@Schaveiger

 

I posted a polite criticism of your "My-oh-my" post and this is your response to it? Who is the one now complaining that not everyone is barking in the same direction? Really, Schaveiger, just let it go!

It's amazing to see how an initial  4-lines comment can provoke an avalanche of misleading reactions by far-right wingers. I know very well that my English is not bright and I assume it. From there suggesting that I'm unable to debate is one thing and that I can't express an opinion is another. Great boys with a well educated background should first ask the writer for clarification for what is unclear to them rather than humiliate from the start.

Now let's try to reply mf :

"...I did not call on cultural difference, but only on...." is incomprehensible for him. Using a simple language is made for simple minds and obviously mf thinks he is not one of them.

"That he claims having apologized in some occasions proofs that...."  Agree it had to be "apologizing" and it is indeed in relation with what he wrote before. Nothing has been invented, all you have to do is Google your nickname.

"Maybe, this Deutsch-Fransözische Freundschaft is real, and both educational systems now suffer from the same extreme moral relativism".

Hilarious and does not deserve any comment, except maybe that the Flemish superiority  is known worldwide and the UN, EU and other international authorities are handclapping.

"Talking about "extreme moral relativism" … Again, he does not seem to realise that he is implying that it would not be hypocritical in other cultures.

This is a clear example of mf's narrow-minded brain. Because I compare it with our culture in his view I automatically exclude the others.
The world may be happy to have somebody like mf who CAN distinct right from wrong in the way that what comes from him is right, the rest is wrong.

@ Atlanticist911

I won't dare to drag you anywhere but you should first focus on your own comments instead of insisting on others.

@ Atlanticist

There is no significant risk of you being dragged into any debate here, because there is (has been) no "debate" here.   There has only been commentary by Schaveiger about "hypocrisy and stupidity", and my commentary about Schaveiger displaying his own kind of stupidity.  Admittedly, Schaveiger's stupidity was of a much more SUBTLE kind than the (muslim) one that he was complaining about.

The sad truth is that Schaveiger is incapable of "debate" here, for three major reasons.

-- First, his mastery of English is insufficient.  What could one possibly make out of a subsentence, like: "...I did not call on cultural difference, but only on...."? 

-- Second, he invents things out of thin air, like: "That he claims having apologized in some occasions proofs that....".   Apart from the atrocious English used, this is entirely invented, and has no relation to what was said before.

-- Third, the main reason is his inability to address an argument that was made previously, and his inevitable flight into erecting obfuscating 'strawmen'.   In this, of course, he resembles very much Kappert, who suffers from the same affliction.  Maybe, this Deutsch-Fransozische Freundschaft is real, and both educational systems now suffer from the same extreme moral relativism.

Talking about "extreme moral relativism"!  After I had just given a clear example of Schaveiger's latest illustration (or confirmation) in that regard, isn't it fantastic that he continues to provide further examples?  It is like an unending stream....  His latest one goes as follows.  In his last paragraph he says (again!) that the fact that muslim men do not want their women to be touched is considered "IN OUR CULTURE" to be "hypocritical".  Again, he does not seem to realise that he is implying that it would not be hypocritical in other cultures.  Otherwise, why the need to say "in our culture"?   To him, "hypocritical" is not "hypocritical".  In his moral-relativistic world view, whether something is hypocritical depends on who is doing the judging.  In short, it is Bill Clinton all over again....."the meaning of the word....".  And, we are NOT talking here about the obvious reality that different cultures might (and do) have different views on what is hypocritical and what is not.  We are talking about  whether Schaveiger has a firm grasp on what is hypocritical and what is not. It is like Kappert all over again. To these moral relativists, there is no distinction between 'right and wrong'. There are only conflicting opinions (between individuals and cultures) about 'right and wrong'.

   

   

Why are you trying to drag me back into this? I've already told you why I posted my comment and I have nothing further to add to it. So, either conduct your debate with mf's or withdraw.That's what big boys do.

1. The only contrast I see is that mf's views on the world's politics and culture are to be taken as granted by everyone. Any critic coming out of another stable are turned down by using arguments and qualifications who have little to do with the point of the discussion. That he claims having apologized before in some occasions proofs that it's his way of doing and he'll step back only when his nose hits the wall.

2. One can interpret something in a litteral or a figurative sense. mf seems to be  unable to do the latter one, unless he does it on purpose.

- I did not call on  culture difference but only on the hypocrisy in such culture (and don't misunderstand me, western culture is not better but mine). It is correct that I'm not a Islamic specialist the way mf pretends to be. All I do is pinpointing the stupid discrepancies it contents regarding the man vs. woman behaviour.

-  I say that cultural behaviour is a personal matter and, particularly in religion, nobody has to interfere in the beliefs of another. What I say and maintain is that every religion has to respect every other.
In this case, the fact that Muslims are claiming that their woman have not to be touched by male medics is, in our culture, hypocritical, absurd and as a matter of feasibility,  unconceivable.

If you qualify my views as naïve-left it's all yours. Meanwhile by going personal each time you do not agree with other's comments has another qualification than naivety.

1) For the record, I can easily "stand that others do not bark in the same direction".  I have consistently spoken up for freedom of political speech, and I have condemned past acceptance and 'apologia' by certain leftist and rightist continentals (like Schaveiger, KA...), of unconstitutional 'normal' legislation in Europe undermining freedom of speech.  There is a clear contrast here.

2) Let's further analyse two recent statements of Schaveiger

-- He now claims that his first reaction "acknowledged the difference, but not the hypocrisy" (of different cultures).  Yet, in his first reaction he "wondered" why muslim women do not claim to determine who can or should "touch their husbands" (whereas the reverse is obviously not true in general).   Clearly, he does not "acknowledge" cultural difference, otherwise he would not "wonder" about why muslim women do not demand to determine who can touch their husbands. 

-- He also now says that "...each one has its own culture but they're only negative when they try to dominate each other".    In short, Schaveiger thinks that cultural behavior patterns are ONLY NEGATIVE when a 'culture' tries to dominate another culture.  Remember the context (which he himself introduced) was that muslim men want to control who can touch their women, whereas muslim women do not make a similar claim on their men.    While Schaveiger thinks this is "hypocritical" he canNOT bring himself to call such cultural behavior "negative". He does not think that the blatant dominion of men over women in muslim societies is "negative" as long as they do not want to "dominate" others (i.e. nonmuslims). For him, the naive-left dogma of cultural equivalence trumps all, it even trumps morality. It is the latest - but umpteenth - example of the extreme moral relativism that afflicts a number of 'continental' commentators, both rightists and leftists, on this blog (like Schaveiger, Armor, KA...).  They simply refuse to make necessary moral judgements.

Yes, really.

 

Don't just take my word for it, read mf's allegations against you again and your (non) response to them.

Your first "reaction" did suggest such an understanding, it's just a pity that your follow-up "reaction" failed to address the specific points raised by mf. If it had, I can assure you that,  you and I wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

 

@ Schaveiger

 

Why don't you address some of the specifics instead of indulging in the usual tiresome obfuscation?

 

example:

 

Do you (accept and) understand that other cultures are truly different from your own (often in a negative way)?

 

 

 

Wondering why people who have 'always' been controlled by others - even, and especially, 'in law', both civilian and religious - are not suddenly "claiming" to have control over those same others, that strikes me as a clear form of stupidity.

One could as well "wonder" why children typically do not determine 'bed time' for their parents.

What we have here is another example of Schaveiger being unable to understand that other cultures are truly different from his own.  Or, if you will, he assumes that nonwesterners (muslim women) would and could typically behave and think like typical westerners.

Both Frenchspeakers, the leftist Schaveiger and the rightist Armor, seem unable to grasp that it is all about cultural difference, not about different looks, nor about commonality of cultures

Some weeks ago a Muslim husband refused that a male obstetrician took care of his pregnant wife. I wonder why Muslima are not claiming that no female nurses or medics should touch their husbands ? Only a question of the dominant male society ?

Sometimes the degree of hypocrisy and stupidity is beyond imagination.

Apparently the UK needs more democracy! hahahahahaha

This whole thing is very odd, once one considers that Iran is the sex-change capital of the world.

See:

seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002164729_irangender30.html

Or is this a shia vs. sunni thing?

What's clear: given that many muslim countries seem to have nothing against such operations, one wonders what the driving school's teacher's client's husband has up his sleeve.

Steyn @ the corner

 

By the way, if this guy is such an observant Muslim, how come he's letting his wife drive the car? In Saudi Arabia, a gal has to get a sex-change in order to get a driver's license. 

Which reminds me, kappert, you've never actually got around to telling us the subject you teach. 

There is a great comedy play in there. Since you can never be certain of anyone's gender or their religious taboos, or the law, or morality... Situations of absurdity abound.

I mean, I know what they're referring to in the article, but is this some common British term or what? At first I thought it was someone who went around teaching trannies how to deal with their new equipment. Seems a strange title.

If the chubby, burqa-clad gnome in the Muslima ad on this site is any indication, there are quite a few Muslim women who were once men.

what a joke: some pc-piece-of-shit employs a trannie in that "all-female driving school" (another joke), which ofcourse, has been 'legally' recognised as a 'woman' by the state (the worst joke of them all)