|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 8, 2009 12:21:07 GMT
I think the difference between this particular muslim school and its headmistress and Church Schools and Eton is that the latter do not have ANY CONNECTION at all with religious terrorisms and are part of mainstream British culture and history and are not trying to subvert it.
To suggest that they have much in common, apart from being schools, is fanciful.
|
|
|
Post by Jade on Dec 8, 2009 12:32:30 GMT
I hesitate to mention The Troubles, when the IRA were really quite terrifying
But that is possibly being mischeivous
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 8, 2009 13:23:57 GMT
It may be mischievous but it is wrong. What evidence have you that any church school head had written in an IRA magazine?
You, see, Jade, yours is precisely the sort of "trick" the PC use in support of the insupportable. As if finding a similar or worse case makes the one under discussion acceptable. This is utter moral relativism.
|
|
|
Post by Jade on Dec 8, 2009 15:06:28 GMT
As there are no moral absolutes, marchesa, moral relativism is all we can hope for
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 8, 2009 15:25:29 GMT
That's the PC position par excellence. Thanks for revealing it so explicitly.
Some of us think we CAN judge some things as better or worse than others.
eg Afghanistan is a benighted land that intolerably abuses its women and children and this is WRONG.
|
|
|
Post by Jade on Dec 8, 2009 15:50:30 GMT
Did you think I was saying that the Muslim position as reported by Libjoe is OK? I did not - but I did question whether or not she said it, and I would hope that anyone who takes the position that is would be a wrong thing to do would also think that of similar wrongs
The catholic schools position is wrong also, just perhaps not as harmful. I wondered if someone so wounded by one religion's views would also be open to criticising another parallel view (or was it just Muslims he disliked)
Would he, for example, actively seek stories that were about schools teaching kids not to consider the State to over-rule religion if that religion were other than Muslim?
I do know you cannot speak for him, by the way. It was more rhetorical than interrogative.
I would imagine the "PC position" would be to lean towards liberal position of always wanting to protect free speech, respecting a religious point of view. However nobody I know would promote or applaud a teaching that positions women unequally, so in that respect to be PC in this case would be not to be a feminist, and I imagine that this is contradictory to those who hold that all feminists are PC fiends
Upthread it was said that being PC is about having good manners, which I agree with, but there comes a point at which good manners are set aside in the face of unacceptable behaviour (in the playground, towards bullies, at the point of war)
As I said, there are no moral absolutes.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 8, 2009 16:36:41 GMT
That sounds rather like an absolute statement to me.
I disagree. There ARE moral absolutes.
I would say that Afghanistan and Pakistan are probably at the very bottom of the list of desirable places for a woman to be born. On the basis of this judgement I would say it is undesireable for Afghan/Pakistan-style values to be taught in British schools and such schools should most certainly not be subsidised by UK tax-payers.
|
|
aubrey
WH Member
Seeker for Truth and Penitence
Posts: 665
|
Post by aubrey on Dec 8, 2009 17:10:27 GMT
That's the PC position par excellence. Thanks for revealing it so explicitly. Some of us think we CAN judge some things as better or worse than others. eg Afghanistan is a benighted land that intolerably abuses its women and children and this is WRONG. But it is right to send asylum seekers back there.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 8, 2009 17:21:23 GMT
Since it is known that asylum requests are sometimes used as a cover for plain economic migration it behoves the authorities to be very careful. But since we basically are not willing to spend the money necessary carefully to sort the sheep from the goats I would want to ask why don't the putative Afghan asylum seekers settle in Pakistan amongst the umma?
Why is it essential for them to trek across the world to the UK, Aubrey?
|
|
|
Post by arealfarmer on Dec 8, 2009 17:29:33 GMT
Come on Marchesa ! Why would they want to go to that shit-hole ? - its no better than the shit-hole they are trying to escape !
|
|
aubrey
WH Member
Seeker for Truth and Penitence
Posts: 665
|
Post by aubrey on Dec 8, 2009 20:53:23 GMT
I should think that most of them do go to Pakistan, anyway. Most refugees go to the next country. They can't get any further.
Though with Afghanistan, at the same time as we were saying what an awful regime had taken over the place, we were saying it's ok to send refugees basck there. Presumably they only thought it was dangerous for some people.
|
|
|
Post by arealfarmer on Dec 8, 2009 23:47:52 GMT
Why would I care Aubrey ?..........
|
|
aubrey
WH Member
Seeker for Truth and Penitence
Posts: 665
|
Post by aubrey on Dec 9, 2009 9:58:22 GMT
I don't know. Why would anyone care about anything, that doesn't directly affect them? My cats get on quite happily, and they don't worry about anything, as long as they're not involved. Then again, they're cats.
|
|
aubrey
WH Member
Seeker for Truth and Penitence
Posts: 665
|
Post by aubrey on Dec 9, 2009 10:09:44 GMT
There's an advert at the top of this page for a website called Common Sense, spin free, without bias etc etc. Why do people who set themselves up in this way always turn out to be right wing flakes? This one seems obsessed with the BNP not being treated right. And he keeps saying he's not a racist (if you need to keep saying it...)
There is something called the Common Sense University on Youtube. It says that it's common sense that people on dialysis should abandon dialysis and take their potions instead (that would work for about a week, maybe two).
Descartes said that common sense is the most fairly distributed commodity in the world, because everyone reckons that they have exactly the right amount (though some people - like the bloke on that web site advertised above - think that they're the only ones that do).
Descartes' common sense told him that animals don't feel pain, and he went on to cut up a lot of them in order to prove it. What he ended up proving, or course, is that animals do feel pain (though I don't know that he ever accepted that).
It is probably best not to trust anyone who says that what they're saying is common sense (and what everyone else is saying is not).
|
|
|
Post by arealfarmer on Dec 9, 2009 10:24:11 GMT
Oh come on Aubrey - talk sense .
;D
|
|