Friday, May 25, 2007

Socrates is a man

If you don't hear from me for a while, it is because I am busy trying to construct a syllogism from this argument on NZ Conservative.

Here is my work so far:

1. An atheist says that "without the Roman Catholic Church, there would be no Western civilization.''

2. The atheist "clearly recognises that modern civilisation results from mankind's realisation that there are eternal truths regarding our origin, and they are not derived from mankind itself or the primordial soup."

3. Those who say otherwise behave as brutish oafs.

This may take some time.

11 comments:

David said...

Hmm,

1. An atheist says “without the Roman Catholic Church, there would be no Western civilization”

2. The Roman Catholic Church doesn’t like gays

3. The Third Reich was a giant homosexualist conspiracy

Oh no, that’s other one...

Ok maybe

1. An atheist says “without the Roman Catholic Church, there would be no Western civilization”

2. The only thing the Roman Catholic Church ever does is go around recognising “eternal truths regarding our origin...” which is different than all the other religious organisations

3. The atheist recongnises there are eternal truths regarding our origin….(But remains an atheist)

No, too hard, and it's friday, I'm gonna go find a beer

harvestbird said...

But I heart the primordial soup! Really!

Lucyna's comment to the post may give your readers pause:

You only need a certain percentage of your population to be Muslim before it has an effect on the stability of the country and it's ability to create wealth for it's citizens. Look at France at about 10% (depending on whose numbers you use) - the only reason things aren't worse there is that they've managed to ghettoise their Muslims.

Would this also apply to the percentage of Muslim students in the programme in which I teach? Should we ghettoise them to maintain its equilibrium?

Paul said...

If there were an emoticon which expressed the feeling I had when I read the phrase "ghettoise their Muslims," I would use it, despite my hatred of those pesky little things (emoticons, not Muslims).

Why is it always France, why is it always the Muslims, why do these "conservatives" import their prejudices wholesale from the USofA?

harvestbird said...

Any commentator who uses the verb "ghettoise" in relation to minority groups in Europe either has a shameful lack of historical memory or is being so ironic as to offend even me.

I infer the former.

(I think disgust is the emoticon for which you're looking.)

Lucyna said...

Only either/or choices, huh, harvestbird? Does this mean you have no idea about the massive cités the French built for their foreign workers that are only accessible by thin traffic corridors? They were deliberately kept out of society by the French (hence my use of the word ghettoise, which so offends you), and not given a chance to integrate. Large communities have now built up in these cities, which are basically no-go zones for non-Muslim French. Full of youth with nothing better to do that burn cars and harass people.

But anyway, good to know a wide variety of people are reading. Keep it up guys, it will get even more interesting, I promise!

Lucyna said...

Damn. Here's the link to the supporting article.

harvestbird said...

Perhaps, Lucyna, I've misunderstood your original contention, which I took to be that it is because the French Muslims are contained in just such cités that "the stability of the country and it's ability to create wealth for it's citizens [sic] " remain, by your lights, unaffected. Or do I paraphrase in error?

As to only either/or choices; may not one place rhetorical limits on a blog comment?

Paul said...

A commentator who is proud of her Polish heritage and uses the word ghettoise worries me somewhat, particularly when she approves of the story as Dalrymple describes it (which I think is tosh, but that is by the by). Yes, my reaction is disgust and I too am offended by the word ghettoise. Perhaps the word Lucyna is searching for is Judengasse.

And by the way, for all enthusiasts for Catholic civilisation who may be reading, the word ghetto comes from the area of Venice where Jews were forced to live from the 15th Century to Napoleon's conquest.

Lucyna said...

Paul, words change their meanings over time. Take the word, "gay". It doesn't mean happy anymore. It is changed forever, now.

I have said so many things, and that comment was just in passing. I have many, many posts about the developing Muslim situation in Europe, which are available through the google cache now that SH is down.

I don't want to spend lots of time explaining that particular comment, but I feel I must as there is alot of inference as to what I might have meant.

Which for me, is getting really boring. Like you, I have my obsessions and France and Muslims is one of those been there, done that, forget I mentioned it.

K?

* sigh *

Probably could have said it better. Not saying uncle, though.

Spectator said...

Never has it been more clear that some people's hatred of Muslims, today, is nothing more than a reflection of their ideological compatriots' hatred of Jews, a century ago.

This should serve as a call to action for everyone who does not wish the evil of 1933 - 1945 to be repeated.

pascal's bookie said...

Notice how L. here says she had to "explain" her comment, and then after failing to do so, declared her boredom with the subject, suggested she could have done better and finishes "k".

WTF indeed. Lucyna seems to think that the issue not-crazy people had with her comment was that she used the word "ghettoise". Consequently she felt that by confirming that there are in fact large areas in France that can be classed as muslim ghettos she had justified her comment, as if that was the dispute.

Weird.