Pork soup illegal in France - part 2

[aneeshm]

Hmm... I wonder, should I go around protesting that 99.99% of food businesses discriminate against orthodox Bhramins and orthodox vegetarians and Jains (and probably Buddhists, too) by cooking meat and vegetarian food in the same kitchen? Or should I say that all charities be forced to provide vegetarian food?

I guess not. That would be retarded. Utterly retarded.

Just like the people who object to this right now. Food for the poor is food for the poor, no matter who is giving it, and no matter what the intention behind it.

All these moronic (and eventually dangerous) anti-discrimination laws violate the fundamental right to free association.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Thanks for being the fifth in a row to miss the point, again.

A) The operation was shut down on a technicality. Do you understand the difference between an administrative technicality and an actual free speech limiting law?

B) Seeing A, it turns out that the whole thing is a simple case of a socialist mayor playing a trick on people who deliberately intended to be dicks and stir up **** in the first place. I just happen to be slightly satisfied by the fascists getting a royal pwnage.
Slow down and think, man: if they had to use a technicality to achieve their ends, it's because they couldn't have invoked an heavier, hate speech law.

Thanks for missing the point for the fifth time in a row.

Making "hate speech" illegal is itself an offensive form of political correctness.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Actually, it sure seems happens more in France than it does either in the UK, Canada or the US.

I'd suggest you doublecheck your facts on this. Right in Montreal the police routinely outlaws demos because of alleged security risks, the municipal administration BSes its way out of blocking leftist themed or gay bars in "inappropriate" neighboorhoods, etc.

Quebec = France Lite. Self-pwnd.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Anglo-Saxon is just a generic way to refer to English language culture, in French. It's sometimes preferred in academic circles, as it puts the US and Britain on equal footing, whereas "English" suggests that it comes from the UK.

I honestly didn't think it wouldn't mean the same to you, though calling someone an ignorant for making a mistake in a second language is slightly uncalled for.

Anglo-saxon is a group of tribes that settled in England 1500 years ago. That would be like using Carolingian to describe modern France. Anglo- is the prefix for describing modern English-speaking influence and culture: cf anglophile, anglophone.

Also, 70% of US have German ancestry, as opposed to only 40% having English ancestry. We speak English, but we aren't English.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
First the baguettes, now this.

And you people thought I was joking when I talked about a slippery slope.

Hm.....ohhh....you weren't?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Hmm... I wonder, should I go around protesting that 99.99% of food businesses discriminate against orthodox Bhramins and orthodox vegetarians and Jains (and probably Buddhists, too) by cooking meat and vegetarian food in the same kitchen? Or should I say that all charities be forced to provide vegetarian food?

I guess not. That would be retarded. Utterly retarded.

Just like the people who object to this right now. Food for the poor is food for the poor, no matter who is giving it, and no matter what the intention behind it.

All these moronic (and eventually dangerous) anti-discrimination laws violate the fundamental right to free association.

I couldn't agree with this statement more. If a charity only wants to give away pork soup to homeless people then they should be free to do so. It doesn't hurt anyone and it helps hungry people eat for free so it is a good thing.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Accepting loose terminology already in use is far different than driving its use. You're the first person I've ever seen to use the term "anglo-saxon music", and only the second or third to use the term "anglo-saxon liberalism". Maybe in France it's far more accepted as a way to sneer at les anglais, but it's clumsy wording which there's no reason to let spread any further. In addition, you should note that it makes you sound ridiculous. Calling it "English music" or "English liberalism" sounds far better...

duh, KH. Words are used differently in different places. When I was a teen, I attended (big surprise here) a Jewish summer camp. This one fellow from Texas (shabbat shalom, y'all) told me that he and I were both "anglo-saxons". I looked at him like he was crazy - to me anglo-saxon meant WASP - an american Protestant of old stock British origins. One could dispute whether some New Yorker of half Dutch origin should be called WASP, or what to do about someone with Highland Scottish origins - but it was absolutely clear that Jews were NOT anglo-saxons.

It was only later that I realized he was simply mistakenly adding the "saxon" to the Texan word "anglo" which meant any non-hispanic white. A category that was more meaningful in Texas than in NYC (where all hispanics were Puerto Ricans and were rarely white) just as WASP had more meaning in NYC than it did in Texas.

Ironically it also turns out that Israelis refer to ALL immigrants from English speaking countries as "anglo-saxonim" even though virtually all such immigrants are Ashkenazic Jews.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Straybow

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Anglo-Saxon is just a generic way to refer to English language culture, in French. It's sometimes preferred in academic circles, as it puts the US and Britain on equal footing, whereas "English" suggests that it comes from the UK.

I honestly didn't think it wouldn't mean the same to you, though calling someone an ignorant for making a mistake in a second language is slightly uncalled for.

Anglo-saxon is a group of tribes that settled in England 1500 years ago. That would be like using Carolingian to describe modern France. Anglo- is the prefix for describing modern English-speaking influence and culture: cf anglophile, anglophone.

Also, 70% of US have German ancestry, as opposed to only 40% having English ancestry. We speak English, but we aren't English.

Sigh, I think weve been over that. The census data on national origin undercounts english ancestry, since so many with english ancestry, esp in the upper south, mention only "american" ancestry.

[lord of the mark]

BTW, Im a good anglo-saxon when it comes to free speech rights. Banning this sh*t is silly, and only makes the Le Penists into martyrs.

But all the guys saying "its charity, its good" are being equally silly. It IS a deliberate attempt to affront. I presume there are areas where there are poor Frenchmen, few of whom are muslim. Why dont they go there to deliver pork soup? AFAIK they dont, they specifally go to areas with large muslim populations and then they label it "identity" soup. One doesnt have to be filled with Frenchitude to see how deliberately obnoxious that is. Deserving of being banned by state power? Perhaps not. A good thing? Definitely not.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
This is incredibly retarded.

Pork

The freedom to eat pork

The freedom to follow a faith that bans pork

A fundamental attitude of respect towards deeply held customs that differ from ones own

The hatred that leads some to serve "identity soup" in a heavily muslim neighborhood
The hatred some muslims have toward "crusaders and zionists"

[Ramo]

Nanny-statism

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
But all the guys saying "its charity, its good" are being equally silly. It IS a deliberate attempt to affront. I presume there are areas where there are poor Frenchmen, few of whom are muslim. Why dont they go there to deliver pork soup? AFAIK they dont, they specifally go to areas with large muslim populations and then they label it "identity" soup. One doesnt have to be filled with Frenchitude to see how deliberately obnoxious that is. Deserving of being banned by state power? Perhaps not. A good thing? Definitely not.

i don't think anyone has tried to paint them as mother teresa . the motivations of this group, and the political point they're trying to make are nasty, and their 'charity' is certainly not something i would support. however they ARE actually handing out soup to the needy, and the authorities are preventing them using some BS pretext. that's what i, and others i would imagine, find objectionable about this.

someone mentioned there were protestors at these kitchens, who must have felt a bit silly -

protestor 1: hey man, what are we protesting about again?

protestor 2: those guys over there, they're giving out soup to the homeless...

protestor 1: oh yeah...those ****ing fascists!

what they should of done is set up a kitchen right beside the one serving 'identity soup' and served food that everyone could enjoy. the mayor could of got involved, it would of made the 'identity soup' peddlers look like idiots and been a triumph for inclusively and all that jazz. instead of that the far-right can get all kinds of pr by saying "look at this lefty mayor, he's stopping us from feeding the homeless, because he doesn't agree with our politics." and the worst thing is, they're right.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
Nanny-statism

Is that a response to my post?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by C0ckney


i don't think anyone has tried to paint them as mother teresa .

"If a charity only wants to give away pork soup to homeless people then they should be free to do so. It doesn't hurt anyone and it helps hungry people eat for free so it is a good thing."


Some poster think the actions of the group are a "good thing"

Suppose someone went into a poor black neighborhood, with a huge cake, on which were spelled the letters "Die, ******s" and then said, "all who are hungry, come and eat" WOuld the calories outweigh the speech? Thats either a horribly dehumanizing way to look at poor people, as totally lacking in dignity who should be grateful for any crumb, or its a devaluation of the importance of speech.

Some folks seem to think that if they acknowledge that speech matters, that speech has a real social effect, that theyre on the slippery slope to censorship. Thats taking "anti-PCness" to the point of absurdity, IMO.

Nope, people who give out soup, but in doing so attempt to stir up intergroup hatred are bad. Not just not Mother Teresa, but bad. Period. Acknowledging that doesnt imply support for censoring them.

[Ramo]

Is that a response to my post?

Yes. Specifically, it was a clarification to mine.