Politics & Stuff

[Spike 12,049]

5 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

That still doesn't prove what he looked like

You ignore what is inconvenient. I provide a BBC link that uses historical knowledge, genetics and science but that isn't good enough. You provide a BBC link about racial tensions in Chicago and it's good enough.

Would you dispute that ethnicity of William the Conquerer? He could have been Moorish, we just don't know, we only have five generations of his heritage as well as the knowledge he was from Normandy. That sort of ridiculous statement can be made about near any historical figure.

Maybe Muhammed was black despite being from Arabia.

[Fulham Broadway 16,836]

Just now, Spike said:

You ignore what is inconvenient. I provide a BBC link that uses historical knowledge, genetics and science but that isn't good enough. You provide a BBC link about racial tensions in Chicago and it's good enough.

The American history is documented by film and living witnesses. Jesus' appearance is based on hearsay and romantic paintings.

[Spike 12,049]

3 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

The American history is documented by film and living witnesses. Jesus' appearance is based on hearsay and romantic paintings.

Film and living witnesses lie. Why should I believe anyone just because they say it to be true, I give it more credence than a lot of other sources but it isn't infallible. It's as if you didn't even bother to read the material I provided. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35120965 Here is the link again, I gave you the courtesy of reading what you give me, please do the same for me.

Even in the bible, Judas tells the Roman soldiers which person is Jesus out of him and the other eleven disciples. If you believe that they were all black, you can if you like but between forensic evidence, historical data, the bible and common sense, it is completely safe to deduce that Jesus was Semitic. Not Italian, not Korean, not Chinese, not Black, not Ethiopian, Semitic. 

http://biblehub.com/parallelgospels/Judas_Betrays_Jesus_Soldiers_Arrest_Him_and_the_Disciples_Desert_Him_Friday_after_Midnight.htm

If you can give your belief to random people that state facts, you can do the same for scientists and the bible. If the Romans and many thousands of different people, tribes, ethnicity and cultures can accept Jesus as a Jew (the most hated religion of all time perhaps?) than they can accept him as a Black Jew, if it were the case.

[Fulham Broadway 16,836]

3 minutes ago, Spike said:

it is completely safe to deduce that Jesus was Semitic

He probably was Semitic, and I did read the BBC link.

Jesus, being Allahs messenger, performed many miracles, several being mentioned in the Quran such as speaking as an infant, healing various ailments like blindness, raising the dead to life, making birds out of clay and breathing life into them. As 'semitic' refers to people of Arab descent as well, it is just as probable he was an arab, especially as the jews grassed him up to the Romans and saw him as a threat

[Spike 12,049]

19 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

He probably was Semitic, and I did read the BBC link.

Jesus, being Allahs messenger, performed many miracles, several being mentioned in the Quran such as speaking as an infant, healing various ailments like blindness, raising the dead to life, making birds out of clay and breathing life into them. As 'semitic' refers to people of Arab descent as well, it is just as probable he was an arab, especially as the jews grassed him up to the Romans and saw him as a threat

 

Arabs didn't strictly exist then (well as we see them today). The proto-Arabians were a nomadic people living in the Arabian peninsula, they probably had a little interaction with the Romans and Israelites but I'd wager that it'd be minimal and reduced to trading. 

If you observe this image of pre-Islam Arabia you'll notice that the closest Arabian nomads were the Ghassans, I doubt that Jesus would have any relation to them but it is a possibility. I've read that they would've spoken a Nabatean dialect which is related to Aramaic, which is of course one of the languages Jesus would've spoken. No doubt there is some relation between the two peoples but not close enough to make a statement that Jesus was an Arab. They probably looked very similar in appearance but the differentiating factor would be the language, people are divided more by language than anything else.

Yeah they are both Semitic peoples but as are many groups in the Levant, if you were to make a case for Jesus being Arabic you'd also have to make the same case for any other linguistic or ethnic group. 

Well he was a Jew as well and I don't believe the only reason they'd forsake him is because of his race. He was a heretical reformer that claimed to be the son of their god. 

 

 

[Fulham Broadway 16,836]

Again it's speculative. Labels of 'arabs' came later, but they would have been widespread under a 'semitic' umbrella in the region. (I expect @Choulo the wise one knows more).

Jesus (and all other Prophets) was a Muslim, according to scholars, and was sent to guide the people of Israel , but that does not make Jesus Jewish in todays sense, rather his association with God is through Islam. Allah refers to those people that were sent Prophets as Children of Israel, and does not refer to them as Jews. The Jews in the Quran are those modern groups that claim to follow the teachings of Moses

[CHOULO19 24,332]

21 hours ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Which brings us full circle to the original premise of no platforming of fascist/people with distasteful views. People that on the face of it would take away 'rights'. Banning such people, or worse imploring the State to do it empowers the state be it Mynamar, US, North Korea or UKThe state takes that as a green light to say 'We know what's best for you'. Very Orwellian. I have always believed such people should be challenged and argued. If you take for example the banned David Irving, he himself has admitted that since he was banned, he has had thousands of, mainly teenagers, reading his books and viewpoints on youtube. If he were platformed on Question Time or whatever, he would be destroyed, just as Nick Griffin was, and disappear into obscurity.

Your last bit about riots and civil disobedience is true. The working class get what they fight for. It will never be given. However, it has also been proven the most advances in terms of 'rights' for ordinary people in the UK have come about through reform, That's not to say a good tear up like the poll tax riots don't have their place.

I never said that the state should restrict the free speech of Nazis (i'm pretty sure I actually said the opposite). I was talking about communities coming together to shut down such hate speech and deny platforms. Those are two very different things. 

You can't debate people who believe that some people should have less rights than others. The moment you give them a platform and debate them then you admit that their beliefs are a legitimate outcome of the 'debate'. You can easily defeat their ideas and their arguments without giving them a platform and debating them. Once you normalize such ideas, it becomes too easy to spread them in times of economic difficulties when minorities become the easy scapegoat.

It's rather predictable if you study history. This is from Chomsky's "Understanding Power" from the mid 90s:

 

And this is from 2010:

“The United States is extremely lucky that no honest, charismatic figure has arisen,” Chomsky went on. “Every charismatic figure is such an obvious crook that he destroys himself, like McCarthy or Nixon or the evangelist preachers. If somebody comes along who is charismatic and honest this country is in real trouble because of the frustration, disillusionment, the justified anger and the absence of any coherent response. What are people supposed to think if someone says ‘I have got an answer, we have an enemy’? There it was the Jews. Here it will be the illegal immigrants and the blacks. We will be told that white males are a persecuted minority. We will be told we have to defend ourselves and the honor of the nation. Military force will be exalted. People will be beaten up. This could become an overwhelming force. And if it happens it will be more dangerous than Germany. The United States is the world power. Germany was powerful but had more powerful antagonists. I don’t think all this is very far away. If the polls are accurate it is not the Republicans but the right-wing Republicans, the crazed Republicans, who will sweep the next election.”

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/noam_chomsky_has_never_seen_anything_like_this_20100419/P500

 

The only solution I see is to not allow such hate speech that could lead to fascism in your community by whatever means possible. 

[Fulham Broadway 16,836]

8 minutes ago, CHOULO19 said:

I was talking about communities coming together to shut down such hate speech and deny platforms.

This sounds fine and dandy in principle and I agree. Communities first and foremost to sort out the idiots. But once you do that, the police become involved. Believe me I saw this countless times in the 70s and 80s. The ANL and SWP would demonstrate outside venues and try to get people to boycott events. All this did was reinforce and entrench the speakers, or if it kicked off the cops would protect the speakers. Those same SWP and ANL people would then apply to the police to get things banned, which just gave them more kudos. We found the best way was to engage and disprove any nonsense they spouted. Obviously this is in the UK and different parameters would apply in other countries/states.

Doncha just love Chomsky ?

[CHOULO19 24,332]

17 hours ago, Spike said:

I'm trying to find the damn source, but I did read once that John Stewart has always desperately wanted to be a journalist over a comedian and has been trying to wiggle his way into the media. I think that is where my bias comes from. Day after day, I'm reading the same lefty diatribe, the same lefty comedians attacking the same low-hanging fruit, it is old and most of the time I feel none of them have the self-awareness to lampoon the ridiculous facets of their own ideology.

No it isn't because the media is failing (which it is). The reason those shows are so popular is because they are easy to consume, fast-pace jokes for the stoned college students to watch. There is little to no nuance to these programs and that is why I detest them. It is the lowest common denominator, just like Family Guy and The Simpsons. 

If I want political satire I'll watch Dr Strangelove, Four Lions or The Life of Brian, not comedy faux-news.

I'm curious, what do you think makes a good comedy tv show?

 

2 hours ago, Spike said:

It really isn't. You're a man, what makes you so sure that is the answer? Equal rights = Equal say in abortion.

Yeah, sure. You can have an opinion about the abortions in your body and women about the ones in their bodies!  

I never get the moral discussion about abortion. It's completely pointless because our own definitions of 'life' and what has life and what doesn't are completely baseless. For me it's completely practical. It's a proven fact that the government can't ban abortions. It can only ban safe abortions. 

[Spike 12,049]

8 minutes ago, CHOULO19 said:

I'm curious, what do you think makes a good comedy tv show?

 

Yeah, sure. You can have an opinion about the abortions in your body and women about the ones in their bodies!  

I never get the moral discussion about abortion. It's completely pointless because our own definitions of 'life' and what has life and what doesn't are completely baseless. For me it's completely practical. It's a proven fact that the government can't ban abortions. It can only ban safe abortions. 

Easy, it has to make me laugh.

It isn't their body, it's the child's body; all people that are pro-abortion weren't aborted themselves... It is pretty easy to define life, from the moment it is fertilised it is alive. Yeah, I can see where you are coming concerning safe abortion, but 'people do it regardless' isn't a good moral justification for abortion.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

2 hours ago, Spike said:

Human life begins at the moment of fertilization.

**[citation needed] 

What does that even mean? What is 'human life'? Why in the world makes it more important than other things? 

Philosophically, and hence in theoretical ethics as well, there is absolutely nothing significant about 'human life', it's not even something that can be defined. The best arguments that can be made are about human consciousness. A fertilized egg does not have consciousness. A fertilized egg is also no different than an unfertilized one or a sperm. They're just cells that could turn into a human with consciousness. Does that mean that contraception is murder as well?

Again a moral discussion about abortion is completely pointless, it's about practicality. 

[CHOULO19 24,332]

7 minutes ago, Spike said:

Easy, it has to make me laugh.

It isn't their body, it's the child's body; all people that are pro-abortion weren't aborted themselves... It is pretty easy to define life, from the moment it is fertilised it is alive. Yeah, I can see where you are coming concerning safe abortion, but 'people do it regardless' isn't a good moral justification for abortion.

That's just false. Or rather scientifically meaningless. A sperm could be defined to be alive as well or an unfertilized egg. 

[CHOULO19 24,332]

29 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

This sounds fine and dandy in principle and I agree. Communities first and foremost to sort out the idiots. But once you do that, the police become involved. Believe me I saw this countless times in the 70s and 80s. The ANL and SWP would demonstrate outside venues and try to get people to boycott events. All this did was reinforce and entrench the speakers, or if it kicked off the cops would protect the speakers. Those same SWP and ANL people would then apply to the police to get things banned, which just gave them more kudos. We found the best way was to engage and disprove any nonsense they spouted. Obviously this is in the UK and different parameters would apply in other countries/states.

Doncha just love Chomsky ?

Of course police will always side with fascists. That's almost always  true everywhere. A week before the protests at Berkley, a Milo fan shot an anti-fascist protester at one of his events and police just let him go. Obviously that didn't make headlines as much as the riots. 

But that shouldn't mean that people should stop resisting in whatever manner they see fit. 

[Iggy Doonican 4,186]

12 minutes ago, Spike said:

Easy, it has to make me laugh.

 

This is from a British show called 15 Storeys High. It has a cult following and didn't get the audience it deserved because the BBC put it on at stupid o'clock. It stars Chelsea fan Sean Locke here seen with the late great Felix Dexter. I absolutely love this show and like the man in the clip I'm trying to spread the word.

 

[11Drogba 2,000]

 

[Fulham Broadway 16,836]

34 minutes ago, CHOULO19 said:

That's just false. Or rather scientifically meaningless. A sperm could be defined to be alive as well

200 million sperm in one load. Do you know what that means ?

I have wiped entire civilisations, off my chest, with a grey gym sock.

-Bill Hicks

[Fulham Broadway 16,836]

Jim Jefferies telling Piers Morgan to fuck off

 

[lucio 5,418]

2 hours ago, CHOULO19 said:

Of course police will always side with fascists. That's almost always  true everywhere. A week before the protests at Berkley, a Milo fan shot an anti-fascist protester at one of his events and police just let him go. Obviously that didn't make headlines as much as the riots. 

But that shouldn't mean that people should stop resisting in whatever manner they see fit. 

anti fascists seem very... fascist

 

constantly resorting to violence to push their politics, anti fascist indeed. they seem to strike when they outnumber their opponent too

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/759181/Far-left-gang-beat-woman-wearing-NATIONAL-FLAG-bracelet-Murcia-Spain