nothing but respect in the media except for a few mosques and people suspected of terrorist activities and or funding.
im betting there was a bit of slant in the reporting here we see a few wakos spouting stupidity and noone said the question was stupid? i have seen polls from legitimate noncommercial agancies stating exactly the opposite.
from an american (with muslim friends) this is not a preavolent attitude in my area in the country at the least and i think the report was deliberately slanted for suspicious reasons.
-
Thank you KThunder for restoring some balance :-) But still scary views from those people shown.
The answer is simple. If you want to identify attackers without being discriminatory, then force everybody, Muslim or not, to carry ID.
--
moto
-
having everyone carry id cards might not be discriminatory but they would probably be used that way. there is no good way around it. if you have to show me your card for any reason i could use that against you
everyone should be free to practice whatever religion without fear of discrimination, and i think any way you go about it there would be or could be fear.
-
motorollin wrote:
Thank you KThunder for restoring some balance :-) But still scary views from those people shown.
The answer is simple. If you want to identify attackers without being discriminatory, then force everybody, Muslim or not, to carry ID.
--
moto
I don't want to carry an ID. Sue me.
-
The authorities already have the right to demand that you identify yourself. Having a standardised identity card won't change this.
--
moto
-
motorollin wrote:
The authorities already have the right to demand that you identify yourself. Having a standardised identity card won't change this.
--
moto
I know the ausweis is forced upon me. But I don't give a sh*t. I do not support stasi methods. I don't give a rat's a*se about people feeling 'unsafe'.
That whole particular law is unconstitutional.
I am guilty because of what I don't have in my pocket. How's that for human rights, eh?
Must I pay 2250 Euro because of some wussies think safety is sacred?
And oh we are so safe right now. I could get outside atm and stab lots of people randomly, nothing to stop me. Unsafe as hell, I'd say.
Yet it rarely happen.
Sorry for the rant, but this issue makes me really angry.
I really value our freedom, our basic western (currently western) values.
I even had a vicious dispute with my parents about this issue. (not anymore, thankfully)
-
motorollin wrote:
The authorities already have the right to demand that you identify yourself. Having a standardised identity card won't change this.
--
moto
the authorities dont have the ability to force you to identify your religious affiliation if any.
-
when i was in High School I once sat next to a person in the subway that had a small tattoo on his/her forearm. (it was so long ago i don;t remember anything else about this person).
The numbers were small and slightly faded but they were UNmistakable.
only the Nazi's made tattoos like that.
I felt honored to sit next to such a person. They had survived a real horror.
I don't want to see people be forced to wear pink sysmbols on their clothings.
I don't want to see people with stars on their lapels either.
Or tattoos put on by a government.
This solves nothing and makes things worse. We've seen it before and we don;t need to repeat this nonsense.
-
@Speel
I would be very interested to hear what rights you feel you are surrendering by holding a state-issued ID card. The right to commit crime?
@KThunder
I agree. That's why I said all citizens should carry ID, not just those who are identified as belonging to a particular race/religion.
@Cecilia
See my response to KThunder :-)
Don't get me wrong, I hate the state interfering in my personal life as much as the next person. But I really disagree with the argument that we are giving up rights by being required to carry ID. Unfortunately in the modern world where violent attacks are commonplace, I think it is only sensible for the authorities to be able to identify people who could potentially do me harm.
Of course there is the issue of privacy, and of what the government are actually planning to do with any information they gather. Knowledge really is power, and an unscrupulous government with lots of knowledge about you could wield power over you in scary ways. I suppose the question is this. Which do you fear more? A powerful government using knowledge as a weapon, or a person on the street using knives, guns or explosives as a weapon?
--
moto
-
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
I know the ausweis is forced upon me. But I don't give a sh*t. I do not support stasi methods. I don't give a rat's a*se about people feeling 'unsafe'.
Unfortunately, the government must take a different viewpoint. It has the welfare of an entire nation to think of, and not just your own puny life. You may not give a rat's a*se about people feeling 'unsafe': that does not mean that the government should.
Now whether the people are genuinely unsafe, and whether carrying ID around does solve something, is another discussion. There is a lot of silly nonsense floating around, as you are never safe: some determined nutjob can always go on a wild killing spree where you least expect it. There is no defense against this, but people still like to pretend there is. As for carrying ID around: I don't think it solves anything, but as most people already carry driver's licenses, mobile telephones, agendas and lots of other personal identifying equipment with them, I really don't see what all the uproar is about. Oh, people are quick to shout 'fascist practice' or 'police state', and then dream up tons of wildly speculative scenarios where the cops are forming checkpoints on busy streets to filter out people who reside in this country without a permit. Well, if that were indeed the case, what makes you think that having a proper ID would make you 'safe' in the first place?
Either way, I have no qualms with presenting a form of ID when asked politely by a law enforcement officer in circumstances which are indeed tense or unusual---uproar, demonstration, murder investigation in the house next to me, and so forth. I have never been asked to do so. In fact, I have to present more ID at the post office to claim my mail, or at the gates of companies I visit even to have a quick conversation with someone---and noone has a problem with that. But behold the outcry once the government asks you to carry it around. Then all of a sudden the most dreaded scenarios well up from the depths of human imagination.
In short: I side with moto. It doesn't solve anything; it makes the society only a little more safe, but there really is no harm in carrying it with you. Chances are you'll be happy to have it with you in case you do need it all of a sudden.
Now what is really scary is this nation's decision to track mobile and internet usage for 18 months, a full year longer than the EU-recommended 6, and then expect all data carriers to make the investments themselves to comply with the law. There is no known program which can sift through these mountains of data, even if it is just the routing information (and not the actual data). You'd need a very powerful supercomputer to analyse it, too. Who has and controls access to this huge haystack is hazy to say the least; it most certainly is not decided nor verified democratically. Personally, I think that several shadowy agencies will set up honeypots around known religious or political hotspots, and then work their way from there. They cannot single these out---protected by freedom of speech laws---so instead, everyone now becomes a suspect. Orwell would have been proud.
-
Cymric wrote:
In short: I side with moto. It doesn't solve anything; it makes the society only a little more safe, but there really is no harm in carrying it with you. Chances are you'll be happy to have it with you in case you do need it all of a sudden.
Hmyes, but the problem I have with it is that I am guilty when I do not, instead of only being guilty when I do (something bad that is).
So to say, it's kinda a reverse law enforcement; guilty until proven otherwise. You do not have a passport, ergo you are guilty.
-
Either way, I have no qualms with presenting a form of ID when asked politely by a law enforcement officer in circumstances which are indeed tense or unusual---uproar, demonstration, murder investigation in the house next to me, and so forth.
Ahyes, that petty excuse the minister used to get it through.
They use it atm mainly for getting more money from ppl who do not have light on their bicycles and things like that. I'm all for fining bicyclers without light, for making traffic really unsafe. But, a fine of 50 euros, plus a fine of 2250 euros, makes it just absurd.
-
if you get in an accident on said bicycle and noone knows who you are, next of kin, medicinal allergies, etc. etc. it will make it tough to help you.
me, all they have to do is look in my wallet. this is driver#XXXXX we have his home phone adress etc.
-
'Elke Nederlander wordt geacht de wet te kennen'. It's that simple, Speel. You don't agree with the law? Then don't vote for parties who instated it; or organise a powerful lobby to get it changed. Be happy that you at least have that right over here. Obviously, most people don't care enough to put in time and effort to do so, or are secretly in agreement with the politicians who spin tales about increased safety as it would probably mean less trouble from street thugs ('kutmarrokaantjes'). I can't be bothered myself, really. It's 25 grams of paper or plastic which I'll likely need for other purposes anyway. And I always lose the damned thing in mountains of papers on my desk, so it makes a twisted sort of sense to put the ID into the bag I always carry around.
@KThunder: over here a driver's license is not official ID. Your passport is.
-
I know that they're not representing the views of the entire U.S. population, but WHAT THE HELL?!
-
Cymric wrote:
'Elke Nederlander wordt geacht de wet te kennen'. It's that simple, Speel. You don't agree with the law? Then don't vote for parties who instated it; or organise a powerful lobby to get it changed. Be happy that you at least have that right over here. Obviously, most people don't care enough to put in time and effort to do so, or are secretly in agreement with the politicians who spin tales about increased safety as it would probably mean less trouble from street thugs ('kutmarrokaantjes'). I can't be bothered myself, really. It's 25 grams of paper or plastic which I'll likely need for other purposes anyway. And I always lose the damned thing in mountains of papers on my desk, so it makes a twisted sort of sense to put the ID into the bag I always carry around.
@KThunder: over here a driver's license is not official ID. Your passport is.
Excuse me, Who said I voted CDA? And if you must be happy because you have some degree of democracy, you can enforce everything on us. That's a terribly lousy argument, which I am not used of you. And really, I expected also a counterargument of my previous post from you.
-
KThunder wrote:
if you get in an accident on said bicycle and noone knows who you are, next of kin, medicinal allergies, etc. etc. it will make it tough to help you.
me, all they have to do is look in my wallet. this is driver#XXXXX we have his home phone adress etc.
Good point. Still, there's something like your own responsibility.
-
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
Excuse me, Who said I voted CDA?
Noone. I merely explained 'Democracy 101' to you.
And if you must be happy because you have some degree of democracy, you can enforce everything on us. That's a terribly lousy argument, which I am not used of you.
It's called 'Democracy 101'. The majority decides what will happen; the people get to decide who is the majority---or, more precisely, gets to decide who is most likely going to be in the majority. That is simply a realistic argument, and nothing you do or say will change that---therefore you had best get used to it. You cannot pick and mix when you require a majority and when a minority to pass a law through parliament; and most especially cannot rely only on Speel's judgement. Nor on mine, for that matter. It would be cool, of course, and I'd like to pretend I would be a Wise Beneficial Dictator For Life, but it's not a good idea. In a democracy, you've got to take the good with the bad; frankly, I'm surprised you didn't pick this up.
Does that mean you have to agree with a decision made by the majority? No, of course not. That's why there is something known as 'opposition'. In the Netherlands, it's usually not very effective, and only accomplishes something when there is dissent amongst the parties making up the majority. In case of the ID law, it obviously wasn't enough. Unfortunately for the opposition, a majority decision is binding.
And really, I expected also a counterargument of my previous post from you.
There's not much to counter, is there? Of course there will be a lot of fines; it's called 'upholding the law'. You can be very principal in the matter and decide to leave your ID at home, but you had better be prepared to put your money where your mouth is in case you are caught. It won't do you much good to argue that you don't believe in the law in that case: that's also a lesson you should have picked up from Democracy 101.
There's tons of laws I don't agree with---some with far more important and invasive consequences than this silly ID-thing. Hence my saying: don't like the law? Then don't vote for the parties who instated it, and organise a lobby to get it changed. Run a grassroots campaign instigating 'burgerongehoorzaamheid' to swamp the legislative branch with silly cases so that the politicians have no choice but to alter the law. And so forth. And I expect you to provide me with a good reason why we haven't seen such things yet if ID law was indeed such a barbaric practise as many little clubs and societies wanted us to believe it was.
By the way, I found out that a driver's license counts for proper ID too; only in some cases is a passport required. Well, I always carry my DL with me in my wallet, whether or not I am required to do so by ID law. I want to drive a car whenever I can, and for that I need a license.
-
we have driver's licences, college id, non-drivers id usually people dont carry around a passport.
out of curiosity Speelgoedmannetje why wouldnt you want to carry id. i see no benefit to not having id and lots of drawbacks. people here in the states carry id for proof of license to drive, proof of age to buy alcohol and smokes, and for id in certain finacial transactions.
its not like you have it clipped to your lapel for all to see.
most people dont like showing id because they have terrible photos on them (ive used the same photo for 12 yrs (glasses and slightly thinning hairline are only differences))
-
Nobody seriously believes for one second that the people in the video are remotely representitive of Americans, right?
All we have seen is the power of TV to present a bias, in this case for the purpose of poking a bit of fun at the more ignorant minority cross section of the population.
No doubt the guy asked the same questions of countless other people who probably just shook their heads and walked away in disbelief.
Although this was clearly slanted, consider the effectiveness of the same techniques used by the media in general. Next time you see a nice library footage clip of some extremists chanting 'death to america' etc. as part of the latest special report / poll / terrorist headline, ask yourself if this is really representitive of the billion or more muslims in the world.
Anyway, I don't think devout muslims really need to carry special ID. It's not as if they are difficult to identify. Hint: beards, caps, robes, loitering around mosques... ;-)
-
Karlos wrote:
All we have seen is the power of TV to present a bias, in this case for the purpose of poking a bit of fun at the more ignorant minority cross section of the population.
just like a Borat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kc28xwzsY-8) segment.
Karlos wrote:
Anyway, I don't think devout muslims really need to carry special ID. It's not as if they are difficult to identify. Hint: beards, caps, robes, loitering around mosques... ;-)
:lol:
... and those explosive belts they wear around their waist.
:-P
-
... and those explosive belts they wear around their waist.
Thats a pretty awful thing to say, even if you are trying to be funny.
-
nadoom wrote:
... and those explosive belts they wear around their waist.
Thats a pretty awful thing to say, even if you are trying to be funny.
consider the source :lol:
-
I just wonder, is there a cure against metalman, or can we only observe it through a microscope for now ? :-D
-
Einstein wrote:
I just wonder, is there a cure against metalman, or can we only observe it through a microscope for now ? :-D
Are you saying metalmen should be forced to carry ID's???
:lol:
-
First a correction, I sould've replaced "it" with "the desease" for better clarification.
cecilia wrote:
Are you saying metalmen should be forced to carry ID's???
:lol:
Well a classification is a good start: http://www.mcb.uct.ac.za/tutorial/classif.htm
-
Einstein wrote:
I should've replaced "it" with "the desease" for better clarification.
that just makes it funnier. and it was funny to begin with :lol:
-
nadoom wrote:
... and those explosive belts they wear around their waist.
Thats a pretty awful thing to say, even if you are trying to be funny.
explosively funny, a bomb of a joke.
"'Blowing myself up is the only chance I've got to have sex with 72 virgins in the Garden of Eden,' a 14 year old Palestinian boy told his Israeli investigators after being caught wearing an 8kg explosives belt." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussam_Abdo)
Video: how to manufacture an explosive belt for use in suicide bombings, (in Arabic) provides thorough, step-by-step instructions for manufacturing, and employing an explosive belt. (http://siteinstitute.org/bin/articles.cgi?ID=publications13804&Category=publications&Subcategory=0)
"Oh Mujahid brother, in order to join the great training camps you don't have to travel to other lands (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GG14Ak02.html)
-
noone believes for a second that metalman is representative of americans right?
-
KThunder wrote:
noone believes for a second that metalman is representative of americans right?
There are so much Dutch people I do not want to be representative for the Netherlands... :lol:
Yet they are there and numerous.
Still, not representative for the avarage Dutchman.
-
KThunder wrote:
out of curiosity Speelgoedmannetje why wouldnt you want to carry id. i see no benefit to not having id and lots of drawbacks. people here in the states carry id for proof of license to drive, proof of age to buy alcohol and smokes, and for id in certain finacial transactions.
Ehm, I already stated a couple of arguments:
Cymric wrote:
In short: I side with moto. It doesn't solve anything; it makes the society only a little more safe, but there really is no harm in carrying it with you. Chances are you'll be happy to have it with you in case you do need it all of a sudden.
Hmyes, but the problem I have with it is that I am guilty when I do not, instead of only being guilty when I do (something bad that is).
So to say, it's kinda a reverse law enforcement; guilty until proven otherwise. You do not have a passport, ergo you are guilty.
Either way, I have no qualms with presenting a form of ID when asked politely by a law enforcement officer in circumstances which are indeed tense or unusual---uproar, demonstration, murder investigation in the house next to me, and so forth.
Ahyes, that petty excuse the minister used to get it through.
They use it atm mainly for getting more money from ppl who do not have light on their bicycles and things like that. I'm all for fining bicyclers without light, for making traffic really unsafe. But, a fine of 50 euros, plus a fine of 2250 euros, makes it just absurd.
Besides this, I am also against the fact that kids (14+) are obliged to carry it with them.
Well, I have lost my wallet countless of times when I was a kid. Mustn't think of an expensive id card being in it (also considering the fact it's a lot of fuss to register a lost ID card).
-
KThunder wrote:
noone believes for a second that metalman is representative of americans right?
No, he's representetive of the intersection of some of the worst stereotypes people have of americans. However, I don't think this is really representitive him. Rather I think he finds it a useful online persona to adopt when attempting to bait people into responding. At the end of the day, the guy likes getting a reaction out of people. Picking all the worst examples he can find of 'muslims behaving badly' and trying to persuade us all that this is in fact the norm is an easy way to do that at the moment. I used to find it irksome at first, but now I couldn't really care a less. I usually get a good laugh out of it these days :-D
I'm sure that when the preferred media bogeyman that is currently extremist muslims has moved to a different demographic, his focus will follow.
At least he seems more intelligent that some of the other trolls we've had the pleasure of being entertained by.
Absolutely no match for Mips Proc, though. They broke the mould with that feller :lol:
-
Karlos wrote:
At the end of the day, the guy likes getting a reaction out of people. Picking all the worst examples he can find of 'muslims behaving badly' and trying to persuade us all that this is in fact the norm is an easy way to do that at the moment. I used to find it irksome at first, but now I couldn't really care a less. I usually get a good laugh out of it these days :-D
My opinions are not those of all Americans, but they should be.
Well, I have to admit, due to Karlos' evil influence, I now have curry at a local Thai restaurant every few weeks. :lol:
Actually, I prefer reasoned debate with those of differing opinions, and Karlos' replies are usually articulate and coherent ;-)
Although pissing contests and name calling can be very amusing. :-D
There are too many acts of terrorism committed by Muslims who justify their actions by referencing a militant Islamic ideology, to equate these murdering extremists to an irrational bogeyman fear.
These Jihadists have a global hostility to all secular and democratic governments, and in particular the U.S. They want to recreate the Islam of the 7th century, which they regard as a golden age. Their ultimate goal is to bring about a global caliphate, their means is jihad. My focus will change when Jihadists quit planning mass murder.