Plus, as I recall, the first episode was made in response to the riots and protests in response to that Dutch magazine thing; so as silly as it was that they censored that one it's also not what I would call the most surprising thing. The second time they censored it was far more ridiculous.
Was looking to go this year but I'm thinking I'll do my elective over there - why do you ask (remembering that the "NY" in the NYTimes article I posted stands for New York which is in...)?
Because you're making a very broad statement about 320 million people. You haven't experienced the culture (and indeed, range of cultures; it's a big country) firsthand, however you seem to think that you know exactly how all Americans would react to what people said decades ago if it was stated as fact. Most of your arguments seem to rest on assumptions on how millions of people will react to overly broad statements. You're making sweeping generalisations with no factual basis and presenting them as indisputable truths. They're far from it; they're ridiculous, unfounded, and untrue.
Really? Wow, I never knew that! You learn something new every day.
OK, then may I suggest you need to understand subtleties a little.
Do you? I just listed five instances where you made broad, sweeping statements with no caveats or qualifers, all in an effort to try and elicit an answer to a leading question. Since you're now an expert in subtlety and you've proved that sweeping generalisations are not factual and don't hold up in debate, let's take a look at your question again:
will collectively agree that two statements are problematic and one is not. As before, you have no evidence of this. You have made a sweeping statement which supports your argument, but you have no support for this statement, nor will you be able to produce any conclusive proof that your assertion is true. It's a sweeping statement that has no basis in fact.
Why would you expect the same response?
I expect it's an attempt to bring attention to an issue that's "hiding in plain sight". I think society in general sees peoples that should be able to "take it on the chin" and others that require protection, and attention to conjure that protection.
Now we're getting somewhere. This seems to be the prevailing attitude in the West, some sort of atonement for mistakes of the past. It's especially prominent in Britain - I call it post-Imperialism-syndrome. British kids nowadays can tell you all about MLK but won't know who William the Conqueror was.
I'm not disputing that - I don't think Churchill was either. I'm showing it's no justification
Ahh but is there a role for it, or spirituality at least. There's an interesting questionjimipitbull
It seemed obvious to me that he was in that example, especially given recent bloody history
..... looks like quite chilling really.
Well, if that's the case, then I think it's been an abject failure - it's come across as someone shouting "PAY ATTENTION TO US!!".
Like I said at the start of this thread, I think it's a misleading generalisation to say "Christians are the most persecuted people in the world" because it implies that all Christians are persecuted and that is a fallacy. It would be far more representative to consider it in the context of the individual groups that fall under the umbrella of Christianity and which ones are actually being persecuted. Because otherwise, we're just fuelling the collective persecution complex - which has less to do with combating persecution and more to do with giving a demographic an ego trip. To my mind, it's just reaffirming conservative patriarchal values, which I think are counter-productive in wider society.
You overestimate my ability to think deeply. If I could condense my intentions for the OP it would be
.... reverse engineering via your logic, Christians must therefore be the least persecuted people in the world, right?
Reverse engineering is a lot like backmasking. If you listen to "Stairway to Heaven" backwards, you may or may not hear a pledge to Satan. Likewise, if you try and reverse engineer a statement, it's easy to spin it however you want. So here's a radical idea - try reading it forwards.
Pretty much, but they're honest
And here's a well-known Scot, just for interest.
View attachment 348127
As the reply was initially referencing white, male Christians the reference to Zimbabwean farmers seemed obvious... at least to anyone who was familiar with the recent (and ongoing) reclamations.
Do you have any comment to make in reference to their persecution or are we still at the "omg national stereotypes aren't always correct" stage?
That wasn't even remotely clear.
Given that the people instigating the attacks are 85% likely to also be Christian I don't really see what that has to do with the thread at all? It also ignores the fact that in farm invasions its not only the white farmers that are targeted, but in many cases also those who work for them (who are almost always black).
Not true.
