Main Menu

Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 01:05:53 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Racist soup

Started by Xerxes & Friends, January 25, 2006, 08:06:17 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

jutl

Quote from: "Zuffic"
Disagreed. The analogy doesn't stand up to scrutiny. One is a pointedly deliberate act of racism, the other is people handing out some soup.

Note how you have to compare the two acts at different levels of abstraction in order to make your spurious point.  

Quote
As probably hinted at elsewhere in this thread, the act of handing out pork soup is no more a discrimination against a religious or cultural group than it is a discrimination against vegetarians.

It is if that is the intention.

Quote
It's some people, who have made some soup, out of some ingredients, that they're giving away to anyone who fancies it.

...and it's also an attempt to antagonise the Islamic community in areas of racial tension. Why do you ignore this level of significance?

Mr. Analytical

Quote from: "MojoJojo"I know you are only using it as a comparison, but it's not a good one. The only problem with giving out pork to the homeless is their motivation for only giving out pork. If, for example, it was a benevolent butcher who was giving out the pork he had left at the end of the day, there wouldn't be a problem. The cunts in Paris, however, are only giving out pork* because they want Jews and Muslims to fuck off and starve to death. The Salvation Army want to convert them, for their benefit, not kill them.

 So if you give out free soup on the condition that you're willing to listen to fire and brimstone sermons telling you you're going to hell for not being Xian you're not a cunt.

 However. if you deliberately distribute soup aimed at people who don't have a problem eating pork then you are a cunt?

 Both groups effectively alienate muslims and jews.  Both groups are doing charity but have morally dubious secondary goals.. and yet they're different?  I don't even know what the disagreement is, I'm happy to agree that this people are cunts but at the same time so are loads of other charities and yet nothing is said about them.

 The reason why nothing's said about christian charities using helping the homeless as a means of proselytisation is because it's judged on pragmatic grounds.  At the end of the day they're feeding hungry people.  By that reason then these piggy-soup people should be allowed to distribute their soup.

 If you have a problem with what they're doing, don't give them any money.

Xerxes & Friends

To clarify my original point:  I don't think the UK is yet at the stage of racial tension where you get this sort of thing happening, but I think the way the media is going they are creating a climate where this kind of stunt will become more and more common.  Every front page, every radio phone-in, every ITN Lunchtime fucking Pulse is focused on a story that will get people hating each other.  It doesn't have to be the biggest story of the day, as long as it is the most 'controversial', the one that will really get people at each others' throats.  This is the lifeblood of the UK media and to say that it is not fuelling the likes of Christian Voice is disingenuous to say the least.  It seems that politics is no longer about ideals and what you would like to acheive and appealing to people's best hopes, but about negatives and appealing to what people hate and stoking that hatred for your own ends.

Anyway, what the fuck is pork soup?  I never heard of pork soup before.  Leek and bacon, maybe.  But if you're trying to feed the largest amount of homeless people for the least amount of money, you don't go putting pork in soup as a matter of course.  In fact, you don't go putting pork in soup as a matter of course *anyway* unless you're bloody weird.



Can't believe I didn't make the Soup Nazi connection!

jutl

Quote from: "Mr. Analytical"Both groups effectively alienate muslims and jews.  Both groups are doing charity but have morally dubious secondary goals.. and yet they're different?  

How about the obvious difference I pointed out earlier in the thread - one is an act of inclusion, the other an act of exclusion?

Quote from: "Xerxes & Friends"To clarify my original point:  I don't think the UK is yet at the stage of racial tension where you get this sort of thing happening, but I think the way the media is going they are creating a climate where this kind of stunt will become more and more common.  Every front page, every radio phone-in, every ITN Lunchtime fucking Pulse is focused on a story that will get people hating each other.  It doesn't have to be the biggest story of the day, as long as it is the most 'controversial', the one that will really get people at each others' throats.  This is the lifeblood of the UK media and to say that it is not fuelling the likes of Christian Voice is disingenuous to say the least.

I'd have said it's disingenuous to blame the politicians and the media for the way we vote and the papers we buy.

Mr. Analytical

Quote from: "jutl"How about the obvious difference I pointed out earlier in the thread - one is an act of inclusion, the other an act of exclusion?

I think it's a distinction without a difference.

A Muslim can take food from the Salvation Army as long as he's willing to undergo an attempt at conversion, similarly if he's willing to forego a religious commandment, he can have a nice hot bowl of soup.

Both groups offer food for the price of having your religious beliefs messed with.

I also think that when it comes to people who are starving and cold on the street, such semantic quibbles are neither here nor there.  That's the attitude that allows Christian charities to keep doing what they're doing and I see no reason to make an exception to such an attitude for the sake of one group.

jutl

Quote from: "Mr. Analytical"
Quote from: "jutl"How about the obvious difference I pointed out earlier in the thread - one is an act of inclusion, the other an act of exclusion?

I think it's a distinction without a difference.

A Muslim can take food from the Salvation Army as long as he's willing to undergo an attempt at conversion, similarly if he's willing to forego a religious commandment, he can have a nice hot bowl of soup.

There's a real difference in intention, which once again you conveniently ignore. On top of that, there is a real difference in the extent of the transgression invited.

Quote
Both groups offer food for the price of having your religious beliefs messed with.

Note how much you have to generalise before your gerrymandered equation begins to seem reasonable.

Quote
I also think that when it comes to people who are starving and cold on the street, such semantic quibbles are neither here nor there.

This is a red herring. In France as here there are state facilities for those who would otherwise starve.

Quote
That's the attitude that allows Christian charities to keep doing what they're doing and I see no reason to make an exception to such an attitude for the sake of one group.

...despite the fact that the differences have been repeatedly pointed out to you. I still say you're playing devil's advocate. It's getting a bit tedious now.

Xerxes & Friends

Quote from: "Mr. Analytical"

A Muslim can take food from the Salvation Army as long as he's willing to undergo an attempt at conversion

This simply isn't true.

jutl

Quote from: "Xerxes & Friends"
Quote from: "Mr. Analytical"

A Muslim can take food from the Salvation Army as long as he's willing to undergo an attempt at conversion

This simply isn't true.

I'm not sure, but I don't think he was saying it was...

Mr. Analytical

Quote from: "jutl"...despite the fact that the differences have been repeatedly pointed out to you. I still say you're playing devil's advocate. It's getting a bit tedious now.

 You misunderstand...

 I know YOU think there's a difference.  I just don't agree that it's a meaningful one.

jutl

Quote from: "Mr. Analytical"
Quote from: "jutl"...despite the fact that the differences have been repeatedly pointed out to you. I still say you're playing devil's advocate. It's getting a bit tedious now.

 You misunderstand...

 I know YOU think there's a difference.  I just don't agree that it's a meaningful one.

So the intention of the giver is meaningless, and the extent of the transgression is meaningless? Anything else need to be discounted for your theory to hang together?

Mr. Analytical

My "moral theory" is simple in these cases... if it puts food in to hungry people's bellies then it's okay by me.

I take it as read that people have ulterior motives in these kinds of cases.

I'm not even sure what it is you actually want from me here... do you want me to admit that they're much bigger cunts than the Salvation army, is that it?

jutl

Quote from: "Mr. Analytical"My "moral theory" is simple in these cases... if it puts food in to hungry people's bellies then it's okay by me.

I take it as read that people have ulterior motives in these kinds of cases.

I'm not even sure what it is you actually want from me here... do you want me to admit that they're much bigger cunts than the Salvation army, is that it?

Ultimately I suppose I want you to stop blurring a clear boundary for the purposes of causing a recreational argument. Your "moral theory" could be used to justify a thousand chauvinistic or bigoted acts, as I'm sure you realise.

fanny splendid

Quote from: "Labian Quest"I genuinely thought this was going to be a story about someone who'd ordered a bowl of alphabet soup and the letters had spelt something rude out.

I was hoping for something similar.