Thakkar

Advanced Members
  • Content count

    3,247
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,452 Excellent

About Thakkar

  • Rank
    Sometimes I 'member, sometimes I forget.

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

9,515 profile views
  1. I'm not saying you *were* trying to hijack the issue for petty, hateful reasons. I'm saying that the fight for equal rights for women is a worthy fight. That the fight for humane treatment of animals is a worthy fight. But also that many falsely put on the garb of those fighters in order to push an anti-Muslim agenda. It is a rediculous form of Right Wing political correctness, like calling a a "shuttlecock" a "shuttledick"—nobody's buying it. T
  2. Maybe so. But I say, let the f**kers kill us while we're holding hands and singing the praises of all our beautiful mixed race children, eh? 😁 T
  3. You've been misled by the cruelty argument by people who have a different agenda. Let me explain: It used to be that bigotry was dressed in the garb of "women's rights." Now it's dressed as "animal rights." I don't buy it. If they give that much of a fk about animal rights, here's a salad, shaddup and eat that. The fact is, 88% of halal meat slaughtered in Britain is stunned before slaughter. The real fight should be to ensure the remaining 12% is also stunned before slaughter. A much more important fight should be about how animals slated for meat should be treated while they are alive. Halal or not, industrial meat production is not a pretty picture and all us meat eaters should be ashamed and outraged. Let's point that outrage where it belongs and lets not allow bigots to hijack the issue for their petty hateful purposes. T
  4. Yes, the Pakistanis tried to bring curry to the UK and that attempt failed miserably. This reminds me of a comedy skit: If I ran this country, the first thing I'd do is get rid of all the bloody immigrants. Oh yeah, this country would be great again if we kicked out all the Polish. And the Indians, and the Chinese and the Africans. Yeah, and the Huguenots. Comin' over here from France in the late seventeenth century. And them Normans, coming over here in 1066, shooting their foreign arrows about. And before that it was the Vikings wasn't it? With their raping and their pillaging and their longboats and their stupid axes. and their open top bloody sandwiches- it's unnatural ain't it? And before that it was the Anglos, and the Saxons. What about the bleeding' Romans? Them Romans, yeah, probably built the straight roads so's they could get to the dole office faster. And all those weird guys in fur pelts claims they only came here across the land bridge to hunt mammoth. Not bloody likely, mate; hunt your own mammoth. And don't get me started on Homo Erectus; come over here from Africa, just because the land masses were linked up. I'm glad that tectonic shift sorted that out! Don't forget those early tetrapods, draggin' their fishy bodies outta the sea. Get back to the sea where you belong, you evolutionary bastards! Sling 'em out, sling 'em all out, I say. Then we'll just have the real Brits in the country. Anyway, I'm starving. Think I fancy a curry. T
  5. Lenin's brand of communism wasn't what Marx envisioned at all. Lenin's brand of communism was a system designed for aggrandizement of a small autocratic elite whose power would be protected by a massive military. A hybrid of Marx AND Adam Smith's ideas are in operation, after fits and starts, in countries like Sweden, and those ideas work pretty well. I agree with you that there are terrible aspects to human nature. Tribalism is in our genes. But tribalism is incompatible with the modern technological society that we've built almost in spite of our nature. The work of civilization-building is to overcome that nature, to smooth out the worst of our hard-edged instincts, to move away from tribalism. I agree with you that my idealistic notion of "just getting along" seems naive. It is precisely because our tribal instinct are strong that homogeneity will not stop conflict. If we were all to wake up tomorrow speaking the same language, praying to the same god and have the same skin tone, I don't doubt for a moment that we would find ways to differentiate each other and form cliques and tribes based on *something* The Greek city states warred among themselves despite the people looking the same, speaking more or less the same language and praying to the same gods. We have no choice but to make it work so that different people can live together and do so in relative harmony, because the alternative is to break up into the kind of small groups of 100-150 individuals living in tight-knit extended family groups seldom encountering other groups—because that is how humans lived for millions of years and that is why we are tribal. (Even then there would be sibling rivalries to contend with). It's not the world we should pine for. Western Liberalism is a wonderful construct. It points to a brighter future for a humanity of strength in diversity. You can't save/protect Western Liberalism by abandoning its precepts; you can only protect/strengthen it by continuing to practice it, even in the face of those who would use terrible violence to derail you. T
  6. Support for Trump among republicans remains high. It's therefore not surprising that republican candidates won in heavily republican districts. The Dems took a big risk in portraying these races as some kind of national referenda against Trump. Because of this framing, these republican wins—which otherwise would've been ho-hum—now will instead strengthen Trump's hand—the last thing we need in a narcissistic megalomaniac. Generally, the Dems have been better at governing than at winning elections. The Republicans, better at winning elections than governing. In this case, they turned what would've been local losses into what looks like national losses. Meanwhile they stupidly continue to sideline good strategists like Dean. T
  7. Well not if people keep throwing oil on burning ambers, whether it's actual oil or rhetorical oil. Britain was once many nations, all of them white, all of them Christian. Yet they were often at war. The way to end strife is not for the world to split up into smaller and smaller units of homogeneity, but to come together as one unit and find common purpose in our humanity. It's a lot harder to do than throwing actual or rhetorical bombs, but it's the only real solution. T
  8. It's like when you subcontract a difficult job to a factory in China and they fail to deliver. It's usually because you overestimated their abilities and demanded more than they could realistically deliver. But the Chinese don't like to say "no" so they try. It may have worked if Trump had stuck to just ordering ties from them. Getting a paranoid autocrat to give up the only weapons he's convinced is keeping him in power? Who would've thought that that would be so complicated? T
  9. There's no question the Islam is assertive today. But whether it is inherently so, or whether it became that way is a topic worth parsing. Elsewhere. T
  10. We are veering way off topic, but your question is too interesting to ignore. I think you are asking whether Islam is inherently more assertive. It could be, but I don't know enough to answer that. Also, it's a huge endeavor ( as you allude) to parse the various affects of colonialism, CIA mischief in training the Mujehadeen and financing the fanatic Zia Ul Haq, Saudi Wahabi well-financed shenanigans and a host of other things. T edit: Also, if we carry on along this line, it could easily end up looking like I'm an apologist for terrorism and you a proponent of islamophobia even though neither of us are either of those. cheers.
  11. I wonder. I postulate that it's a question of scale. If there were 1.4 billion Buddists and if colonialism had affected Buddhist-dominant countries the way it did Muslim dominant countries, or if Hinduism were more homogeneous, would the story be that different? I don't know. T
  12. Indeed. No doubt there would be overlaps. But correlation is not necessarily causation, or something like that. T
  13. On the topic of this thread, we don't disagree. The other stuff is a different topic. I mentioned the other religious issues to illustrate that proselytizing wasn't the issue at hand. Religious interference in law-making was the issue. This is what the protest was ostensibly about, but really wasn't. T
  14. I don't think the protesters have a political agenda. They are just bigots who want to spread hate and division in the guise of secular politics. The counter protesters' agenda is simply to counter that. I was joshing about Soros. I am aware that you don't subscribe to silly conspiracies. T